US citizen murdered by government without trial

[quadraphonics]

Even if he was a serial killer who shot 600 children in broad daylight and full view of everyone, I think its preferable to bring him to trial

Nothing particularly controversial about that statement on its face, but in context it is pretty oblivious - the reason we wage wars rather than simply arrest and try enemies isn't that we prefer war to trial. It's that war demands such a response.

rather than assassinate him extra judicially.

I'm a bit puzzled at this latest rhetorical bludgeon of the week - "extra judicial assassination." Is there such thing as a "judicial assassination?" If so, is it materially preferable to an "extra judicial assassination?" I.e., if we established some court wherein a judge reviews an executive claim of grounds for a drone strike (fighting for the enemy, imminent danger, and infeasability of arrest) and signs off on it, would your reaction to such materially differ?

Why is "assassinate" not a sufficientterm to use here, and how does the "extra-judicial" modifier make the difference? Are you simply eliding between "assassination" and "extra-judicial killing" without thinking about it?

If you abandon due process, you've lost the basis of civil society

Again, facially uncontroversial but completely backwards in actual context. Enemy combattants have never been entitled to due process, and there is no basis for a civil society including both the USA and Al Qaeda to lose in the first place.

 

[RedRabbit]

Again, facially uncontroversial but completely backwards in actual context. Enemy combattants have never been entitled to due process, and there is no basis for a civil society including both the USA and Al Qaeda to lose in the first place.

I don't think that's true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

 

[adoucette]

Yeah, once someone is captured and in custody, like Hamdi, then their status changes.

We don't allow the military to simply execute prisoners.

BUT

That doesn't mean they have to take them prisoner to start with unless they are surrendering.

He wasn't surrendering.

Arthur

 

[S.A.M.]

Nothing particularly controversial about that statement on its face, but in context it is pretty oblivious - the reason we wage wars rather than simply arrest and try enemies isn't that we prefer war to trial. It's that war demands such a response.

Thats obvious. For example:

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.

The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.

But Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/31/2384542/wikileaks-iraqi-children-in-us.html#ixzz1ZzW3nbpT

I'm a bit puzzled at this latest rhetorical bludgeon of the week - "extra judicial assassination." Is there such thing as a "judicial assassination?" If so, is it materially preferable to an "extra judicial assassination?" I.e., if we established some court wherein a judge reviews an executive claim of grounds for a drone strike (fighting for the enemy, imminent danger, and infeasability of arrest) and signs off on it, would your reaction to such materially differ?

You're right, it should be extrajudicial killing, which by definition is unlawful. However, unlawful does not mean it is uncommon:

Examples from wiki--

The former Soviet Union and Communist Bloc countries used to kill dissidents extrajudicially during the 1930s. Nguyễn Văn Lém (referred to as Captain Bay Lop) (died 1 February 1968 in Saigon) was a member of the Viet Cong who was summarily shot in Saigon during the Tet Offensive. The photograph of his death would become one of many anti-Vietnam War icons in the Western World.

During the 1960s and throughout the 1970s, death squads were used against the Viet Cong cadre as well as supporters in neighbouring countries (notably Cambodia). See also Phoenix Program (also known as Phung Hoang). The Viet Cong also used death squads of their own against civilians for political reasons.

Argentina used extrajudicial killings as way of crushing the liberal and communist opposition to the military junta during the 'Dirty war' of the late 1960s and most of the 1970s. Alianza Anticomunista Argentina was a far-right death squad mainly active during the "Dirty War". The Chilean Junta of 1972 to 1992 also committed such killings; see Operation Condor for examples.

During the Salvadoran civil war, death squads achieved notoriety when far-right vigilantes assassinated Archbishop Óscar Romero for his social activism in March 1980. In December 1980, three American nuns, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Maura Clarke, and a lay worker, Jean Donovan, were raped and murdered by a military unit later found to have been acting on specific orders. Death squads were instrumental in killing hundreds of peasants and activists, including such notable priests as Rutilio Grande. Because the death squads involved were found to have been soldiers of the Salvadoran military, which was receiving U.S. funding and training from American advisors during the Carter administration,[6] these events prompted outrage in the U.S. and led to a temporary cutoff in military aid from the Reagan administration[citation needed], although Death Squad activity stretched well into the Reagan years (1981–1989) as well.

Honduras also had death squads active through the 1980s, the most notorious of which was Battalion 316. Hundreds of people, including teachers, politicians and union bosses, were assassinated by government-backed forces. Battalion 316 received substantial support and training from the United States Central Intelligence Agency.[30]

During the 1950s a regime was put in power through the efforts of the CIA, in which the Shah (hereditary monarch) used SAVAK death squads to kill thousands. After the revolution death squads were used by the new regime. In 1983 the CIA gave one of the leaders of Iran Khomeni information on KGB agents in Iran. This information was probably used.The Iranian regime later used death squads occasionally throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s however by the 2000s it has appeared to almost entirely if not all cease their operation.

