In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
I guess black helicopters are so 2008...
Are these armed drones? I might find that problematic... but, still... our National Guards have armed planes... *shrugs*
If they're unarmed and used as survellance, what's the fuss? How is it any different than the choppa?
In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
I guess black helicopters are so 2008...
Are these armed drones? I might find that problematic... but, still... our National Guards have armed planes... *shrugs*
If they're unarmed and used as survellance, what's the fuss? How is it any different than the choppa?
Article wrote:... use lethal force...
This particular link isn't about surveillance, it seems to be about assassination.
That was a really good way of getting a vague-ass question, and responding with a vague-ass answer. I mean, if you boil it down, his answer was "anything's possible". I mean, FFS, it's like asking if the military could open fire on American citizens if maybe there was a zombie attack or something? What if maybe there were Zombie Nazi's in Montana, could you bomb them? What about, like Bird Flu - could we use flamethrowers on them maybe?
Maybe Congress should ask more specific questions instead of getting into weird hypotheticals. Here's a few off the top of my head:
What statutory authority permits you the right to create lists to assassinate American citizens without due process?
Why does such a killing not violate Executive Order 12333?
What imminent national security threat did a 16 year old American boy pose to the United States?
What element of the Authorization for Use Of Military Force, which allows the Executive to prosecute warfare against the planners of the 9/11 attacks, do you feel gives you authority for military strikes in countries we are not at war with, against organizations not formed until 2009?
In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
I guess black helicopters are so 2008...
Are these armed drones? I might find that problematic... but, still... our National Guards have armed planes... *shrugs*
If they're unarmed and used as survellance, what's the fuss? How is it any different than the choppa?
In the letter, Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “
I guess black helicopters are so 2008...
Now THAT is unconstitutional bs of epic proportions.
Notice the extraordinary circumstances? That could mean Civil War round 2, no one can really know what they feel would be justifiable until they actually do it.
FILIBUSTER IN ACTION! Figured this is appropriate here:
Original Post at 2:09 p.m. – With a blanket of snow the capitol and the federal government shut down and John Brennan poised to be confirmed as CIA Director, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who has a little bit of libertarian running in his veins, is engaging in the most traditional form of filibuster – talk.
In today’s Washington the filibuster has evolved into a sort of bipartisan détente that most everything requires 60 votes, which has sort of made the word lose some of it’s meaning.
But Paul doesn’t have 40 votes and he wants to make a point about Brennan, the White House adviser who is seen as architect of the administration’s policy of using unmanned drone to kill suspected terrorists in foreign countries. A vote to make Brennan CIA Director could come as soon as today.
Mr. Smith would be proud. That’s how most Americans probably view a filibuster: Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith reading aloud for hours and hours in pursuit of righting some wrong.
The wrong, for Rand Paul, is the Obama administration’s targeted killing program – the use of drones to bomb suspected terrorists in foreign lands – is Constitutional. His concern hit a new level Monday when his office released a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder explaining that the administration feels it has the ability, in the extremely unlikely situation, to kill Americans on U.S.
soil to avert an imminent terror attack.
“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA, Paul declared at about 11:47 a.m. ET. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. that Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.”
Paul said he doesn’t necessarily think President Obama will abuse the power. But no president, said Paul, should have the power to kill Americans in the U.S. without a trial by jury.
Here’s an excerpt:
“When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. it should have been a resounding and unequivocal, “no.” The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, I haven’t killed anyone yet. He goes on to say, and I have no intention of killing Americans. But i might. Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the president the — you know, they give him consideration, They say he’s a good man. I’m not arguing he’s not. what I’m arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don’t rule government.
More recently, a filibuster is any time the minority party blocks something that could be passed by the majority. That can take several forms. Senators agreed earlier this year to a series of rule changes to cut down on the time it takes to move through these procedural roadblocks while preserving the minority’s right to object.
Paul is certainly in the minority on the issue of drones and targeted killing. An ABC News / Washington Post Poll in February of 2012 found that 83 percent of Americans support the program. Paul would argue that the program is so shrouded in secrecy that people don’t know enough about it. Drawing attention is a stated goal of his filibuster today.
It is important to remember that this traditional form of filibuster is doomed to fail. The human body can only go on so long. Paul has promised to talk until he can’t talk any more, but admitted, “Ultimately I will not win; there are not enough votes.”
As of this writing he has been going for about two hours and he hasn’t yet run out of things to say about drones or the Constitution.
The most recent talking filibuster came from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who spent some 8 hours filibustering a tax bill in 2010.
But the record for longest filibuster goes to former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, who died in 2003, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
It is not clear if Paul’s will last that long. Indeed, the Fox News host Lou Dobbs Tweeted just before 2 p.m. ET, that Paul would be joining him on his show, which starts at 7 p.m. ET.. And considering the bipartisan support the Obama administration, there is little doubt that Brennan will ultimately be confirmed.
No such luck for Caitlin Halligan, who didn’t require a long speech to be filibustered today. Halligan’s nomination to sit on the Federal District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was blocked by Republicans who feel she is too liberal, particularly on the issue of the 2nd amendment. Halligan got a majority 51 votes, but was defeated on the procedural motion, where she needed 60.
Here are some updates from the filibuster:
Update: 6:19 p.m. – At about 6:15, Sen. Rand Paul snuck some food on the Senate floor. That’s probably against Senate rules, but then again the folks who were helping him earlier all appear to have left. He hasn’t had anyone ask a question for about an hour.
Updated: 4:46 p.m. – Just about exactly five hours into Rand Paul’s filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asks for consent to move toward a vote. Paul says he’d happily move toward a vote if the White House will make a statement that the drone program will not kill Americans not involved in terrorism. Reid says he can’t speak for the President or the attorney general. Reid indicates the vote on Brennan will happen on Thursday if and when Paul yields the floor.
Updated 4:42 p.m – Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee has joined the filibuster. Chambliss was one of three Republicans to oppose Brennan in the committee’s vote. Another Republican, Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, comes to help out too.
Update at 3:52 p.m. – Sen. Ted Cruz reads William Travis’s famous “victory or death” letter from the Alamo. The Alamo fell 117 years ago today, something Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul have pointed out. So too is their effort to block John Brennan ultimately ill-fated. The four senators who have undertaken the filibuster, led by Paul, lack the votes.
