
Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens - erichocean
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass
======
ghshephard
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.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
It still violates due process.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
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.

~~~
rayiner
Pursuant to the AUMF.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
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.

~~~
rayiner
None of those things are due process problems necessarily.

------
iwwr
This unchecked expansion of executive power is happening all over the world.
Enabled by technology, but also lack of public outrage, soft, welfarish*
dictatorships are in the works. Outwardly, it looks democratic, but the
democratic principle rests on a limitation of power. Currently, there is no
limit, so long as the right language and people are targeted (whistle-blowers,
traitors and ultimately, "terrorists"). The public is not yet aware of the
danger and by the time they are it may be too late.

 __*In a "guns and butter" sort of way

~~~
arrrg
Sigh. What’s this ideological drivel doing here?

Dragging welfare into this doesn’t even begin to make sense. You do it purely
for ideological reasons.

~~~
maratd
> Dragging welfare into this doesn’t even begin to make sense.

If the state feels it's appropriate to take from one and give to another, then
it must also feel that it is appropriate to simply take and eventually, not to
merely take property but life itself. It's the taking mindset and mentality
that's the problem.

~~~
arrrg
Yes, that is the ideological view exhibited here. A near perfect description
of it, actually.

What you say is not, in any sense, the truth or self-evident or anything like
that, it’s just one ideological view of many.

------
charonn0
I think I see a problem with the reasoning on the very first page (second
para.):

> The President has authority to respond to the imminent threat posed by al-
> Qa'ida and its associated forces, arising from his constitutional
> responsibility to protect the country, the inherent right of the United
> States to national self defense under international law, Congress's
> authorization of the use of all necessary and appropriate military force
> against this enemy, and _the existence of an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida
> under international law._ (emphasis mine.) <

An armed conflict under international law is a war; and war is a power of
nation states, not non-governmental actors (NGAs) no matter how violent. Not
very many years ago the US began imprisoning non-Citizens on the justification
that al Qaida (an NGA) was ineligible for protection by the Geneva, Hague, and
other conventions, and as such the prisoners were neither criminal nor
military defendants but prisoners of the President.

Now they are arguing that war _does_ exist, permitting the US government to
act violently against a US Citizen despite the Constitutional prohibition
against punishment without trial. The administration's actions are
inconsistent: despite a state of war now supposedly existing, prisoners of war
still are not afforded the rights guaranteed to PoWs; despite the writ of
habeas corpus not being suspended, US Citizens may be summarily executed at
the order of the President.

------
ck2
I'm curious if people actually have more of a problem with this than invading
Iraq which caused the death of thousands if not millions of innocents. Now
history is being rewritten that Iraq was okay. Why are American citizens more
important than thousands of innocent Iraqis?

We should be protesting war in all forms, not just assassinations.

But we're going to have enough problems domestically in a few years with
drones everywhere.

~~~
logn
Well, clearly, we invaded Iraq because it was run by a dictator executing his
own citizens, so we were justified.

~~~
camus
Saddam was US BACKED ! like Castillo , Pinochet , Palavi and countless others
, armed and supported for YEARS by USA ! there is even a footage with Rumsfeld
shaking hands with Saddam.

And you wonder why people hate you all over the arab world ? your only
strenght is fear, you definetly lost the cultural battle there.

The war in Iraq killed far more iraqis than Saddam ever did, and i'm not even
talking about the 1 millions children that died during the oil for food
program.

And yes ,they still call you the "great Satan" there. Ironic isnt it ?

~~~
logn
I was being sarcastic. It's ironic that in this case Obama is doing what we
claimed Hussein did in my comment above.

------
redthrowaway
You know what? Seems reasonable. An American citizenship should not be
considered a writ of special treatment for a terrorist. If you're going to say
that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you
have to, then you can't say that doesn't apply to those terrorists who happen
to be American.

~~~
chao-
_If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial
overview, which I think you have to_

I vehemently disagree: You don't have to think that terrorists can be killed
without judicial overview. I'm also willing to bet I'm not alone, and am
curious about why you think the opposite.