The Mossad has been suspect for a series of extrajudicial execution sometimes committed abroad with alleged complicity of other government officials.[citation needed] The organisation has recently been blamed for the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, 49, a Hamas commander, in Dubai

The Philippines has had its share of extrajudicial atrocities and related political violence as well, the most recent being the Maguindanao massacre in Mindanao (November 2009).

Reportedly thousands of extrajudicial killings occurred during the 2003 anti-drug effort of Thailand's prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Rumors still persist that there is collusion between the government, rogue military officers and radical right wing/ anti-drugs death squads

So, it would seem that death squads are pretty ubiquitous

Why is "assassinate" not a sufficientterm to use here, and how does the "extra-judicial" modifier make the difference? Are you simply eliding between "assassination" and "extra-judicial killing" without thinking about it?

It would seem so

Again, facially uncontroversial but completely backwards in actual context. Enemy combattants have never been entitled to due process, and there is no basis for a civil society including both the USA and Al Qaeda to lose in the first place.

I would say that the Geneva conventions, Nuremberg trials and UN Declaration on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts seem to imply otherwise. Of course some states like to think that international law is beneath them.

 

[adoucette]

Thats obvious. For example:

Not likely.
The Wiki-leak cable doesn't prove anything and the description of the event pretty much precludes that analysis.

The U.S. troops were met with gunfire, Alston said, that lasted about 25 minutes. After the firefight ended, Alston wrote, the "troops entered the house, handcuffed all residents and executed all of them.

BS

In fact there isn't any actual evidence presented to corroborate that story.

Photos taken by the French Press show that the victims were not shot in the head and their hands weren't bound by anything, including handcuffs, making those later allegations (the ones in the UN cable from Wikileaks) clearly LIES intended to blame the US soldiers for these deaths.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military_clears_troops_in_ishaqi_incident/

I would say that the Geneva conventions, Nuremberg trials and UN Declaration on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts seem to imply otherwise. Of course some states like to think that international law is beneath them.

Nope, his killing was perfectly legal under the Geneva conventions.
You brought up this allegation so it's up to you to show where in the Geneva Conventions his killing was not allowed and post it.

This might help though:

a person accused of taking part in or supporting armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, and of thereby losing rights and protections such as those of the Geneva Conventions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing

Arthur

 

[S.A.M.]

Not likely.
The Wiki-leak cable doesn't prove anything and the description of the event pretty much precludes that analysis.

Thats okay - any analysis is irrelevant since we're talking war and extrajudicial killing. There is no need to prove anything.

BS

In fact there isn't any actual evidence presented to corroborate that story.

Again, irrelevant. Evidence is part of due process, its not required for extra legal killings

Photos taken by the French Press show that the victims were not shot in the head and their hands weren't bound by anything, including handcuffs, making those later allegations (the ones in the UN cable from Wikileaks) clearly LIES intended to blame the US soldiers for these deaths.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/military_clears_troops_in_ishaqi_incident/

Can we see these pictures of burned out bodies autopsied by the Iraqi doctors and confirmed by Philip Alston, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions? Oh wait, evidentiary disclosure = due process, we're looking for elusive WMDs in Iraq through extra legal proceedings where even 5 year olds are enemy combatants

Nope, his killing was perfectly legal under the Geneva conventions.
You brought up this allegation so it's up to you to show where in the Geneva Conventions his killing was not allowed and post it.

I'm sure you believe that - you probably think Yemen constitutes a war zone and American citizens in Yemen constitute prisoners of war who can be killed without any accountability as well. But then, you're the dumb people going broke over stupid wars so its not a epiphany.

This might help though:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing

Arthur

Yeah, they should take it up in lieu of the justice system

 

[adoucette]

Thats okay - any analysis is irrelevant since we're talking war and extrajudicial killing. There is no need to prove anything.

Yes there is, none of these people would ever make it on a list.

Can we see these pictures of burned out bodies

The link had a link to the pictures of the bodies.
They are gruesome, but don't agree with the "all were shot in the head and all were handcuffed" claim that was supposedly seen later at the autopsy.

I'm sure you believe that - you probably think Yemen constitutes a war zone and American citizens in Yemen constitute prisoners of war who can be killed without any accountability as well.

Killing terrorists doesn't require them to be in a War Zone or holding a gun.