Sen. Ron Wyden is an example of why Brennan will ultimately be confirmed. Wyden is a Democrat with concerns about drones and oversight. But he has joined the conversation on the Senate floor to dicuss the issue with Paul.
“Every American has a right to know when their government feels it has a right to kill them,” said Wyden.
Update at 3:10 p.m. – Now joining Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee is Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., who today questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about the remote possibility that the government would kill Americans in the U.S. without due process. Twenty minutes later, Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas takes to the floor.
Update at 2:59 p.m. – Utah Sen. Mike Lee gives Sen. Rand Paul a break just about three hours after starting his filibuster.
Update at 2:47 p.m. – Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has been filibustering John Brennan’s nomination to lead the CIA for three hours.
Much props for actually doing his damn job. Let me clarify; I'm not saying he should filibuster Brennan, but if they're going to filibuster, it's simply not good enough to raise a hand and say you're going to do it. It should be an extreme measure, and when Americans see a someone reading names out a phone book just to run out the clock, they should ideally look into it to see if it's principled measure (or just, you know, the usual).
In any event, I respect the return to tradition.
Also, I think there are definitely some unanswered questions about the extent of what the administration feels their authority is re: targeted assassinations.
"I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your right to trial by jury is precious, that no American should be killed on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."-Rand Paul
After Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious, etc., I sure as hell don't want to see some moron in the justice department getting those kind of toys to play with.
So I'm with you all, I am against the domestic use of drones to kill citizens without due process, however I do want to ask a few questions.
Do we know what kind of work must be done before a drone could be sent on a mission to kill someone? Do you need to go to a lawyer, get a warrant, two keys, etc etc?
How does this parallel to LEO's being given the authorization to use deadly force if deemed necessary?
The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.
To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.
To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.
There is also executive order 12333, which strictly prohibits at least the military from conducting intelligence operations within the US, without a whole laundry list of crap being met prior to getting authorization. Whether or not this EO applies to law enforcement agencies, I don't know.
“No one will ever forget Jane Fonda swiveling around in North Vietnamese armored guns. And it was despicable. It’s one thing if you want to try her for treason. But are you just going to drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” - Paul Rand
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I dunno, droning Hanoi Jane might be... I'm gonna self censor because that sentence can only end in me saying terrible things.
And my unit is taking a kick to the balls by having to switch out of our A-10 flying mission and go to these damned drones. I hate these things with a passion. They are dangerous both on the ground and in the air because the operators make tons of mistakes. I've seen two drones taxi into each other in Afghanistan, for instance. I've seen a Belgian F-16 hit one that was taxiing without its lights on. And I have heard the pilots all say how the skies are so cluttered with the damned things that you have to keep a special watch just for them.
I have a problem with the whole unmanned aircraft thing once you put weapons on them. I don't like them to begin with, but if you have weapons on them and they are controlled by someone who operates under a totally different set of ROE's, you never really know how safe you are on the ground.
I'll just say that while there are many people who may deserve being shot with drone missiles, it wouldn't be constitutional to do so without due process.
Now THAT is unconstitutional bs of epic proportions.
So, those soldiers you want placed on the US/Mexico border are only allowed to look pretty?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat.
Well, that, and the distinction between drone* attacks on American citizens, and drone attacks on American territory. I saw discussion of the latter, but not the former; despite the article title.
*Which is a really weird place to draw the line. Is it alright if manned aircraft attack?
There is also executive order 12333, which strictly prohibits at least the military from conducting intelligence operations within the US, without a whole laundry list of crap being met prior to getting authorization. Whether or not this EO applies to law enforcement agencies, I don't know.
It doesn't really matter, it could be easily rescinded and replaced.
The response of "omg drone strikes against US citizens!" is kind of strange considering the comment only said "it's conceivable that in some extraordinary circumstance the military could be authorized to use lethal force against US citizens". The only situation where military involvement would make sense would be something like a state's national guard rebelling, or something equally insane. Otherwise you have more disproportionate force than you can shake a stick at in the form of law enforcement alone, and then the national guard for just about any outlandishly dangerous situation not involving a large amount of military grade materiel.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: The response of "omg drone strikes against US citizens!" is kind of strange considering the comment only said "it's conceivable that in some extraordinary circumstance the military could be authorized to use lethal force against US citizens". The only situation where military involvement would make sense would be something like a state's national guard rebelling, or something equally insane. Otherwise you have more disproportionate force than you can shake a stick at in the form of law enforcement alone, and then the national guard for just about any outlandishly dangerous situation not involving a large amount of military grade materiel.
It was pretty insane thinking you'd see the justice department torching 70+ people, mostly kids on tv before Waco happened. It was even more insane thinking no one would really be punished for that atrocity after it happened.
Relapse wrote: After Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious, etc., I sure as hell don't want to see some moron in the justice department getting those kind of toys to play with.
Now you understand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: “No one will ever forget Jane Fonda swiveling around in North Vietnamese armored guns. And it was despicable. It’s one thing if you want to try her for treason. But are you just going to drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” - Paul Rand
Bad cases make bad law.
What if the drone just dropped rotten tomatoes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.
Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: The response of "omg drone strikes against US citizens!" is kind of strange considering the comment only said "it's conceivable that in some extraordinary circumstance the military could be authorized to use lethal force against US citizens". The only situation where military involvement would make sense would be something like a state's national guard rebelling, or something equally insane. Otherwise you have more disproportionate force than you can shake a stick at in the form of law enforcement alone, and then the national guard for just about any outlandishly dangerous situation not involving a large amount of military grade materiel.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.
To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.
You guys know how pro-police I am and this is exactly right. It's not similar. The time and distance required to get the drone somewhere is enough time to seriously bring into question the immediacy of the threat.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.
To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.
You guys know how pro-police I am and this is exactly right. It's not similar. The time and distance required to get the drone somewhere is enough time to seriously bring into question the immediacy of the threat.
Exactly. In the US people are reachable. Now if someone how Raz Al Ghoul has holed up in an underground bunker in the Rockies and is holding off the local forces, and this is part of a full military response then cool. Otherwise no way Jose.
sebster wrote: Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.
Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.
In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.
sebster wrote: Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.
Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.
In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.
