For everybody commenting on this article, please take 45 minutes to read the document. It applies only to the following scenario:
1) The US Citizen has to be a Sr. Operational Leader of al-Qa'ida.
2) An informed high level official of the US Government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of Violent Attack against the United States.
3) Capture is infeasible, and the United states continues to monitor whether capture is feasible.
4) The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.
This Document does not consider American Citizens who are not Sr. Operational Leaders of al-Qa'ida. If you are just an American Citizen who has become a low-level Al-Qa'ida terrorist who is planning imminent attacks on the United States, that the government has discovered, and they are unable to capture you, this document does NOT provide justification to target you.
It's a dense document, and hard to read with all that NBC NEWS watermarking, but take the time to read it before commenting on it.
Because the military and law enforcement obey rules and don't break them all the time with ZERO punishment for doing so, or if it's bad enough they find one scapegoat for the whole chain of command like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England
We enable pretty freaking horrible things all the time but the worst is that we justify it.
How about the kid in Gitmo who killed himself after being found innocent TWICE but they still refused to release him?
England served jail time and was dishonorably discharged. The others in Abu Ghraib were also punished in accordance with General Court Martial proceedings, so I'm not seeing the "ZERO punishment" part of that.
Well, the OIC for Abu Ghraib didn't get court-martialed or relieved for dereliction of duty; did they? It was a case where a systematized culture of impunity for bad acts was condoned until it became a public relations issue; at which time only those at the lowest level were publicly punished; and the responsibility for allowing such a culture to flourish was never properly accounted for.
As with much of American society these days, the application of justice is capricious and unpredictable; with the signal exception being that the upper echelons suffer fewer consequences than the grunts who do the work.
There's a good This American Life episode interviewing England. She doesn't exactly portray herself in the most flattering light (which is why I think she's telling the truth) and it's interesting to hear what she has to say about the before, during, and after.
In particular, this part is interesting on page 10:
"Finally, the department notes that under the circumstances described in this paper, there exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations. It is well established that "matters intimately related to foreign policy and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention" because such matters "frequently turn on standards that defy judicial application," or, "involve the exercise of a discretion demonstrably committed to the executive or legislature" Were a court to intervene here, it might be required to inappropriately to issue an ex ante command to the President and the officials responsible for operations with respect to their specific tactical judgment to mount a potential lethal operation against a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces. And judicial enforcement of such orders would require the Court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the President and his national security advisors as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force [emphasis mine]
edit: The entire foundation for Document this is based on the following from page 14:
"The United States is currently in the midst of a congressionally authorized armed conflict with al-Qa'ida and associated forces, and may act in national self defense to protect U.S. persons and interests who are under continual threat of violent attack by certain al-Q'aida operatives planning operations against them."
What is the requirement to be identified as an operational leader of al'qaeda? What checks and balances are in place to prevent extra-judicial killing of US citizens outside of American soil? Are there any?
Also, what happens if, say, you happen to accidentally do business, unknowingly, with such a person and end up in the same vicinity as them when a drone strike is opportune? Is your life forfeit regardless of the other restrictions?
Why is this a matter of an internal white paper instead of a national federal policy debate? This is not a good trend.
It might, but it doesn't clearly do so. Due process does not mean a trial. It means what is reasonable under the circumstances. The length of the paper tries to show that there are no reasonable alternatives in the case capture is not feasible. It's a non trivial argument.
Yes it does, because the protections provided by the constitution allow for the deprivation of life, liberty, property, etc. in accordance with the "due process of law."
There is no law here. Only an arbitrary, internal memo.
Police routinely use lethal force against armed suspects. The armed bank-robber doesn't get a trial before he gets shot. While this is a low-bar, morally, it's not something unlawful. It's not even particularly controversial, unless there's a clear abuse of power.
The difficulty with this kind of armed-conflict is similar to the problems with prosecuting higher-ups in organized crime. They won't be holding the gun, or directly doing the dirty work. They are actively involved in planning operations, though.
Is this a dangerous policy? Sure. Will there be cases of abuse? Yes, like any government policy (note, I'm not singling out government here; it's a property of any collective system where individuals don't bear full responsibility for their decisions).
Yeah, there is no room for abuse in that little gem.
The US Supreme Court has already decided at least once that the AUMF could not be cited in defense of the goverment's actions (in this case, military tribunals) because those actions violated the principles of the Geneva Conventions, among others.
That's the whole problem with this. The accused never get a chance to defend themselves in court, are presumed guilty and sentenced without any reasonable defense.
I think there's a major qualitative difference between what process you owe to people who are already in your custody and that which you owe to people who are at large and attempting to do you harm. Likewise we find the death of a suspect or convict while in custody far more troubling that that of someone who engages in a shootout with police rather than face capture.
I'd be willing to believe that is all if Obama (or was it Bush) didn't start enlisting children as possible militant targets. If they can bend that rule to change statistics, they or someone else could bend the rule to mark anyone as target.
Example
1. Well you looked like one because of the beard
2. You or someone that looks like you promised to "Cleanse the US from face of Earth", etc.
3. You had a piece of wood that looked like a gun, so capture was infeasible
4. State you belonged, sponsored some terrorist 10 years ago.
1) The US Citizen has to be a Sr. Operational Leader of al-Qa'ida.
2) An informed high level official of the US Government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of Violent Attack against the United States.
3) Capture is infeasible, and the United states continues to monitor whether capture is feasible.
4) The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.
This Document does not consider American Citizens who are not Sr. Operational Leaders of al-Qa'ida. If you are just an American Citizen who has become a low-level Al-Qa'ida terrorist who is planning imminent attacks on the United States, that the government has discovered, and they are unable to capture you, this document does NOT provide justification to target you.
It's a dense document, and hard to read with all that NBC NEWS watermarking, but take the time to read it before commenting on it.