The applicable ICRC interpretive guidance indicates that civilians who lead terrorist organizations, for example, by virtue of their position never literally pick up arms themselves, but by the same token they never lay them down, and are therefore legitimate targeted killing targets

Arthur

 

[quadraphonics]

Thats obvious. For example:

I'm not seeing what that example has to do with the topic.

I am seeing where it makes for an inflammatory derail, though.

You're right, it should be extrajudicial killing, which by definition is unlawful.

"Extrajudicial killing" does not include killing enemy combattants in wars.

Which is exactly why all of the debate is over the question of when an American citizen can be classified as such. It isn't even controversial, when the target isn't an American citizen.

I would say that the Geneva conventions, Nuremberg trials and UN Declaration on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts seem to imply otherwise.

Those laws only cover prisoners, civilians and wounded. It is uncontroversial that Al-Awlaki would be entitled to due process if he'd surrendered or been captured. The entire basis for the administration's position in favor of drone strike is that such wasn't going to occur.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm sure you believe that - you probably think Yemen constitutes a war zone and American citizens in Yemen constitute prisoners of war who can be killed without any accountability as well. But then, you're the dumb people going broke over stupid wars so its not a epiphany.

How about instead of insulting people and issuing slurs at entire nationalities, you actually try to address the substance of the issue?

 

[Tiassa]

American Entitlement: How dare a foreigner say about us what we say about ourselves

How about instead of insulting people and issuing slurs at entire nationalities, you actually try to address the substance of the issue?

I like this American habit of ours; we criticize our governments, not just stopping at what we really think is the problem. We will slander and libel politicians, private institutions, and even individuals if it comes down to it.

But oh, heaven help us all if someone who isn't an American points out the same things we say about ourselves, then it's "insulting people and issuing slurs at entire nationalities".

Look, we're a nation of idiots who have run ourselves willingly and deliberately into financial crisis.

Life goes on. We can cry about it, or we can get smart.

 

[quadraphonics]

The Pitfalls of White Guilt

I like this American habit of ours; we criticize our governments, not just stopping at what we really think is the problem. We will slander and libel politicians, private institutions, and even individuals if it comes down to it.

But oh, heaven help us all if someone who isn't an American points out the same things we say about ourselves, then it's "insulting people and issuing slurs at entire nationalities".

Boy, you sure nailed me there. I mean, look at how often I go around saying things like "Americans are so dumb! LOL!" Clearly, I only object when S.A.M. does it because I'm a total racist, or something.

It's not like I've ever complained at BillyT's "Americans are idiots" rhetoric or anything consistent like that. Or generally reject the premise that large groups of people are basically stupid/evil/insane in favor of structural explanations for apparently-perverse outcomes. No, indeed, I am nothing more or less than a token of whatever national pet peeve you can cook up for excusing S.A.M.'s misbehavior on any given day. So there's no need to consider my actual behavior and stances - simply pigeonholing me with "America" will do just fine. Plus, individual hypocrisy on my part wouldn't justify excusing S.A.M.'s clear violation of the forum rules, so it's a good thing that I am instantiating some larger, overarching Exceptionalism for you to wave your hands at.

And it's certainly not like there's any salient difference between internal and external criticisms. Your own liberal "what are we to do?!" hand-wringing is exactly the same as S.A.M.'s gleeful "die in a fire, bitch!" spite, clearly. She's in the same boat as we are, and just trying to help us dig our way out (of a mixed metaphor, and so much more) - it's so obvious now! How could I have read that response as the cheap, insulting evasion (and escalation to nationalist flame-war) that it so clearly was, especially in light of S.A.M.'s impressive record at spurring insight and elevated discourse here? It's all just my own reactionary insecurity, clearly, and nothing else.

Look, we're a nation of idiots who have run ourselves willingly and deliberately into financial crisis.

This has what to do with the topic again? I'm not allowed to object to S.A.M. calling someone (and his nationality) "dumb people" for daring to challenge her (totally unsubstantiated) assertions about the Geneva Conventions, because... the country I live in produced a financial crisis? Or what?

Do you really want to lay this out as a serious standard for relating to posters here? Because it clearly adds up to a justification for a raging identity politics flamewar.

Life goes on. We can cry about it, or we can get smart.

Nobody is going to get any smarter by avoiding the actual issues relevant to this topic in favor of pigeonholing others as tokens of their own political bugbears and launching flamewars on that premise. If that kind of nonsense were effective, SciForums would have engendered total world peace years ago.