~~~
gfodor
To play devil's advocate the reason would be if the terrorist could otherwise
not be captured or detained without serious risk to American lives. The
problem is that it's hard to trust the executive to not push the limits of
what this means.

~~~
dlss
This sounds right. I guess I would be in favor of drone airstrikes that froze
suspects in carbonite so they could be collected for questioning.

However, focusing on current technology, I think the scary part about these
rules for airstrikes is:

\- Suspected people can be killed without being told that they are wanted.
This is made worse by the fact that the list of wanted people is not publicly
available.

\- Suspected people can be killed without being given the option of submitting
to trial (no "stop or I'll shoot")

The above two items make airstrikes unpalatable for me. Thankfully they don't
seem beyond remedy (perhaps version 2 of the drone shoots down a ball-and-
chain + warrant before resorting to a missile), but in the mean time I find it
very disturbing. If this was happening in America I would feel like America
was over.

~~~
anigbrowl
_the list of wanted people is not publicly available._

<http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/t11sdn.pdf> is a good proxy.

As for your other point, I'm no expert on the laws of war, but I don't believe
one is required to abstain from acting against a legitimate enemy absent a
reasonable possibility of taking them prisoner. This distinction is discussed
in the white paper; it's against the laws of war to attack an enemy who you
have taken into your confidence (eg agreed to meet under a flag of truce, or
promised safe passage as one might to a plenipotentiary), but it's quite OK to
ambush an enemy who is conducting their own operations against you.

~~~
dlss
I wasn't saying that no lists of wanted persons was publicly available... just
that no complete list of people a drone would kill on sight was available. Are
you saying the people on this list would be killed on sight? (if so, thanks
for the link) Or are you just saying that they are wanted?

As for the laws of war, I think they were created for situations where the
opponents could be easily identified. (Opponents wearing a uniform for
example).

Applying them to a situation where 'enemy' has a stochastic definition is a
dubious thing. Of course it creates benefits, but it also creates a lot of
problems. Killing people without due process, in the long run, creates an
incredible amount of ill will. I think this, beyond rhetoric about justice, is
the reason we have due process for criminal procedures -- the people who knew
the innocent person you just killed get angry with you. Even if it was an
accident. Note that this definition doesn't really effect two uniformed
opponents on a battle field -- at least not in the same sense as "John was
killed by a drone while driving to Texas for his vacation".

The other good argument for providing due process is that without due process
you give a huge weapon to your enemy... as it becomes easier to frame someone,
and as that framing becomes more deadly, it becomes easier to convert people
to your cause through blackmail.

In summary: laws of war weren't handed down on a stone tablet, they codify a
way of being that reduces the long term negative outcomes of war. When a new
form of war is crated, you probably new new laws. The old ways of minimizing
negative outcomes are probably obsolete.

~~~
anigbrowl
You did ask for wanted. I'd imagine you'd end up on this list first.

I think you're assuming that due process and judicial process are the same
thing, but I don't agree with this.

------
brianlovin
The title of this is really, really misleading.

The first paragraph:

This white paper sets forth a legal framework for the...use [of] lethal force
in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against an
American citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida

~~~
logn
Well if this justification is somehow valid for senior al-Qaida members, it
would hold for senior al-Shabaab members, senior Zetas in Mexico, senior
Capone members, senior Bloods and Crips, senior LulzSec and Anon, etc.

Then you apply the logic which hinges on it being a foreign country and
parallel that to a condition in our own country and it gets ugly. After
reading this whole memo, I actually see very little about geography or why
this wouldn't be legal in the US. The bottom of page 4 and top of 5 seem to
actually justify executions within our borders.

~~~
ghshephard
The difference is spelled out very clearly in the document. The United States
is in a state of congressionally approved armed conflict with Al Quaida. Where
they not in a state of armed conflict, then there would be no legal basis.

The consequences of going to war, is that the executive (President, acting as
Command in Chief of the armed forces) is authorized to kill the enemy without
judicial review.

------
ghshephard
Sometimes you have to kill people. One hopes that, as a nation of laws, the
United States does so within reasonable constraints and at the appropriate
time, and for the appropriate reasons.

See: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-
alaba...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/us/boy-is-safe-after-alabama-
hostage-standoff.html?hp) for a tragic example today.