Mmm..so you're arguing the DOJ would not prosecute a company for fraud because its too big to fail? Interesting to see how you prosecute a company under criminal regs like that. I mean its kind of hard for a nonexistent entity to show intent.
What are you going to do? Send the company to jail?
When the Chief Legal Counsel of the USA, cannot answer a very simple constitutional question, about due process and killing us citizens, it is time to be worried.
SickSix wrote: When the Chief Legal Counsel of the USA, cannot answer a very simple constitutional question, about due process and killing us citizens, it is time to be worried.
There is no justice, just us.
But yea, welcome to the Terrordome. According to the SOuthern Poverty Center, you are now a hate group. That small buzzing fly orbiting your house that looks remarkably like a drone, is really just a gigantically big mosquito.
I was listening to the usual conspiracy tin-foil crowd at work this morning. They were going off about "they are putting xrays on the interstate to monitor us", "FEMA death camps", and other crazy nuts talk.
It just makes me share my head when people are so misinformed that they come up with crap like that, and don't even know about things like this.
There is plenty of real things to be worried and concerned about without making crap up.
d-usa wrote: I was listening to the usual conspiracy tin-foil crowd at work this morning. They were going off about "they are putting xrays on the interstate to monitor us", "FEMA death camps", and other crazy nuts talk.
It just makes me share my head when people are so misinformed that they come up with crap like that, and don't even know about things like this.
There is plenty of real things to be worried and concerned about without making crap up.
yes they are crazy.
However, like the vapid left wing there is a point:
*Drone strikes on US citizens in the US ore violently unconstitutional.
*Drones can survey anywhere and are getting such that they can effectively create 4th amendment searches.
*DHS is developing or now has vans who's sole purpose to drive down the street and scan everything - also violatiove of the 4th Amendment.
*DHS really did look to buy MRAP vehicles.
*A bill is being recommended by NY Senator Shumer that effectively is a gun registration bill. Washington did pass a bil in its house using a local registration to put into aeffect the ability of police to enter homes annually and seize firearms without warrant - (but it was quickly quashed when it came out).
*FEMA does have camps. They are just really crappy trailer park camps outside New Orleans, Mississippii and maybe in NJ now.
sebster wrote: Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.
Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.
In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.
Mmm..so you're arguing the DOJ would not prosecute a company for fraud because its too big to fail? Interesting to see how you prosecute a company under criminal regs like that. I mean its kind of hard for a nonexistent entity to show intent.
What are you going to do? Send the company to jail?
You're moving the goalposts from your original laughable position to some weird... look, I don't even care what your second argument is, arguing with you is like playing Minesweeper where after you make a move, the unrevealed mines move somewhere else. So lets stick with your original point: You're wrong. There are tons of different elements of the DOJ that prosecute financial crimes, and of course all the US attorneys who do so are also part of the Justice Department.
In any event, this deserves it's own thread. Which is here.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The key words are "immediate threat." It is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen if that citizen does not pose an immediate threat. Obviously an active shooter is an immediate threat. But if you have the time to build a targeting package for a drone strike, then you have time to make an arrest. Whether or not a citizen is a terrorist, or belongs to a terrorist group, that citizen still has the protection of the Bill of Rights. They cannot be executed without due process of law. It is in the 5th amendment.
To break it down, there is no similarity besides a LEO or even a citizen using lethal force in self defense or in the name of protecting others and a no over sight, no judicial process death warrant.
You guys know how pro-police I am and this is exactly right. It's not similar. The time and distance required to get the drone somewhere is enough time to seriously bring into question the immediacy of the threat.
Immediacy of the threat should not be the only concern. Seriousness of the threat, potential loss of lives during conventional engagement and any number of things should be taken into account.
After all, how can we justify drone strikes on citizens other than the US?
Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. In the US people are reachable. Now if someone how Raz Al Ghoul has holed up in an underground bunker in the Rockies and is holding off the local forces, and this is part of a full military response then cool. Otherwise no way Jose.
Why are you using Ras Al'Ghul as an example here?
Oh right. Typical Frazzled...
But really, why does it have to be a "full military response" to justify the usage of drones? If "Ras Al'Ghul" is up in the Rockies and standing off the FBI, why should they not be able to request drone support?
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: And my unit is taking a kick to the balls by having to switch out of our A-10 flying mission and go to these damned drones. I hate these things with a passion. They are dangerous both on the ground and in the air because the operators make tons of mistakes. I've seen two drones taxi into each other in Afghanistan, for instance. I've seen a Belgian F-16 hit one that was taxiing without its lights on. And I have heard the pilots all say how the skies are so cluttered with the damned things that you have to keep a special watch just for them.
I have a problem with the whole unmanned aircraft thing once you put weapons on them. I don't like them to begin with, but if you have weapons on them and they are controlled by someone who operates under a totally different set of ROE's, you never really know how safe you are on the ground.
A serious question
Would you not as a member of the armed forces under iminant threat/ seeing others in said military not be justified in using lethal force against the drone/drone opperators ?
I know you could shoot at a pickup that looked to be driving into a checkpoint, could you not open fire on a drone that looked to be driving into an F-16 (or its opperator)?
sebster wrote: Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.
Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.
In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.
Mmm..so you're arguing the DOJ would not prosecute a company for fraud because its too big to fail? Interesting to see how you prosecute a company under criminal regs like that. I mean its kind of hard for a nonexistent entity to show intent.
What are you going to do? Send the company to jail?
You're moving the goalposts from your original laughable position to some weird... look, I don't even care what your second argument is, arguing with you is like playing Minesweeper where after you make a move, the unrevealed mines move somewhere else. So lets stick with your original point: You're wrong. There are tons of different elements of the DOJ that prosecute financial crimes, and of course all the US attorneys who do so are also part of the Justice Department.
In any event, this deserves it's own thread. Which is here.
Please show me the list of companies prosecuted by the DOJ, not individuals, but companies. Also please provide a list of companies free from such action because they are "too big to fail."
sebster wrote: Honestly, I'm more concerned about Holder's comments that the banks are, in effect, so big they're beyond prosecution.
Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.
In this thread, Frazzled pretends that there is not a difference between civil banking regulation and criminal prosections for things such as (but not limited to) fraud.
Please show me where a company has been put in jail for fraud.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Exactly. In the US people are reachable. Now if someone how Raz Al Ghoul has holed up in an underground bunker in the Rockies and is holding off the local forces, and this is part of a full military response then cool. Otherwise no way Jose.