It should be clear by now that I don't like adoucette any more than the next guy, but I don't see where he's crossed any lines of etiquette here, and he is pursuing relevant aspects of the legal situation that demand difficult answers. Given such, I find this kind of insulting dismissal:

I'm sure you believe that - you probably think Yemen constitutes a war zone and American citizens in Yemen constitute prisoners of war who can be killed without any accountability as well. But then, you're the dumb people going broke over stupid wars so its not a epiphany.

to be nothing more or less than threadshitting. S.A.M. doesn't want to grapple with the hard questions or substantiate her assertions, and so when such is demanded of her she responds with a big "fuck you and your country!"

You're burning through credibility by not only sticking up for that kind of childish bullshit, but going so far as to attack me for daring to complain, and in similarly cheap terms at that.

If you want to smarten up, the place to start might be the object lesson you've just produced in exactly how and why your politics are so ineffectual.

Or you could give S.A.M. your own advice - instead of crying and flaming when she encounters an audience that demands substantive, reasoned argumentation, she should buckle down, get her position and supporting materials sorted out, and so come back with arguments that are both effective and mature. Isn't that how things are, ideally, supposed to work around here, and isn't the corrosiveness of insult and flaming to that goal supposed to be the justification for the rules against such? Or are you more interested in instantiating the classic criticisms of white guilt by carving out exceptions for your pet brown person?

 

[Believe]

It doesn't matter if the guy was involved or not, he was denied due process so we don't know what he did and to what extent he was involved because he was smoked. Do you agree that the government makes mistakes when they are not transparent? Would you agree that a government that has this type of power can abuse it if its not transparent? Would you agree that your founding fathers included the fifth amendment for a reason?

It matters very much in fact. We are at WAR and have declaired WAR on Al-Qaeda so if the man is part of Al-Qaeda he is a casulaty of WAR meaning due process was not DUE.

 

[Tiassa]

The Middling Extremist

Boy, you sure nailed me there. I mean, look at how often I go around saying things like "Americans are so dumb! LOL!" Clearly, I only object when S.A.M. does it because I'm a total racist, or something.

I would refer you to Lisa Simpson, but I forget the episode.

All I'm getting at is that this is a common phenomenon: We can pick on our own, but how dare you, an outsider pick on ours in the same way.

And it's certainly not like there's any salient difference between internal and external criticisms. Your own liberal "what are we to do?!" hand-wringing is exactly the same as S.A.M.'s gleeful "die in a fire, bitch!" spite, clearly.

I think that if you were to try to get to know S.A.M. at all outside the context of Sciforums, you would find she's not so objectionable.

This has what to do with the topic again? I'm not allowed to object to S.A.M. calling someone (and his nationality) "dumb people" for daring to challenge her (totally unsubstantiated) assertions about the Geneva Conventions, because... the country I live in produced a financial crisis? Or what?

It has nothing to do with "allowing" you anything. Rather, it has to do with the idea that it is somehow more offensive when someone outside the clan makes the same criticism as someone within.

Nobody is going to get any smarter by avoiding the actual issues relevant to this topic in favor of pigeonholing others as tokens of their own political bugbears and launching flamewars on that premise. If that kind of nonsense were effective, SciForums would have engendered total world peace years ago.

Nobody is going to get any smarter, sir, running from the truth.

It should be clear by now that I don't like adoucette any more than the next guy, but I don't see where he's crossed any lines of etiquette here, and he is pursuing relevant aspects of the legal situation that demand difficult answers. Given such, I find this kind of insulting dismissal:

I'm sure you believe that - you probably think Yemen constitutes a war zone and American citizens in Yemen constitute prisoners of war who can be killed without any accountability as well. But then, you're the dumb people going broke over stupid wars so its not a epiphany.

to be nothing more or less than threadshitting. S.A.M. doesn't want to grapple with the hard questions or substantiate her assertions, and so when such is demanded of her she responds with a big "fuck you and your country!"

Check your sources, sir.

Meanwhile, I don't think S.A.M.'s suggestion is necessarily far from the truth. That is, if she is so inappropriate in her suggestion, we need to consider our own general outlook. Specifically, she is pointing out the necessary argument justifying this suspension of Amendment V.

Perhaps she is wrong in attributing that perspective to you, but if so, I can only wonder at what argument you're pushing.

Indeed, I have even pointed to the argument of John O. Brennan, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, as derived from an article you provided. And what did I tell Mrs.Lucysnow, another avid critic of our assassination policy?

Now, regardless of whether you might think that all adds up to a snow job, these are fundamental considerations in the legal questions surrounding the hit.​

I find it odd that when I do, in fact, take a moderate, middling, wishy-washy position, I should be viewed as some sort of extremist. I don't have an answer, which is why I'm not jumping on S.A.M. and Lucy's bandwagon. But the underlying argument S.A.M. notes is a question of the legal context of this hit.