I've skimmed through the entire document - it spends a lot of time talking
about things that must be tried prior to these targeted killings - including
multiple references to the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution
(Unreasonable Seizures, Due Process)

There doesn't seem any reason why this document shouldn't be made public.
Seems pretty much reasonable (if somewhat overly legalistic for this layperson
to totally follow)

~~~
nilved
> Sometimes you have to kill people.

This is not true.

~~~
tokenadult
> > Sometimes you have to kill people.

> This is not true.

The position that one must never kill someone else is certainly a defensible
position, defended over the centuries by many honorable people. I respect that
position. But, even though I have largely pacifist ancestors, I think as a
father of a daughter that if the Taliban tried to set up their women-
oppressing rule anywhere my daughter might have occasion to live or work, I
would oppose them by all means necessary, up to and including lethal force.
That's not because forcing women to be covered from head to toe when they go
out of their homes is itself a capital crime, but because some Taliban fellow-
travelers also commit capital crimes like murdering women who try to teach
mothers how to vaccinate their children to keep the children from dying from
infectious diseases. I would not be ashamed to kill a baby-killer or woman-
murderer.

AFTER EDIT: I will now take time to give a careful lawyer's read to the
document (white paper) linked to from the blog post submitted here.

[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W...](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf)

~~~
vy8vWJlco
> _I would not be ashamed to kill a baby-killer or woman-murderer._

So your ends justify their means.

------
joshfraser
The strength of your principles is only tested at the extremes. I hate
Westboro Baptist Church, but I'll support their right to say what they want,
because that's how much I believe in free speech. And even terrorists deserve
the right to a speedy and public trial if they're American. It's part of our
constitution, something we're supposed to stand for as a country. It even
makes me sad the way we handled the whole Osama Bin Laden assassination. How
much of a bigger statement would it have made to the world if we had pulled
him out and made him sit trial for his crimes? What happened to our principles
that we used to care so much about?

~~~
mc32
W/re WBC, I think while they have a right to hold views, express them, share
them, I do not think, and others have agreed[1], that they have the right to
disrupt other people's proceedings (funerals) as part of their right to free
expression.

[1] [http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-
court-d...](http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/16/3870092/appeals-court-
delivers-westboro.html)

------
olefoo
The following questions come to mind.

1\. What is "an informed, high-level official of the US government"; is it the
President only, or does it include Cabinet Members? Is it restricted to
political appointees, or does it extend into civil service roles as well?

2\. "imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" sounds like
a definition of a legal standard, what are the elements of such a standard and
would the mere possession of weaponry sufficient to carry out such an attack
meet it?

3\. The phrase "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force"
is used repeatedly in the document; what qualities put one in the category of
an "associated force"? Would it be plausible to say that Wikileaks could be
described as an associated force with al Qa'ida? Could the Syrian government
be so described? What are the strictures here?

4\. Given that several known killings of American citizens seem on the face of
it to violate the guidelines of this document; most notably the death of
Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi> it
would behoove the government to explain the apparent contradiction. Or if the
definition of "operational leader of al-Qa'ida" has been watered down to
"military aged male"; to state that publicly.

There is no question that dealing with non-state paramilitary actors
undermines the nation state paradigm that the existing law of war assumes and
that there are a number of edge cases where it is hard to determine whether a
given individual should be treated as a combatant or as a criminal; however we
as a nation and as a society cannot afford to let our leaders become mere
killers without restraint; no matter how heinous the opposition.

~~~
tptacek
The "military aged males" killed by drones aren't US citizens. This memo does
not suggest that the US can kill any military aged male regardless of
nationality.

And no, it would not be plausible to say that Wikileaks could be described as
"associated with al Qaeda". You could have used the same reasoning in the
1930s and 1940s to suggest that the US could have killed Charles Coughlin;
after all, he was on the radio advocating for Mussolini and Hitler!

~~~
olefoo
In the particular case I referenced, he was, Abdulrahman al-Alauqi was born in
Denver and was aged 16 when he was killed.

Coughlin could have faced the death penalty for sedition; but he was silenced
by his bishop before that was necessary. And the logic in this document is
perniciously close to that used to incarcerate thousands of US citizens of
Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor.

