
Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens - devx
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo
======
miles
For those who regularly ask why these stories appear on HN:

 _The president 's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be
executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House
aides as "Terror Tuesday" \- then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in
total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury,
and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are
exercised in the dark._

This should be daily news everywhere until it is addressed and we start
scaling back the War on Humanity. This is simply not how America is supposed
to work.

~~~
shin_lao
Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the
country, this is called "Raison d'État".

This doesn't make it any less chilling, but we shouldn't be too naive about
it.

~~~
r0h1n
> Governments violate the laws when it is in the supreme interest of the
> country

That's the beginning of a long, steep slippery slope. Who decides what is "the
supreme interest of the country"? And who keeps a check on the laws that are
violated in the pursuit of that goal?

~~~
moneyrich4
a new gang of people who usually went to school together, that we choose
(usually... diebold ... die bold ... risk it all take everything) every 4
years. supposedly we do this every 4 years to balance the power they wield
from veering too far left or right and sticking to the countries interest.

------
grey-area
Let's consider a specific example:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-
kil...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-
grandson.html?_r=0)

 _The missile killed him, his teenage cousin and at least five other civilians
on Oct. 14, 2011, while the boys were eating dinner at an open-air restaurant
in southern Yemen...The attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., said only that
Abdulrahman was not “specifically targeted,” raising more questions than he
answered._

The people killed in this attack were either killed by mistake, or because
they were nearby someone considered a target, eating at a restaurant. Because
the reasons for killing were secret, if the president decided to include some
of his enemies or political enemies of allies in Yemen, made a mistake, or was
given false information, it would never be known, because the list is secret.
We don't know why or even who was targeted.

In war we accept assassinations, murder without trial, and mass murder,
because people are fighting for survival. But even in war only enemy fighters
should be targeted, and civilians should not. We have a whole list of rules of
war which are being ignored, and this is not even a formal war - war has not
been declared, uniforms are not worn, so the rules of war do not apply, but if
they did, they are being broken.

We find ourselves in a very murky area where the US is at war with an
undefined and secret enemy, who may be anywhere in the world, and lives
amongst the civilian population. The reaction of the Obama administration has
been to order assassinations from a secret list, also killing any civilians
nearby. There is no trial, no charge, and no suspicion, just a decision to
kill and an attack, wherever the target may be. This means the president and
his advisers have arrogated the power to decide on life or death for anyone on
the planet, without limitation in time or space, and without justification or
warning, and also killing civilians nearby.

The implications of this are that this war will never end, the targets are
everywhere, and the list of enemies will continue to expand in secret. Nobody
is safe, because anyone might be standing next to someone on Obama's list at
some point, and the general terror and hate instilled by these methods will
continually generate new enemies. The Obama administration has adopted terror
as a method of war - they have become what they set out to fight.

~~~
yapcguy
Good points except for...

 _> an undefined and secret enemy_

Just this month alone...

\- Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya.

\- Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan.

\- Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria.

\- Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the
Philippines.

~~~
jrockway
Islamic terrorists sent mail bombs to a bunch of scientists, bombed the
Olympics in Atlanta, and destroyed that federal building in Oklahoma City,
too, right?

~~~
colinb
Clearly not. But those were a while back. And the people who seem to be doing
the most killing of civilians these days identify themselves as muslims.

Yes, I understand that most, perhaps very nearly all muslims don't want
anything to do with these nut-jobs. However, if you're looking for the group
of people most likely to be in to this kind of thing _right now_, then it
seems that the nearest crazy-horse mosque might be the place to go. No, not
the mosque around the corner from you right now [for most values of 'you'],
but such places exist, and its right for law enforcement to investigate them.

Don't misunderstand me. Killing civilians with secret orders via remotely
piloted drones, with no trial, no public investigation and no accountability
is broken. Obama has certainly given me hope. Just as Bush did before him. I
_hope_ that the next holder of office is a little more responsible.