If one accepts Brennan's arguments about what constitutes a "hot" battlefield, or an "imminent" threat, then this assassination is all good and clear. If not, there are some very important questions to be resolved.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not seeing what that example has to do with the topic.

I am seeing where it makes for an inflammatory derail, though.

You don't? It was a direct response to your assertion about the "demands" of war

Nothing particularly controversial about that statement on its face, but in context it is pretty oblivious - the reason we wage wars rather than simply arrest and try enemies isn't that we prefer war to trial. It's that war demands such a response.

Or have you forgotten the reasons the US is at war with Iraq?

"Extrajudicial killing" does not include killing enemy combattants in wars.

Is the US at war with Yemen? With American citizens?

Which is exactly why all of the debate is over the question of when an American citizen can be classified as such. It isn't even controversial, when the target isn't an American citizen.

We haven't seen the US in the Hague yet. I doubt the complacency with which Americans view their killing of anyone anywhere on the planet as "uncontroversial" would pass muster in international courts of law

Those laws only cover prisoners, civilians and wounded. It is uncontroversial that Al-Awlaki would be entitled to due process if he'd surrendered or been captured. The entire basis for the administration's position in favor of drone strike is that such wasn't going to occur.

And the basis for such a position being?

"Americans are so dumb! LOL!" Clearly, I only object when S.A.M. does it

Oh look! A "SAM says so and so"! Link pls. Unless you are of the position that ALL Americans believe they are at war with Yemen and any American citizen in Yemen are freely available for target practice with drones if the ethical and truthful government of the United States of America has determined him as an "enemy combatant" without the necessity of extradition or trial, in which case, I have to say the whole country except the government will qualify as dumb

 

[quadraphonics]

All I'm getting at is that this is a common phenomenon: We can pick on our own, but how dare you, an outsider pick on ours in the same way.

Except it's not "the same way." It can't be - exactly because outsiders are not insiders. Insiders have a stake in the fate of their identity group, regardless of how they feel about the group. Outsiders, not so much.

And everyone understands this. For example, the phrase "Nigerians are stupid" carries vastly different implications depending on whether the speak is Nigerian or not. If they are, it's almost surely nothing more than an expression of simple frustration, not to be taken at face value. If they are not, it looks an awful lot like nasty bigotry. No?

I think that if you were to try to get to know S.A.M. at all outside the context of Sciforums, you would find she's not so objectionable.

I'm sure you're correct, and I'm also sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with anything inside the context of SciForums. My interactions with her are necessarily limited to the facet corresponding to the persona she presents here.

Although, we should say "outside the context of Politics/World Events." I get along fine with S.A.M. in most other SciForums contexts - including Open Government. No? Why else would I even bother? Do I display difficulty ignoring the tides of throw-away bigots who wash up here? It's exactly because I recognize that S.A.M. has something valuable to contribute that I am frustrated.

So this is as good a time as any for me to present my radical plan for peace with S.A.M.: we start up a SciForums fund to send her to grad school at some Left Coast liberal bastion (Berkeley, ideally), where she will have excellent opportunities to advance her career and up her activist game. Then we all meet up for beers and/or dosas and recollect our favorite Bush jokes. What do you say, S.A.M.? Up for a PhD?

Ideally we then continue the SciForums Peace & Education scholarship program to uplift and enable other worthy SFers.

It has nothing to do with "allowing" you anything.

It quite clearly does.

Rather, it has to do with the idea that it is somehow more offensive when someone outside the clan makes the same criticism as someone within.

In the first place - again - I don't see where I've exhibited such a double-standard.

In the second place - again - I don't see where the criticisms in question are, in fact, "the same." As I explained already.

If you don't want to engage that difference of opinion, well, that's your prerogative. But it also means that your attempt to materially convince me of this point is at an end, and that there is no purpose in repeating yourself.

But then, reading your response, I'm getting the impression that you're conflating my objection with something larger than it is. The objection in question addressed exactly the substitution of insult and flaming for serious response, and nothing more. I didn't complain at nationality flaming because S.A.M. ventured an opinion on the Constitution. I complained because she said adoucette and Americans generally (and, really, anyone who disagrees with her position) are dumb people, and expressed glee at the prospect of national failure. That was the post you picked up and ran with a condescending mockery of, and held up as emblematic of some hypocritical sense of entitlement.

Nobody is going to get any smarter, sir, running from the truth.

Good thing I'm not doing that, then. Now, how about you stop constructing these elaborate excuses for avoiding straightforward issues of things like insults and flaming?

Check your sources, sir.

Whoops, screwed up the attribution. Will edit to fix shortly.

Meanwhile, I don't think S.A.M.'s suggestion is necessarily far from the truth.