This is why we should not vest the executive with untrammeled ability to kill
on their own authority, but should restrain them to a procedure that asks them
to justify the exigency to a judge at the very least.

------
ahmadss
Here's a response from the ACLU - [http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-
security/justice-departmen...](http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-
security/justice-departments-white-paper-targeted-killing)

------
superkuh
This memo spends the entire time talking about the 'evil' al-qa'ida and how
even if a US citizen joins them then legally they should get to kill them. It
goes into deep detail about this scenario for a number of pages.

But it skips over, in 5 lines at the very beginning, that it also applies to
anyone they arbitrarily say are associated with al-qa'ida. No details about
that.

The important issue isn't the legal justification of some mythical US al-
qa'ida as this document tries to stress. It's about the fact that they decide
who is an 'associated group' they can also kill and that decision is secret
and arbitrary.

------
orionblastar
I am just wondering but can people in Occupy Wall Street be targeted for
assassination just as well as as a 'potential terrorist' in a foreign nation
who happens to be a US citizen? If so we may be seeing a new form of US
Government.

BTW I thought President Jimmy Carter made assassinations illegal when he was
President? Has that law been lifted?

~~~
jowiar
Read the paper. The issue is not "potential terrorist" but rather swearing
allegiance to Al Qaida, between whom and the United States there exists a
present state of armed conflict. The US is not in a state of armed conflict
with OWS.

Also note that the application here is with regard to US citizens outside the
US - picture someone training terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan, not someone
camping on the streets of New York.

~~~
obstacle1
The paper starts off dealing specifically with high-level Al-Qa'ida
operatives. However around page 4 or 5 the language changes to "and associated
forces". That definition is too broad to be meaningful, which is a bit creepy.

~~~
jowiar
Reading the original 2001 AUMF explains where this language comes from.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists)

~~~
obstacle1
It doesn't explain anything. In fact it is even broader than this whitepaper:

>the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to
prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons

Hamlily v. Obama (2009) crystallizes the legal interpretation of the phrase a
bit. Some key points:

>The key inquiry, then, is not necessarily whether one self-identifies as a
member of the organization (although this could be relevant in some cases),
but whether the individual functions or participates within or under the
command structure of the organization

>The Court also concludes that the authority claimed by the government to
detain those who were "part of ... Taliban or al Qaida forces" is consistent
with the law of war

>the government has the authority to detain members of "associated forces" as
long as those forces would be considered co-belligerents under the law of war

But note that _Hamlily_ applies to detention and not execution. And in this
execution whitepaper, it clearly states that the definition of associated
forces " _includes_ a group that would qualify as a co-belligerent under the
laws of war". The phrase _includes_ leaves a lot of room for the term
"associated forces" to apply to other things.

But anyway, IANAL.

Link to Hamlily v. Obama (PDF):
[http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760...](http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=15512898181635760339&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=MpUQUaXcF82ayQGAyoGYDw&ved=0CC4QgAMoADAA)

Link to AUMF (PDF): [http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Author...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Authorization-for-Use-of-Military-Force-2001.pdf)

------
matmann2001
Unfortunate automatic URL generation.

------
untog
Is it really that fair to describe this as "Obama's rules"? They were prepared
by the Office of Legal Counsel, after all.

In any case, good to see this out there- it appears that the New York Times
brought a court case to release these papers but were unsuccessful.

~~~
caseysoftware
They were written by officials of the Obama Administration for policies
established and enacted by the Obama Administration and used to evaluate
decisions the Obama Administration is making.

It seems quite logical to call them "Obama's" whether they are rules or
justifications..

------
rhizome
Good thing all that energy has been put into preserving the 2nd Amendment.

------
tokenadult
The full text of the purported Justice Department white paper mentioned in the
submitted blog post:

[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_W...](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf)

------
dkokelley
Without reading the memo (only the linked article), wouldn't top Al Qa'ida
operatives be classified as traitors and enemies of the state? (Maybe that's
the legal angle expressed in the memo.) Within the country's borders, the
government kills its citizens all of the time when the judgement is made that
the suspect represents and immediate threat to the safety and well-being of
others (see: hostage situations and police shootouts). Otherwise, the state's
decision to end someone's life is a long and arduous process filled with
courts and laws and appeals (and rightly so!).

------
thisrod
Let's turn this around. Suppose that an American citizen believes they're on
the list, and the president is plotting to kill them. In what circumstances
should it be legal for them to assassinate the president?

The president is supposed to be just another citizen: one who's very certainly
plotting to kill Americans. It's curious how few people apply his reasoning to
his own case. Do people believe in some kind of divine right of presidents?

------
DigitalJack
Just curious...do people usually title their white papers with the words
"White Paper"?