Why are you using Ras Al'Ghul as an example here?
Oh right. Typical Frazzled...
But really, why does it have to be a "full military response" to justify the usage of drones? If "Ras Al'Ghul" is up in the Rockies and standing off the FBI, why should they not be able to request drone support?
1. What? I didn't know the name of rock Hard Ghandi from Iron Man III, and one can't get enough of Liam Neeson. BECAUSE THE FBI SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE FROM 30,000. THEY DON"T HAVE THAT POWER NOW.
Frazzled wrote:1. What? I didn't know the name of rock Hard Ghandi from Iron Man III, and one can't get enough of Liam Neeson. BECAUSE THE FBI SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE FROM 30,000. THEY DON"T HAVE THAT POWER NOW.
It's not a question of "having the power". It's a question of "having access to the technology".
Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?
Sorry for showing my ignorance here, but is Paul arguing against the use of drones in general, or just against the idea that a US citizen could theoretically be droned on US soil?
Also is there any real reason to suspect that drone attacks would ever occur on US soil? It's just that I can't imagine any scenario where a drone attack would be considered the best way to deal with a domestic terrorist.
Frazzled wrote:1. What? I didn't know the name of rock Hard Ghandi from Iron Man III, and one can't get enough of Liam Neeson. BECAUSE THE FBI SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE FROM 30,000. THEY DON"T HAVE THAT POWER NOW.
It's not a question of "having the power". It's a question of "having access to the technology".
Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?
I'm scared that you don't see the difference, since you are a police backer.
SWAT may take out someone who is imminent threat to themselves or others. A drone is not in imminent threat and if it is, so what. You can't give out the death sentence because someone killed your toy.
Again, a drone is just fine in a military operation. Soldiers deserve soldiers sir.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LuciusAR wrote: Sorry for showing my ignorance here, but is Paul arguing against the use of drones in general, or just against the idea that a US citizen could theoretically be droned on US soil?
Using drones to kill US citizens on US soil in this instance.
Frazzled wrote:1. What? I didn't know the name of rock Hard Ghandi from Iron Man III, and one can't get enough of Liam Neeson. BECAUSE THE FBI SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE FROM 30,000. THEY DON"T HAVE THAT POWER NOW.
It's not a question of "having the power". It's a question of "having access to the technology".
Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?
I'm scared that you don't see the difference, since you are a police backer.
SWAT may take out someone who is imminent threat to themselves or others. A drone is not in imminent threat and if it is, so what. You can't give out the death sentence because someone killed your toy.
Way to cherrypick what you wanted from my statement.
Now, what danger is a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter in? The sharpshooters during any kind of crisis where SWAT or SRT(Special Response Teams, the terms are becoming slightly more interchangeable depending on the agencies) are actually going to be involved will be out of harm's way. They do not go in with the assault or breach teams. Their whole job is to provide precision fire from outside of the general danger area.
So I say again:
Nobody bats an eyelash when a SWAT/SRT sharpshooter downs a dangerous individual. How is this different?
A drone and sharpshooter both are effectively "outside of imminent danger". When it comes to making a judgement call as to whether someone is an "imminent threat to others", who makes that call?
The sharpshooters generally make that call on their own. That's a lot of trust placed into someone.
Now, why is it that an agent on the scene cannot request a drone strike during an operation?
That was the question I was bringing up. None of this garbage about "The government's gonna drone strike you for jaywalking" that seems to get espoused.
Again, a drone is just fine in a military operation. Soldiers deserve soldiers sir.
Why is a drone "just fine" when killing citizens of other countries, but not citizens of our own?
Excellent post EXCEPT wher you "missed" the part where I said "imminent threat to themselves or others."
Why is a drone "just fine" when killing citizens of other countries, but not citizens of our own?
I care less than the weight of a single tear for the citizens of other countries in other countries. I only care about US citizens and people in the USA. Ok truthfuylly I only sort of care then. I only really care about the wiener dog race and family. I thought you got that.
Frazzled wrote: Excellent post EXCEPT wher you "missed" the part where I said "imminent threat to themselves or others."
No, I actually did not.
I even addressed it.
No you didn't you said snipers make that call on their own. 1. I don't believe you, at all. 2. They are at the scene. By the time a drone gets there the threat has passed and the drone driver is not on the immediate scene. Are you even grasping what you're saying? You're arguing its ok for the federal government to unilaterally assassinate US citizens on US soil. Outside of a war, thats screaming jay hawkings level crazy talk.
Do none of you people actually read the Bill of Rights?
Frazzled wrote: Excellent post EXCEPT wher you "missed" the part where I said "imminent threat to themselves or others."
No, I actually did not.
I even addressed it.
No you didn't you said snipers make that call on their own.
1. I don't believe you, at all.
You don't have to. It's one of those things where if you were to ask, you'd find out the answer.
Sharpshooters generally are given leeway on judgement calls. Remember Ruby Ridge?
2. They are at the scene. By the time a drone gets there the threat has passed and the drone driver is not on the immediate scene.
So?
The idea that drones are going to be deployed with no conventional agencies or anything is so patently silly that it is mindboggling that people actually think it.
Are you even grasping what you're saying? You're arguing its ok for the federal government to unilaterally assassinate US citizens on US soil. Outside of a war, thats screaming jay hawkings level crazy talk.
But it's ok for the federal government to unilaterally assassinate citizens of foreign nations on foreign soil?
Do none of you people actually read the Bill of Rights?
Sure. But it's a document written in a different time, intended to be the guidelines for the rights given to individuals. It was not meant to be strictly interpreted with no regards to the changes in technology and society.
No. It's how these drones are being used. Kan and Frazz have drifted off target. The President doesn't want to call in drone support to back up LEOs under fire. He wants to call in drones on people with no justification, no evidence and most importantly no due process of law. A police sniper can and does take down individuals who are actively resisting arrest and threatening the lives of officers and others. Unless the bad guy's got a weapon pointed at an officer or innocent a shooting isn't justified.
*Drone strikes on US citizens in the US ore violently unconstitutional.
But, evidently, they are fine when said US citizens are not in the US.