The suggestion at issue - that adoucette, and Americans in general, are "dumb people?"

Well, maybe in the sense that pretty much all humans, or groups of humans, are in some absolute sense "dumb." Although it's equally true to say that they're "smart." But this is not the point S.A.M. was making. It was quite clearly implied that some other, unspecified groups (which include S.A.M.) are not "the dumb people."

Or are you referring to some other suggestion, apart from the one this digression addresses?

Specifically, she is pointing out the necessary argument justifying this suspension of Amendment V.

... ah. That wasn't the material I took issue with, now was it? The complaint you took issue with addressed exactly the nationality flaming and insult, as such. I requested that she not do that kind of thing, and instead stick to responding seriously, and you took that as an occasion to project what is clearly a long-nurtured talking point onto me and chastise me for it.

Perhaps she is wrong in attributing that perspective to you,

You may recall that you launched this digression in response to my objection to S.A.M.'s attribution of stupidity to adoucette and America generally, on the basis that such constitutes threadshitting.

but if so, I can only wonder at what argument you're pushing.

In this digression? The argument would be that S.A.M. ought to play by the stated forum rules and not insult or flame.

In this thread generally? My basic point would be that the analyses offered up have repeatedly veered away from addressing the relevant positions, in favor of convenient strawmen and other distractions. Culminating in displays of bigotry and threadshitting.

I find it odd that when I do, in fact, take a moderate, middling, wishy-washy position, I should be viewed as some sort of extremist.

I'm not seeing where I've accused you of any kind of extremism. My complaint is that you're sticking up for insults and flaming, and constructing a basically-irrelevant politicized excuse to do so.

But the underlying argument S.A.M. notes is a question of the legal context of this hit.

And the openly-offensive, "fuck you and your country for being dumb enough to disagree with me" line she packages such in guarantees that none of the underlying issues will get seriously addressed. Such being the reason I asked her to refrain from such, and instead behave in a more mature, productive way.

If one accepts Brennan's arguments about what constitutes a "hot" battlefield, or an "imminent" threat, then this assassination is all good and clear. If not, there are some very important questions to be resolved.

Yeah, I know. As you note, I brought that stuff up in the first place, exactly in an effort to keep the thread on track. So I'm unclear why you've gone to such lengths to object when I ask S.A.M. to stick to that stuff and not do the whole cheap flamewar thing.

Except you seem to have forgotten what you were objecting to in the first place, by this point.

 

[S.A.M.]

On the purported uncontroversial nature of bombing non-Americans anywhere after designating them as "enemy combatants" :

In 2001 the United States had perhaps fifty drones; now it deploys around 7,000. The great majority of these are intended for observation, reconnaissance or bomb-damage assessment. But there are hundreds of armed-drones available, and the US air-force training more “remote pilots” to operate these than pilots for strike-aircraft and interceptors (see Elisabeth Bumiller & Thom Shanker, “War Evolves With Drones, Some Tiny as Bugs”, New York Times, 18 June 2011).

This development suggests that the use of armed-drones will expand even further as part of the broad campaign (albeit no longer characterised as a “war on terror”) against paramilitary forces seen as threats to western interests. The seductive appeal of drones to military strategists and political leaders is clear. But they raise many ethical and legal questions that so far have been too little aired.

This makes all the more timely a new report - Drones Don't Allow Hit and Run (June 2011) - published by the Oxford Research Group’s programme on Recording Casualties of Armed Conflicts, which in turn developed in close connection with the Iraq Body Count.

The main author of the ORG report, which was launched on 23 June 2011 at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, is the leading international lawyer Susan Breau, professor of international law at Flinders University in Adelaide, with the additional contribution of Rachel Joyce of King's College, London. Breau and Joyce argue convincingly that a number of conventions, charters and international customary humanitarian law combine to provide an international legal obligation on states using armed-drones to respond to certain major consequences of their actions.

These legal documents include the Geneva conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, various United Nations reports and statements, and case law from European and Inter-American human-rights courts.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/drone_warfare_the_moral_and_legal_cost

The key conclusions of Drones Don't Allow Hit and Run are simple - but their implications are huge:

* “There is a legal requirement to identify all casualties that result from any drone use, under any and all circumstances”

* “The universal human right which specifies that no-one be 'arbitrarily' deprived of his or her life depends on the identity of the deceased being established as to reparations or compensation for possible wrongful killing, injury and other offences.”

Also I see one of two things happening:

1. The US gets taken to the Hague for its use of drones against civilians

2. Drones become the weapons of choice for everyone based on the US precedent.

I wonder how uncontroversial that would be

 

[quadraphonics]

You don't? It was a direct response to your assertion about the "demands" of war

"Direct response" in the sense that you quoted my assertion, and then inserted that material below the quote, sure.