~~~
bobbles
Every white paper I've ever seen has the words white paper in the title.. but
I don't think its expected, just a convention some organisations use

------
logn
Nice to read a treatise on how the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit executing
citizens without trial. Neither does the First Amendment. The Fourth is about
"searches and seizures". That it applies to taking possession of someone's
life so as to extinguish it is a pretty twisted premise.

------
hakaaaaak
If the war is over, then assassination would seem to be possible breach of the
Geneva convention.

If the war isn't over, then when will it be over? And is it even legitimate?
The U.S. declared war on the concept "Terrorism" during Bush Jr's presidency,
not on specific terrorists or al-Qa'ida. The U.S. also declared a war on
"drugs" during the Reagan years. Though I'm in support of both "wars" because
I'm in favor of the well-being and defense of the U.S. people, I don't think
Congress or the president should have a right to declare war on something that
cannot end, i.e. cannot terminate via treaty, surrender/capitulation, complete
destruction, or victory.

I am a little concerned that we are declaring that it is ok to kill our own
citizens without due trial, although I understand there are conditions.

~~~
camus
well the point you are missing is , it takes place outside a war context.
AlQaida is not the army of afghanistan , in fact most of its members are
saudis , egyptians or from yemen. So the Geneva convention "doesnt apply" ,
that's the why of the enemy combattant status and all that illegal crap made
legal.

------
revelation
These are not "rules", these are _justifications_ should the political fallout
be of the atomic type. Rules is a horrible euphemism for this absurdity, it
implies that there is someone to enforce these rules, which is what is so
conspicuously absent from the picture here.

------
jkoschei
Best. Permalink. Ever.

~~~
brokentone
In case they change it: "[http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-
leaked-obamas...](http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-
obamas-rules-for-ass)

------
drcube
This isn't the outrage. The AUMF, which fairly elected US legislators enacted,
and this white paper simply attempts to interpret, is. What's it been, 11
years now? We've always been at war with Oceania.

------
cpursley
This power grab will only continue as governments lose their grip on the
digital realm - mainly their ability to keep secrets and collect taxes. Real
crypto currencies and encrypted communications will change human organization
and governments will fight back with everything they have. These new laws over
the past several years have been to address the above - they have nothing to
do with 'terrorism' - cyber or otherwise. Government's only effective role is
to maintain its power. Everything thing else is secondary.

------
rtpg
Can someone explain to me how citizenship comes into play for any of these
things? I was always under the impression that non-citizens also had basic
rights.

------
ryanmarsh
When you consider that humans have been on the earth some 150,000 - 200,000
years it's interesting that only in the last heartbeat of humanity's existence
(4,000 or so) did we decide en masse to grant a monopoly on the use of deadly
force to someone else, namely bureaucrats.

------
allingeek
I had to giggle when I took a look at the URL, "someone-just-leaked-obamas-
rules-for-ass." Which made me wonder if this, rather lengthy, but clearly
truncated URL was hand chosen. Either way makes you think about more
intelligent filters for URL generators.

------
logn
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-
president-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impeach-president-
obama-unconstitutional-execution-united-states-citizens/Rdq942HF)

------
mens_rea
I love that this title is so unbiased and doesn't at all blow the document out
of proportion or make it appear more sinister than it actually is.

Thank you for not misleading readers with your title in order to get views and
points.

------
etherael
"Because I feel like it" would be less vague than this travesty.

------
coloneltcb
This is really a biased source. Reason.com has a clear agenda

------
mvid
How long until someone makes a flow chart out of this?

------
conductr
nice slug, someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass

------
smiley1121
The president is black. I don't see how this this story is relevant.