Scum bag that Alwaki undoubtedly was, even he deserved due process. I've been making a fuss about the President's various drone wars for awhile now. Drones have a place on the modern battlefield and can be damn useful in that roll, a buddy of mine who works in the industry has also pointed out other excellent uses, but this isn't really even about the drones, this is your President and the attorney general saying the US Government can murder you without due process of any sort.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: No. It's how these drones are being used. Kan and Frazz have drifted off target. The President doesn't want to call in drone support to back up LEOs under fire. He wants to call in drones on people with no justification, no evidence and most importantly no due process of law.
...but this isn't really even about the drones, this is your President and the attorney general saying the US Government can murder you without due process of any sort.
No, no it isn't. And, quite honestly, your attempt to claim that it is represents a horrible misunderstanding of due process of law.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: No. It's how these drones are being used. Kan and Frazz have drifted off target. The President doesn't want to call in drone support to back up LEOs under fire. He wants to call in drones on people with no justification, no evidence and most importantly no due process of law.
...but this isn't really even about the drones, this is your President and the attorney general saying the US Government can murder you without due process of any sort.
No, no it isn't. And, quite honestly, your attempt to claim that it is represents a horrible misunderstanding of due process of law.
Clumsy phrasing on my part. This is the Holder justice department saying that the President/Government has the authority to use premeditated force on US soil, when they don't. That's what Senator Paul is filibustering for. A simple yes or no answer to the question he had addressed to Holder previously. The president doesn't want to murder you... yet any way.
and clearly we both have very different interpretations of due process of law. Here I always thought that a decision to execute someone had to be made in court with crazy things like evidence, and judicial oversight.
Mattman154 wrote: Do we know what kind of work must be done before a drone could be sent on a mission to kill someone? Do you need to go to a lawyer, get a warrant, two keys, etc etc?
Would anybody be able to answer this? What are the current requirements for a drone to kill someone?
Mattman154 wrote: Do we know what kind of work must be done before a drone could be sent on a mission to kill someone? Do you need to go to a lawyer, get a warrant, two keys, etc etc?
Would anybody be able to answer this? What are the current requirements for a drone to kill someone?
From my understanding, for the Alwaki situation was his name was on a list, the CIA took care of it.
In my opinion it is never okay to kill US citizens anywhere without due process, unless they are actively in that moment putting rounds down range against our own people.
If a situation can't be conceived where the President would need this power, then why give it to him at all? Hard to abuse authority you never had in the first place.
Also, read some history books before some of you find yourself parroting 'But it could never happen here!' Right into a re-education camp or mass grave.
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: And my unit is taking a kick to the balls by having to switch out of our A-10 flying mission and go to these damned drones. I hate these things with a passion. They are dangerous both on the ground and in the air because the operators make tons of mistakes. I've seen two drones taxi into each other in Afghanistan, for instance. I've seen a Belgian F-16 hit one that was taxiing without its lights on. And I have heard the pilots all say how the skies are so cluttered with the damned things that you have to keep a special watch just for them.
I have a problem with the whole unmanned aircraft thing once you put weapons on them. I don't like them to begin with, but if you have weapons on them and they are controlled by someone who operates under a totally different set of ROE's, you never really know how safe you are on the ground.
A serious question
Would you not as a member of the armed forces under iminant threat/ seeing others in said military not be justified in using lethal force against the drone/drone opperators ?
I know you could shoot at a pickup that looked to be driving into a checkpoint, could you not open fire on a drone that looked to be driving into an F-16 (or its opperator)?
Not when the operator is not only several thousand miles away, but was in these cases, not even military. These drones were/are operated by the CIA. As far as shooting at the drone while on the ground, what are you going to shoot it with? Small arms aren't going to stop it in time. The 20mm on the F-16 would, but the rounds will also cause all sorts of collateral damage. When you're in an area that has lots of fuel, lots of live munitions, and tens of millions of dollars of aircraft, not to mention lots of people, you just can't shoot and not cause a lot of damage.
In that case, all you can do is wince and watch, and make sure that you have something solid between you and situation if the collision actually happens. You want a sphincter puckering situation? Try having to down load munitions from an aircraft after that happens. Especially after you can see that the fuses are damaged.
Clumsy phrasing on my part. This is the Holder justice department saying that the President/Government has the authority to use premeditated force on US soil...
Again, by what means have you reached this conclusion.
And clearly we both have very different interpretations of due process of law. Here I always thought that a decision to execute someone had to be made in court with crazy things like evidence, and judicial oversight.
Why are executions even an issue at this point?
I mean, air strikes are not always aimed at one person.
The only objection seems to be regarding drones, so a piloted aircraft should be able to act with impunity.
Oh... I see what you're saying.
I object to that too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know... I just went back to Rand Paul's filibuster... he wasn't just talking about "weaponized drones"... he was talking abouttargeted killing in a general sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just saw this on twittah... Rand is spiking the football.
Rand Paul doing an end zone dance on Fox: “Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will relent and do the right thing.”
Here was Holder's response to Rand Paul's 13 hour long filibuster.....
Dear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
The only objection seems to be regarding drones, so a piloted aircraft should be able to act with impunity.
Oh... I see what you're saying.
I object to that too.
That's the bottom line for me, too. The whole "drone" thing just confuses people. I don't want drones doing anything I'm not ok with a fighter jet or a helicopter doing.
I'm totally 100% fine with drones being used as air support for car chases for instance, because I am fine with helicopters dong that. I am 100% fine with drones doing search and rescue or manhunts, because helicopters are great for that right now.
It's a pretty narrow scenario where I'm fine with a cop in a helicoptor shooting someone. The suspect would need to be actively shooting at someone. If a drone is nearby when someone is an active threat, I am fine with that drone taking a shot to save lives right at that moment. If that particular scenario comes up, go for it. That's about it.
Bottom line is you have to attempt arrest. If the guy creates an active immediate threat WHILE you are trying to arrest him, then you gotta do what you gotta do, but the arrest is still the gameplan.
This whole issue arose out of a good answer to a very bad question. The question that was originally asked was there any situation under which the president could order a drone strike on US soil. The answer was yes, because there is. Civil war being the main scenario. People were getting up in arms over an unclarified answer to a vague question.
Ted Cruz to Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens.
Que? Amending the AUMF?
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law
Isn't this a violation of separation of powers? Or, he wouldn't fight in now because it would be simply atrocious for a president to oppose a bill limiting his power to assassinate Americans?