But beyond that, I see no point in trying to read tea leaves to infer what point you think you're making. If you don't want to bother actually making whatever point it is you have in mind, then how about you also stop complaining that I don't see what your point is supposed to be? At present, all I've got is a link-dump about some other issue that didn't involve the executive ordering an assassination, and some further refusal to materially state your position.

Or have you forgotten the reasons the US is at war with Iraq?

The US isn't at war with Iraq. But, no, I have not forgotten the reasons for the invasion or various subsequent developments. Do you have some relevant point in mind, or are you just playing cheap blogsman games now?

Is the US at war with Yemen? With American citizens?

The US is at war with Al Qaeda. What do you propose the US should do about American citizens who join Al Qaeda, and operate in places where the nominal state authorities do not, in fact, exercise sufficient control to prevent such operations? You don't like the drone-strike option - fine - but what is your preferred alternative? What judicial remedy is available to us?

I doubt the complacency with which Americans view their killing of anyone anywhere on the planet as "uncontroversial" would pass muster in international courts of law

So what? Is there even an international court with the appropriate jurisdiction, laws and precedents to ajudicate something like this?

Meanwhile, the point I was getting at there, was that this didn't become a serious controversy (among Americans, primarily, but also more generally) until an American citizen was the target. The "American" part seems to be a much bigger deal for people, than the "killing" part. Americans are pointedly not so complacent about these practices - and many hold that this stuff will not pass muster in American courts of law - when the target is an American citizen. Hence this thread. I suggest that this feature of the debate tells us something more important than do the legalistic arguments about procedure and process.

And the basis for such a position being?

That Yemen had had an order out to apprehend the guy for some time, and showed no signs of success. Which is unsurprising given the tenuous nature of the Yemeni government even before its present travails. Nor should it escape notice that paramilitary terrorist groups make a point of basing themselves exactly in such lawless areas for precisely this reason.

Do you disagree? Is it your assessment that Yemen was/is capable of apprehending such a person? If so, why didn't that already happen, given that the dude was a wanted man in Yemen for quite some time before this? Exactly how long are Americans obliged to sit on their hands waiting for semi-failed states to get their police forces in order, before we can act?

Oh look! A "SAM says so and so"! Link pls.

It's been directly referenced more than enough times in this thread already, and anyway I don't see you disclaiming the sentiment in the first place.

Unless you are of the position that ALL Americans believe they are at war with Yemen

Nobody thinks America is at war with Yemen. The fact remains that the Yemeni state excercises only tenuous authority over its nominal territory, and that paramilitary groups that are waging war against the USA continue to exploit that situation to use said territory as a safe haven and operational base. Do you deny that this is the basic situation?

and any American citizen in Yemen are freely available for target practice with drones if the ethical and truthful government of the United States of America has determined him as an "enemy combatant" without the necessity of extradition or trial,

Again, the precedent requires that extradition/trial be impracticable, and that harm be imminent, in addition to the basic enemy combattant status. For non-US-citizens, the only bar seems to be the enemy combattant status.

Also, are you suggesting that there is some material doubt as to Al-Awlaki's affiliations? Or making a purely procedural objection ("without the necessity of extradition or trial")? Do you contend that the enemy combattant designation in this particular case was materially incorrect, or only that the process for reaching that outcome was insufficiently transparent and rigorous?

in which case, I have to say the whole country except the government will qualify as dumb

Well then, since nobody holds that position, it must follow that you don't have to say that. And also that your going out of your way to say such things, in spite of that, is trolling.

 

[quadraphonics]

On the purported uncontroversial nature of bombing non-Americans anywhere after designating them as "enemy combatants" :

If the worst that leading international human rights lawyers can come up with is that the USA needs to keep better track of collateral damage and pay reparations for such (i.e., just like with bombings done from planes, or with missiles not launched from drones), then that looks to me like a pretty clear affirmation that the basic use of drone strikes is indeed uncontroversial. Do you have any link-dumps that actually materially challenge the use of drones as such?

1. The US gets taken to the Hague for its use of drones against civilians

The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over any of the parties/locations where drones have been used - except Afghanistan, AFAIK - and the UNSC is certainly never going to refer such a case to the ICC.

2. Drones become the weapons of choice for everyone based on the US precedent.

This seems fairly straightforward (it's totally normal and expected for successful weapons innovations to proliferate), but actually will not add up to much change from the status quo. Drones are expensive, and can only really be used once you've already established air supremacy in the area. So the statement would be "drones become the weapons of choice for everyone who already has overwhelming advantages in air power." I.e., pretty much exactly the situation we have today. I guess the question is whether terrorists will make good on cheapo drone bombings? Even if they do, still seems preferable to suicide hijacking.

