# So now we're assassinating our own citizens? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120 "2011-05-08T02:50:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/201 "2011-05-10T14:41:24Z")
To correct myself, the Al Awlaki ruling wasn’t dismissed because of the state secrets doctrine, the court refused to decide on those grounds. It was dismissed for lack of standing, no ATS, and lack of justiciability under the political question doctrine. Serves me right for not reading all the way to the end of the 83 page opinion. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/202 "2011-05-10T15:53:03Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] As far back as we have had war in the United States, when we have declared it, it has been declared against the enemy _everywhere_. When we declared war on Germany (in response to their DoW) we were not limited to waging war _only_ against German forces in the positions they were in on that date and time. We could attack German forces anywhere in the world. Likewise, with the current AUMF, which clearly gives the President authority to wage war against al-Qaeda, we can wage war against al-Qaeda _anywhere in the world_. [/QUOTE] I think I’m going to have to disagree with this one. If an enemy is in neutral territory, we cannot engage, by treaties, I think. (The Hague Conventions?) There are treatied were a enemy target can stay in neutral harbors for 24 (?) hours, then must leave, or be internned by the neutral nation. I don’t know what enforcment mechanism there is for a case where the neutral “declines” to intern the ship. Example: The American navy, chasing a Uboat into Montevideo, must halt hostilities. (They may remain outside the territorial waters, keeping an eye on the uboats movments.) After 24 hours, the US can file a protest, sking that the sub be required to go back to sea, or internned. I don’t know if the Hague Conventions have been superceded by newer treaties with similar restrictions on warmaking. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/203 "2011-05-10T19:17:59Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Again, the court didn’t reach the merits of the case, **it was dismissed for lack of standing and under the state secrets doctrine.** The fact the judiciary refused to hear the case on the merits does not mean the arguments were wrong. Your comments that the ruling were mis-representations of the ruling. It sounds like you aren’t too familiar with the ruling. It was dismissed for lack of standing and being a political question, and the court did NOT reach the question of the state secrets claim – not what you are arguing there. Here’s a quote from the decision: > [@](#): > > But in any event, because **plaintiff lacks standing and his claims are non-justiciable** , and because the state secrets privilege should not be invoked “more often or extensively than necessary,” … **this Court will not reach defendants’ invocation of the state secrets privilege**. I find it hard to believe that you are saying that I am misrepresenting the court’s decision when I have quoted the specific parts of the decision that support the argument I have made, while in one sentence, the court’s decision completely contradicts your characterization of it. > [@Marley23](#): > > I said Congress is not exercising oversight into the assassination concept (although I hesitate to describe the bin Laden killing that way) by requiring any particular definition of who is fair game and who isn’t. Your reply seems to be that Congress doesn’t want to do anything on the issue, or as **John Mace** said, that they’ve abdicated this power. Maybe this is a glass-half-empty/glass-half-full thing. You and **John** think that Congress is unwilling to question the Executive on targeting killings, whereas I think the evidence shows that Congress is pretty satisfied with the policy. In the final analysis, Congress does seem to be unwilling to propose legislation on the subject, I just disagree that is because the Legislative Branch is weak – I think all indications are that Congress is supportive of the program. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/204 "2011-05-10T19:29:30Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I think I’m going to have to disagree with this one. > > If an enemy is in neutral territory, we cannot engage, by treaties, I think. (The Hague Conventions?) > > There are treatied were a enemy target can stay in neutral harbors for 24 (?) hours, then must leave, or be internned by the neutral nation. I don’t know what enforcment mechanism there is for a case where the neutral “declines” to intern the ship. > > Example: The American navy, chasing a Uboat into Montevideo, must halt hostilities. (They may remain outside the territorial waters, keeping an eye on the uboats movments.) After 24 hours, the US can file a protest, sking that the sub be required to go back to sea, or internned. > > I don’t know if the Hague Conventions have been superceded by newer treaties with similar restrictions on warmaking. “Countries who harbor terrorists are our enemies.” ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/205 "2011-05-10T19:34:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I understand and agree with your reasoning, to some extent, but it all seems to be based on a faulty premise. There _is_ no “metaphorical detonate button” or imminent threat. He’s not Dr. Evil; he’s some beardy guy hanging out in a yurt. > > ETA: Granted, he’s a very unpleasant beardy guy who probably wants to kill all of us, but that doesn’t equate to a beardy guy who wants to kill us and has the means to do so. [He’s just a guy in a yurt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)? Osama bin Laden may have been a guy in a compound, but I’m not going to shortchange [this](http://static-l3.blogcritics.org/10/08/27/142479/Anwar-al-Awlaki.jpg) vato. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/206 "2011-05-10T19:38:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > What does it matter? The OP apparently didn’t know about it. That doesn’t turn it into a non-issue. What is your purpose in quoting me if its just to dismiss what I say because it’s not _your_ point of contention? Someone called it as ‘secret program’. There’s no secret about it. It’s not a secret program. Okay? Good. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but I got burned out on this kind of nonsense early in the Bush administration. What it boils down to is ‘I’m too scared to care about limits on the government’s power.’ Or I should just be glad you’re not the leader of the free world. That kind of extend-an-olive-branch shit just makes liberals look like weenies. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/207 "2011-05-10T20:21:44Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Someone called it as ‘secret program’. There’s no secret about it. It’s not a secret program. Okay? Good. I missed that comment. You’re right, it’s not a secret. > [@](#): > > Or I should just be glad you’re not the leader of the free world. That kind of extend-an-olive-branch shit just makes liberals look like weenies. This is more of the same. I don’t think difficult balances involving Constitutional rights and attacks on dangerous terrorists should be based on either ‘he’s a scary bad guy with his finger on the red button’ or ‘trials are for weenies.’ After about a decade of watching this situation, I’m not opposed to targeting people who are very dangerous and can’t be brought to trial if the conditionsare well defined, have proper oversight, and are strictly limited. I don’t think that’s what exists right now, and the kind statement I just quoted doesn’t convince me otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/208 "2011-05-10T20:26:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It sounds like you aren’t too familiar with the ruling. It was dismissed for lack of standing and being a political question, and the court did NOT reach the question of the state secrets claim – not what you are arguing there. Here’s a quote from the decision: I find it hard to believe that you are saying that I am misrepresenting the court’s decision when I have quoted the specific parts of the decision that support the argument I have made, while in one sentence, the court’s decision completely contradicts your characterization of it. You might want to scroll up from your post and read the one I posted 4 1/2 hours before this one of yours. I made the very correction you’re complaining about now. I made a mistake, quickly corrected it all on my own, well before you tried to call me on it. Sorry to ruin your righteous indignation. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/209 "2011-05-10T20:39:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This is more of the same. I don’t think difficult balances involving Constitutional rights and attacks on dangerous terrorists should be based on either ‘he’s a scary bad guy with his finger on the red button’ or ‘trials are for weenies.’ After about a decade of watching this situation, **I’m not opposed to targeting people who are very dangerous and can’t be brought to trial if the conditionsare well defined, have proper oversight, and are strictly limited.** I don’t think that’s what exists right now, and the kind statement I just quoted doesn’t convince me otherwise. This is where we seem to differ. I think the U.S. admins have made a pretty good case against him over the years. It doesn’t sound reasonable that it is made-up. I was pointing out the circumstances…it’s not like I think he’s in the same boat as Ibri Moumad down the street who wanks off to jihad fantasies. Plenty in Congress have decried the processes of keeping people in Gitmo indefinitely, but few have questioned this. I think there’s a reason for that, and no, it’s not political gain. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/210 "2011-05-10T20:49:41Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > “Countries who harbor terrorists are our enemies.” I am not sure exactly what you mean. President Bush’s statement, there, is good press copy, but I am not sure that it carries legal force. If you think this means that President Obama can launch Tomahawk strikes into Manchester, England, to get terrorists hiding out in some apartment building, please think again. I don’t think the US Congress (or England, or the UN) would agree. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/211 "2011-05-10T22:02:39Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You might want to scroll up from your post and read the one I posted 4 1/2 hours before this one of yours. I made the very correction you’re complaining about now. I made a mistake, quickly corrected it all on my own, well before you tried to call me on it. Sorry to ruin your righteous indignation. Well, I was catching up on the posts on page 4 and replied to two comments on page 4. I didn’t see your post at the top of page five. I truly didn’t mean to rub anything in, I quite simply missed your comment. And I accept your apology. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/212 "2011-05-10T22:13:31Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I am not sure exactly what you mean. > > President Bush’s statement, there, is good press copy, but I am not sure that it carries legal force. > > If you think this means that President Obama can launch Tomahawk strikes into Manchester, England, to get terrorists hiding out in some apartment building, please think again. I don’t think the US Congress (or England, or the UN) would agree. England doesn’t harbor terrorist. Your statement is an absurd distortion of what it means to “harbor terrorists”. And yes, that statement by Bush does have the force of law since it’s a good synopsis of the AUMF of Oct 14, 2001. Last I head, that had not been repealed. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/213 "2011-05-10T22:29:19Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > I saw a news report this morning about the unsuccessful attempt to kill Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen a few days ago. It was mentioned in passing that al-Awlaki was “an American-born radical.” > > That means that Awlaki is a US citizen. Who the US government is attempting to assassinate without due process of law. He attacked the United States and is now an enemy combatant. If he wants to surrender himself to authorities he’ll get the same legal consideration as the people he mentored such as Nidal Malik Hasan. > [@Diceman](#): > > Sigh. Let me know when people start “disappearing.” Osama Bin Laden although not a US citizen, falls in the same category and is now dead. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/214 "2011-05-10T23:46:11Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I am not sure exactly what you mean. > > President Bush’s statement, there, is good press copy, but I am not sure that it carries legal force. > > If you think this means that President Obama can launch Tomahawk strikes into Manchester, England, to get terrorists hiding out in some apartment building, please think again. I don’t think the US Congress (or England, or the UN) would agree. hmm. > [@](#): > > (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/215 "2011-05-11T02:36:21Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I think I’m going to have to disagree with this one. > > If an enemy is in neutral territory, we cannot engage, by treaties, I think. (The Hague Conventions?) > > There are treatied were a enemy target can stay in neutral harbors for 24 (?) hours, then must leave, or be internned by the neutral nation. I don’t know what enforcment mechanism there is for a case where the neutral “declines” to intern the ship. > > Example: The American navy, chasing a Uboat into Montevideo, must halt hostilities. (They may remain outside the territorial waters, keeping an eye on the uboats movments.) After 24 hours, the US can file a protest, sking that the sub be required to go back to sea, or internned. > > I don’t know if the Hague Conventions have been superceded by newer treaties with similar restrictions on warmaking. I don’t know what the international law on it is, but during WW2 this procedure was not followed. During WWII the United Kingdom invaded Iceland on the _fear_ it was too easy a target for Nazi invasion, and then the U.S. relieved British forces there and maintained the occupation (to the bitching of the perpetually ineffectual Icelanders.) ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/216 "2011-05-11T14:09:03Z")
There’s a difference between interrupting a country’s sovereign government, cooperating with the government, and waging war against a government. Re: Pakistan and now Yemen, we’re doing Option B. With, I’ll add, the support of the U.N. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/217 "2011-05-11T14:22:25Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > I think I’m going to have to disagree with this one. > > If an enemy is in neutral territory, we cannot engage, by treaties, I think. (The Hague Conventions?) > > There are treatied were a enemy target can stay in neutral harbors for 24 (?) hours, then must leave, or be internned by the neutral nation. I don’t know what enforcment mechanism there is for a case where the neutral “declines” to intern the ship. > > Example: The American navy, chasing a Uboat into Montevideo, must halt hostilities. (They may remain outside the territorial waters, keeping an eye on the uboats movments.) After 24 hours, the US can file a protest, sking that the sub be required to go back to sea, or internned. > > I don’t know if the Hague Conventions have been superceded by newer treaties with similar restrictions on warmaking. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t know what the international law on it is, but during WW2 this procedure was not followed… **Martin** , wasn’t **mlees** ’s listed procedure pretty much what was done in the case of the [Graf Spee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Graf_Spee)? Chase the damaged Spee into Montevideo, ask the Uruguayans to inter the vessel, and sit outside territorial water to blast the Spee into scrap if it tried to leave. As far as AQ is concerned, I’m not sure why the legal framework for how to deal with pirates hasn’t been extended to also cover worldwide terrorists like AQ. It seems a lot of the same prudential concerns apply in both cases. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/218 "2011-05-11T14:48:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t know what the international law on it is, but during WW2 this procedure was not followed. > > During WWII the United Kingdom invaded Iceland on the _fear_ it was too easy a target for Nazi invasion, and then the U.S. relieved British forces there and maintained the occupation (to the bitching of the perpetually ineffectual Icelanders.) The German pocket battleship Graf Spee is the case I had in mind where the British did not violate neutral territorial integrity. (Of course, they were playing for time, while moving naval units into the area.) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/219 "2011-05-11T14:58:45Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > hmm. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > England doesn’t harbor terrorist. Your statement is an absurd distortion of what it means to “harbor terrorists”. Is Yemen harboring terrorists? The official government of Yemen says their not, correct? > [@John Mace](#): > > And yes, that statement by Bush does have the force of law since it’s a good synopsis of the AUMF of Oct 14, 2001. Last I head, that had not been repealed. Ok. I’ll concede that the AUMF does not exempt any nation by name from the use of military force to get terrorists. But it seems to me to be insane to think that _any_ U.S. President should treat England the same as we have been treating Yemen or Pakistan. I think a great stink would be raised if he unilaterally attacked England. I don’t think the Pakistani issue is quite settled yet, although I am guessing that the U.S. will just throw money at government of Pakistan to mollify them. As far as Alwaki, I don’t have much sympathy for him. He has declared himself to be a member of AQ, and thus placed himself into a military target category, not Bush or Obama. I don’t care if all he does is knit cozies for AK-74’s from this point forward. He’s a military target until he surrenders. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120/220 "2011-05-11T15:21:05Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > But it seems to me to be insane to think that _any_ U.S. President should treat England the same as we have been treating Yemen or Pakistan. I think a great stink would be raised if he unilaterally attacked England. Not that this is strictly enforceable or that there are bright lines drawn by the law, I think there’s a reasonable argument that a US military strike on a suspected terrorist in London would ordinarily not be a “necessary or appropriate” use of force; whereas attacking a terrorist in, say, Somalia would probably not be questioned as being reasonable. But the overall point that the AUMF is an incredibly broad authorization for the President to have is really true. I would probably argue that the AUMF is the most expansive warmaking authority that Congress has ever given to a President. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-were-assassinating-our-own-citizens/581120.md?page=12)