Politics at it's best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.
Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'
Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.
Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'
And I would think that you of all people would realize why.
For the same reason we will not have drones with LAPD colors on them shooting Lenny the Bank Robber.
Too much collateral damage.
You're missing the point.
If they felt that they could assassinate one guy in an extreme remote area via drones, they could've sent some more drone puppies at Bengahzi. (remember, they had at least two of the reconnaissance drone there).
Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.
Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'
And I would think that you of all people would realize why.
For the same reason we will not have drones with LAPD colors on them shooting Lenny the Bank Robber.
Too much collateral damage.
You're missing the point.
If they felt that they could assassinate one guy in an extreme remote area via drones, they could've sent some more drone puppies at Bengahzi. (remember, they had at least two of the reconnaissance drone there).
See the disconnect?
The fact that you cannot see how ridiculously fallacious this line of thinking is just flatout hurts my brain.
So it's completely unacceptable and violates the Constitution and due process when it is a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil...but completely acceptable for a drone strike in Benghazi?
And for that matter, Frazzled already brought up the point of "it takes time for a drone to get on station to deliver a payload".
The unarmed drones that were on station likely were scrambled from elsewhere, as there is a push going on for unarmed drones equipped with surveillance gear to be able to get anywhere at any time to get "eyes on" for situations.
It takes time however to get an armed drone airborne, as they are being slightly more cautious in the push for armed drones to be airborne 24/7 near hot spots.
Aternative question now is this... Those guys in Benghazi were "engaged in combat" against our embassy.
Maybe now would be a good time to ask...'Why wasn't there a drone strike in Benghazi?'
And I would think that you of all people would realize why.
For the same reason we will not have drones with LAPD colors on them shooting Lenny the Bank Robber.
Too much collateral damage.
You're missing the point.
If they felt that they could assassinate one guy in an extreme remote area via drones, they could've sent some more drone puppies at Bengahzi. (remember, they had at least two of the reconnaissance drone there).
See the disconnect?
The fact that you cannot see how ridiculously fallacious this line of thinking is just flatout hurts my brain.
Sorry mang... have some aspirin.
So it's completely unacceptable and violates the Constitution and due process when it is a drone strike on a US citizen on US soil...but completely acceptable for a drone strike in Benghazi?
Correct. Because there was an active fight with heavy weapons going on... you know...an actual war skirmish.
And for that matter, Frazzled already brought up the point of "it takes time for a drone to get on station to deliver a payload".
The unarmed drones that were on station likely were scrambled from elsewhere, as there is a push going on for unarmed drones equipped with surveillance gear to be able to get anywhere at any time to get "eyes on" for situations.
It takes time however to get an armed drone airborne, as they are being slightly more cautious in the push for armed drones to be airborne 24/7 near hot spots.
Off-topic here (I know, I brought it up)... there numerous resources reportedly well within 2 hours (less than hour?) to Benghazi... where the fight lasted more than 8 hours.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm pretty sure that airstrikes would not have been helpful.
Tell that to the thousands of lives saved by them in Iraq and Afghanistan in similar situations. Small teams pinned down by overwhelming attacks happen a lot, the first response is usually air strikes. Most times the aircraft just showing up is enough to stop the attack and send the attackers fleeing.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm pretty sure that airstrikes would not have been helpful.
Tell that to the thousands of lives saved by them in Iraq and Afghanistan in similar situations. Small teams pinned down by overwhelming attacks happen a lot, the first response is usually air strikes. Most times the aircraft just showing up is enough to stop the attack and send the attackers fleeing.
Yea but its way cooler when a B-52 unloads on them. You have to admit that.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm pretty sure that airstrikes would not have been helpful.
Tell that to the thousands of lives saved by them in Iraq and Afghanistan in similar situations. Small teams pinned down by overwhelming attacks happen a lot, the first response is usually air strikes. Most times the aircraft just showing up is enough to stop the attack and send the attackers fleeing.
Politically, air strikes would have been an even bigger disaster. Essentially, you would have wanted to bomb a sovereign country that is "on paper" our ally, whose government we just helped put in place without their authorization or consent. Plus, the collateral damage alone would have been terrible PR. And yes, PR trumps the four lives lost because bad PR like this leads to more people wanting to kill us than we would kill in the air strike. This could cause more problems and lives to us in the future then this one terrorist attack.
Maybe that stuff flies in your Unipolar world view, but most people in the world get angry when the US bomb them, and claim we had the right to bomb because we are the world's only superpower.
Edit: Anyway, about Drones in the US. I agree with Rented. If the Drone is doing something a Helicopter/aircraft use to do for a LEO, then I am fine with it.
I am curious what people think about drones Loitering around an area and simply filming like an aerial CCT camera?
Kanluwen wrote: I'm pretty sure that airstrikes would not have been helpful.
Tell that to the thousands of lives saved by them in Iraq and Afghanistan in similar situations. Small teams pinned down by overwhelming attacks happen a lot, the first response is usually air strikes. Most times the aircraft just showing up is enough to stop the attack and send the attackers fleeing.
"Small teams pinned down by overwhelming attacks" might happen a lot, but that does not mean that every instance where this happens is inside of a crowded population center.
Nor does it mean that the first response is from fixed wing aircraft instead of helicopters.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm pretty sure that airstrikes would not have been helpful.
Tell that to the thousands of lives saved by them in Iraq and Afghanistan in similar situations. Small teams pinned down by overwhelming attacks happen a lot, the first response is usually air strikes. Most times the aircraft just showing up is enough to stop the attack and send the attackers fleeing.
Politically, air strikes would have been an even bigger disaster. Essentially, you would have wanted to bomb a sovereign country that is "on paper" our ally, whose government we just helped put in place without their authorization or consent. Plus, the collateral damage alone would have been terrible PR. And yes, PR trumps the four lives lost because bad PR like this leads to more people wanting to kill us than we would kill in the air strike. This could cause more problems and lives to us in the future then this one terrorist attack.
Maybe that stuff flies in your Unipolar world view, but most people in the world get angry when the US bomb them, and claim we had the right to bomb because we are the world's only superpower.
Bingo.
Edit: Anyway, about Drones in the US. I agree with Rented. If the Drone is doing something a Helicopter/aircraft use to do for a LEO, then I am fine with it.