I wonder how uncontroversial that would be

No more so than the status quo, since the US isn't going to get taken to the ICC, and pretty much everyone who is in a position to use drones is already doing so.

 

[S.A.M.]

Do you disagree? Is it your assessment that Yemen was/is capable of apprehending such a person? If so, why didn't that already happen, given that the dude was a wanted man in Yemen for quite some time before this? Exactly how long are Americans obliged to sit on their hands waiting for semi-failed states to get their police forces in order, before we can act?

Act on what, exactly? The US is behaving like a mafia cartel and has disposed of any pretence at acting ethically, so the question should be, how long is everyone else supposed to look the other way while drone addicted Americans attack people based on flimsy evidence which would never stand up to any examination? e.g.

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. . . . But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Someone spoke to someone on “a phone known to have been used by Awlaki”: maybe it was Abdulmutallab, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe it was Awlaki, maybe it wasn’t. Who knows? Who cares? Some officials “believed” it may have involved those two, so it’s time to kill Awlaki. Remember, Good Democrats hate the death penalty because they think it’s so terribly barbaric to execute people whose guilt is in doubt (even if, unlike Awlaki, they’ve enjoyed an indictment and full jury trial, lawyers, the right to examine evidence and to confront witnesses, multiple appeals, and habeas petitions). There’s also this:

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee’s computer showed what an investigator described as ” operational contact” between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother’s side when the messages were dispatched.

There was a “strong suspicion” — not that Awlaki participated in this email plotting, but that he was “at the side” of someone who did. Who needs “beyond a reasonable doubt’? That is so pre-9/11. ”A strong suspicion” that he may have been next to someone plotting an attack: that’s the McCarthyite standard Democratic Party loyalists are holding up to justify the due-process-free execution of their fellow citizen by a secret, lawless White House “panel.”

What’s crucial to keep in mind is that nobody can see this “evidence” which these anonymous government officials are claiming exists. It’s in their exclusive possession. As a result, they’re able to characterize it however they want, to present it in the best possible light to support their pro-assassination position, and to prevent any detection of its flaws. As any lawyer will tell you, anyone can make a case for anything when they’re in exclusive possession of all the relevant evidence and are the only side from whom one is hearing; all evidence becomes less compelling when it’s subjected to adversarial scrutiny. Yet even given all those highly favorable pro-government conditions here, it’s obvious — even these officials admit — that the evidence is “partial,” “patchy,” based on “suspicions” rather than knowledge.

But no matter. Officials in the Obama White House and then the President decreed in secret that Awlaki should die. So the U.S. Government killed him. Republicans who always cheer acts of violence against Muslims are joined by Democrats who reflexively cheer what this Democratic President does, and now this death panel for U.S. citizens — operating with no known rules, transparency, or oversight — is entrenched as bipartisan consensus and a permanent fixture of American political life. I’m sure this will never be abused: unrestrained power exercised in secret has a very noble history in the U.S. (Reuters says that the only American they could confirm on the hit list is Awlaki, though Dana Priest reported last year that either three or four Americans were on a hit list).

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/singleton/

I think the US should be taken to the Hague and asked to present evidence justifying its extrajudicial assassination of "alleged" "suspects". It's clearly established its inability to offer a fair trial to anyone itself. And it lacks the credibility to support its vague assertions of guilt

 

[quadraphonics]

Act on what, exactly?

? You are unfamiliar with Al-Awlaki's output and activities as they pertain to the USA?

The US is behaving like a mafia cartel and has disposed of any pretence at acting ethically,

How do you figure? What's the ethical difference between a mafia cartel and a nation-state, in terms of warfare?

so the question should be, how long is everyone else supposed to look the other way while drone addicted Americans attack people based on flimsy evidence which would never stand up to any examination? e.g.

Who's looking the other way?

How do we know what level of examination the evidence would stand up to, when we are denied access to it?

Do you materially dispute the enemy combattant designation, or the impracticability of apprehension, or the imminent harm criterion in this particular case, or are you advancing a procedural criticism?

I think the US should be taken to the Hague

"Taken" by whom?

and asked to present evidence justifying its extrajudicial assassination of "alleged" "suspects".

? Why the quotes on "suspects?" Does the US assert that enemy combattants are (criminal?) "suspects?"

It's clearly established its inability to offer a fair trial to anyone itself.

But Al-Awlaki was an American citizen - hence this thread.

And it lacks the credibility to support its vague assertions of guilt

Lacks the credibility with whom? You? The international community? The US electorate? What are the implications of this lack of credibility?