I am curious what people think about drones Loitering around an area and simply filming like an aerial CCT camera?
I'm okay with drones loitering. They already do quite a bit for meteorological purposes.
Sorry for "necro-threading" here, but I saw this that was interesting...
There's a legal problem using these drones against any US citizens presented by 18 U.S.C. 1119(b), which reads:
A person who, being a national of the United States, kills or attempts to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country shall be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.
And this is an Australian Law Professor apparently pwning the Obama's Administration's Drone program:
I’m grateful to Ken, Wells Bennett, and Marcy Wheeler for speculating that my April 2010 blog post on 18 USC 1119, the foreign-murder statute, is the post referred to in today’s New York Times article on the behind-the-scenes machinations that culminated in the CIA using a drone to kill Anwar al-Awlaki. I imagine they are correct; the post fits the timeline and Marcy notes that no other post around that time on a legal blog specifically addressed the foreign-murder statute. If so, it’s a testament to the growing importance of academic blogging.
In this post, I want to discuss the part of the White Paper that seems to be motivated by the questions I raised in my 2010 post — Part III, which argues that killing a US citizen abroad who qualifies as a senior operational leader in al-Qaeda or its associated forces would not be murder because the individual responsible for the killing would be entitled to a public-authority defense. Here, for example, is one statement to that effect (p. 14):
A lethal operation against an enemy leader undertaken in national self-defense or during an armed conflict that is authorized by an informed, high-level official and carried out in a manner that accords with applicable law of war principles would fall within an established variant of the public authority justification and therefore would not be murder.
I have no problem with sections A and B of Part III, which argue that an individual prosecuted for violating the foreign-murder statute would be entitled to argue that the killing was justified because it was conducted pursuant to public authority. I also have no issue with the idea, offered in section C, that a member of the US armed forces would indeed be acting pursuant to public authority if he killed a combatant in an international armed conflict (IAC); in such conflicts, members of a state’s armed forces always have the right to kill — in other words, are justified in killing — members of the enemy state’s armed forces. The existence of the combatant’s privilege in IAC is black-letter international humanitarian law (IHL).
But that is not the end of the inquiry, for one simple reason: al-Awlaki was killed by the CIA, not by the US military. The White Paper does not discuss whether a CIA drone operator would be entitled to a public-authority defense in a prosecution under the foreign-murder statute; indeed, all of the sources cited in III.C regarding the defense (p. 14) — three classic criminal-law treatises and an old state case — claim that the laws of war entitle a soldier to kill the enemy. They say nothing about the right of anyone else to kill.
So would a CIA drone operator be entitled to a public-authority defense? I don’t see how. I won’t spend much time explaining why “national self-defense” does not provide the requisite public authority; as I explain in my signature-strikes article (and as Marko Milanovic explains here), a legitimate act of self-defense may justify the US violating another state’s sovereignty, but it does not — and cannot — justify depriving the target of his right to life. That deprivation would have to be independently justified either by IHL (if the killing took place in armed conflict) or by IHRL (if it took place outside of armed conflict). In the words of the International Law Commission’s commentary to the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts:
This is not to say that self-defence precludes the wrongfulness of conduct in all cases or with respect to all obligations…. As to obligations under international humanitarian law and in relation to non-derogable human rights provisions, self-defence does not preclude the wrongfulness of conduct.
The real question, then, is whether the laws of war would justify a CIA drone operator killing an American citizen like al-Awlaki. Let’s assume, for sake of argument, three things: (1) the killing took place in armed conflict, so was subject to IHL; (2) the target qualified as a combatant, or at least as a civilian directly participating in hostilities, at the time of the attack; and (3) members of the US armed forces possess the combatant’s privilege — the right to kill — in non-international armed conflict (NIAC) as well as in international armed conflict. All three assumptions are debatable; I have discussed (1) and (2) many times on the blog and in my scholarship, and it’s not worth getting into (3) here, because the US has always accepted it.
But even if we grant those assumptions, I simply fail to understand how the US could argue that a CIA drone operator has the right to kill an American citizen abroad, even one who otherwise qualifies as a legitimate target. In an international armed conflict, the categories of individuals who possess the combatant’s privilege are specified by Art. 43 of the First Additional Protocol (AP I):
Art 43. Armed forces
1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
The CIA is obviously not an “organized armed force, group, or unit” that is under the command of the US military; the CIA is, in its own words, “an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers.” Nor are the CIA’s drone strikes controlled by the military (which would not satisfy Art. 43 anyway). The interesting provision is paragraph 3. The CIA may be an “armed law enforcement agency,” but it still does not satisfy Art. 43(3): first, it has not been “incorporated” into the US’s armed forces, because incorporation requires national legislation subjecting the agency to military control (see the ICRC Commentary to AP I, para. 1682); and second, the US has not informed al-Qaeda and its associated forces that it has been so incorporated — indeed, as widely noted, the US has never even formally acknowledged that the CIA drone program exists.
In an IAC, then, CIA drone operators would not have the right under IHL to kill anyone. And it is difficult to see how the situation could be any different in a NIAC. Arguing that the rules of IAC apply analogically in NIAC, as the US often does – it borrows the concept of an al-Qaeda “associated force,” for example, from the IAC concept of co-belligerency — is no help, for all the reasons just mentioned. So the US would have to argue that the category of privileged combatants in NIAC is somehow actually wider in NIAC than in IAC, an idea for which there is no precedent in state practice and little if any support in conventional international law. (An excellent Australian scholar, Ian Henderson, has argued that a state can authorize anyone it wants to use lethal force in a NIAC. I don’t find his argument persuasive, particularly in the context of a transnational NIAC where a state is using force on the territory of many other states, but interested readers should check out his article.)
This is a critical conclusion. If a CIA drone operator does not possess the combatant’s privilege in the US’s “NIAC” with al-Qaeda and its associated forces, the US cannot plausibly argue that — to quote another paragraph in the White Paper (p. 15) — killing someone like al-Awlaki “would constitute a lawful killing under the public authority doctrine” because it was “conducted in a manner consistent with the fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force in a non-international armed conflict.” Such a killing would not be “consistent with the “the fundamental law of war principles governing the use of force,” because the absence of combatant’s privilege means that a CIA drone operator has no right under IHL to use any force at all. As a result, a CIA drone operator prosecuted for violating the foreign-murder statute would not be entitled to a public-authority defense – at least insofar as the US purports to base his or her public authority from IHL’s recognition of the right of privileged combatants to kill.
Finally, I want to say a few words about Part IV of the White Paper, which argues that killing someone like al-Awlaki would not qualify as a war crime. I completely agree with that conclusion, assuming that the target of the drone strike was, in fact, a combatant or a civilian directly participating in hostilities. An unprivileged combatant — ie, someone who does not possess the combatant’s privilege — does not commit a war crime simply because he uses force; he commits a war crime only if he uses force in a manner specifically prohibited by IHL. That’s why, for example, considering al-Nashiri’s attack on the USS Cole to be a war crime is absurd: although al-Nashiri had no right to use force against the USS Cole, the USS Cole was a legitimate military target that could have been lawfully targeted by a privileged combatant.
Does that mean al-Nashiri did not commit a criminal act when he attacked the USS Cole? Absolutely not. But here’s the point: an unprivileged combatant who attacks a legitimate military target does not commit a war crime, but his actions can still be prosecuted as an ordinary crime under domestic law. The US has every right to prosecute al-Nashiri for murder in a federal court — just as it would have every right to prosecute an American who, because he lacked the combatant’s privilege, violated federal law by using force against a target that could have been lawfully attacked by a privileged combatant.
Sound familiar? This is exactly the situation faced by a CIA drone operator who kills an American citizen abroad. Because CIA drone operators do not possess the combatant’s privilege, a drone operator does indeed violate federal law when he kills an American citizen abroad — namely, the foreign-murder statute. That is true even though the exact same attack would not be criminal if it was carried out by a drone operator working for the US military. The difference is precisely one of public authority: the military drone operator has it (the combatant’s privilege); the CIA drone operator does not.
NOTE: An earlier version of this post suggested that the White Paper was written prior to al-Awlaki’s death. The New York Times article claims that, on the contrary,it was “prepared months after the Awlaki and Khan killings amid an internal debate over how much to disclose.” If so, that’s troubling — because it suggests that the author(s) of the White Paper did not even recognize that the public-authority defense might function differently depending on whether the defendant in a prosecution under the foreign-murder statute was a soldier or a CIA officer.
I find the al-Awlaki killing to be a really serious problem under our laws (to say nothing of his sons). I think there are some really troubling precedents being set here, and while I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul & Co, I think we're both on same page with this.
I simply don't believe there is a constitutional foundation for the President of the United States to assassinate US Citizens without any meaningful oversight from any other branch.
Ouze wrote: I find the al-Awlaki killing to be a really serious problem under our laws (to say nothing of his sons). I think there are some really troubling precedents being set here, and while I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul & Co, I think we're both on same page with this.
I simply don't believe there is a constitutional foundation for the President of the United States to assassinate US Citizens without any meaningful oversight from any other branch.
Yeah, what I also found interesting, is that in the comments of that post he argued this:
But if the AUMF supersedes the foreign-murder statute, even though the text of the AUMF gives no indication that Congress intended to do so, why does the AUMF not also supersede the torture statute? There is no principled argument that distinguishes between the two.
He's basically saying that the justification that the current administration is using for these drones strike, can also be applied to the Bush administration's Enhanced Interrogation practice... which, the author clearly disagree with.
Funny that it took a law professor in Australia to point out to top lawyers in the Administration statutes put in place to limit the ability of Americans to kill each other outside America... eh?
Funny that it took a law professor in Australia to point out to top lawyers in the Administration statutes put in place to limit the ability of Americans to kill each other outside America... eh?
Its interesting that you're arguing for the US to bind to UN treaties.
Funny that it took a law professor in Australia to point out to top lawyers in the Administration statutes put in place to limit the ability of Americans to kill each other outside America... eh?
Its interesting that you're arguing for the US to bind to UN treaties.
I'm not arguing that... the author is.
And of course, current signed Treaties are the law of the land, per Constitution. Any new treaties coming out of the UN are mostly bunk.
Frazzled wrote: Signed treaties that don't actually contravene the Constitution you mean?
Yep.
Are there any current ones that contravene the Constitution?
I know that there's a handgun treaty rolling around at the UN at the moment, that doesn't have a chance in Hades for the US to sign.
Obama might sign it and the a Democratic Senate might ratify it. I say that as the Obama administration was the one that restarted it after the election.
Frazzled wrote: Signed treaties that don't actually contravene the Constitution you mean?
Yep.
Are there any current ones that contravene the Constitution?
I know that there's a handgun treaty rolling around at the UN at the moment, that doesn't have a chance in Hades for the US to sign.
Obama might sign it and the a Democratic Senate might ratify it. I say that as the Obama administration was the one that restarted it after the election.
Then watch the SC bash it down as it directly contravene the 2nd (and maybe even the 4th).
Frazzled wrote: Signed treaties that don't actually contravene the Constitution you mean?
Yep.
Are there any current ones that contravene the Constitution?
I know that there's a handgun treaty rolling around at the UN at the moment, that doesn't have a chance in Hades for the US to sign.
Obama might sign it and the a Democratic Senate might ratify it. I say that as the Obama administration was the one that restarted it after the election.
Then watch the SC bash it down as it directly contravene the 2nd (and maybe even the 4th).
Frazzled wrote: Bank regulation is not the purview of the DOJ sweets.
There's a difference between regulation and prosecution, lovechunks.
Frazzled wrote: Mmm..so you're arguing the DOJ would not prosecute a company for fraud because its too big to fail?
Not arguing it, commenting on the statement made by Holder earlier in the week.
''I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,'' Mr. Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee. ''I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.''
Meanwhile, you appear to be trying to arguing it without having any idea of the existance of that quote. Which takes moxie, I'll grant you that.
Interesting to see how you prosecute a company under criminal regs like that. I mean its kind of hard for a nonexistent entity to show intent.
Are you completely oblivious of the ways in which a company can be prosecuted under criminal law? Don't you have a legal background, and in banking?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: What are you going to do? Send the company to jail?
Fines are issued in lieu of jail time.
fething seriously, how did you not know that? I mean seriously, haven't you said before that you're a lawyer? This is like me asking people 'oh depreciation, like that could ever be a thing.'