But, there is a war. And I'd rather the liberal democracies won it. [hint - if
the nut-jobs who attached the shopping mall in Nairobi had their way, my
children and I would be executed in a flash]

~~~
vdaniuk
Liberal democracies dont win when people are being killed without a trial.
Government organizations that produce a visage of a liberal democracies win
and they are two very different things.

------
alexeisadeski3
In the US, laws against assassination and extrajudicial killing make no
distinction between American citizens and others: Foreigners have the exact
same protections as citizens. This goes for the Bill of Rights as well.
(Aside, this explains why the NSA is only "supposed" to spy outside of the US.
Wether the target is a citizen or not is technically irrelevant on this
particular point)

If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda, then it is in no way
surprising that the US government would then attempt to kill members of that
organization. And, again, whether the members are American or not is quite
literally irrelevant.

However, if the targeted individual is physically located within the US, then
the US government is generally supposed to arrest them instead of assassinate
them - and again this protects foreigners and US citizens alike.

~~~
pstack
That doesn't line up with the Constitution, which clearly states what the US
Government _can_ do (I know, people commonly mistake the Constitution for a
list of rights for the people rather than a list of exceptions for the
government as to how they may or may not act).

The Constitution grants the right to due process for citizens. It doesn't
place a limit on where that citizen is currently resided.

Killing someone in combat is one thing. The same as if you are forced into a
firefight with someone as a police officer. Targeting and assassinating
someone who is not immediately and directly threatening realistic harm is
another - and that is what has happened, so far.

Stating "well, if they're outside the geographical boundaries of the country
(or, not at least 100 miles in from the shores and borders of the US,
apparently) then they're fair game" is absurd.

~~~
wiredfool
It's not just citizens.

    
    
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or 
      otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or 
      indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in 
      the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in 
      actual service in time of War or public danger; nor 
      shall any person be subject for the same offence to be 
      twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be 
      compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against 
      himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
      without due process of law; nor shall private property be 
      taken for public use, without just compensation.

------
aurelius83
The other day several american muslims strapped a bomb onto themselves and
killed themselves and many innocent people in a suicide attack in Kenya.

If there were actual legal mechanisms built into the US constitution or laws
created that dealt with fighting an asymmetrical war with people like this
then I really doubt the President would go through this process, but that's
not the case.

I'm not really sure how we should handle this but this isn't some evil plan to
grab more power by the Obama administration, it's an ad hoc solution to a
really difficult problem.

~~~
jfoster
Congrats on being a voice of reason. Like anything, this has upsides &
downsides, and it doesn't help anyone to completely ignore one side.

Upsides: At least for the moment, they appear to be targeting people who are
genuine threats to many other people.

Downsides: It can be a slippery slope, and how can people be sure such power
isn't being abused?

Perhaps one way to mitigate the downsides might be for the agencies involved
to be extremely transparent about each case, releasing everything that led
them to the decision that they took.

~~~
rurounijones
"It can be a slippery slope".

(A) Killing your own citizens with (B) secret laws / justifications using (C)
zero / secret "evidence" and (D) No oversight by a group outside of those who
are ordering the killings _can_ be a slippery slope?

That is not the slippery slope, that is the ditch at the bottom once you have
slid all the way down.

~~~
jfoster
If those people were plotting to kill hundreds/thousands of your more innocent
citizens, then you could do a lot worse. The problem is where you draw the
line.

~~~
grey-area
_If those people were plotting to kill hundreds /thousands of your more
innocent citizens_

And if they weren't?

~~~
jfoster
Yeah, that's one of the problems. You'd hope the agencies involved are only
taking these actions where they have extreme certainty. And even if they do
have that super-high certainty, it still is an execution without a trial,
which makes a lot of people uneasy. Utmost transparency (probably has to be
after-the-fact) into each case where this is done might help to put some
people a little bit more at-ease about it. In cases where they get it wrong
due to negligence, you might hope to see prosecutions as a result of the
transparency.

It feels like this is one of those polarizing issues where each side is too
scared to admit advantages of a different point of view in case they lose some
ground. Everyone takes an extreme view for/against, the debate doesn't address
the finer points of reality, and no one changes their mind or comes to more
reasonable compromises.

~~~
vdaniuk
Your argument to moderation is one of the classical fallacies. Maybe there are
no reasonable compromises and one of the extreme views is correct.

~~~
jfoster
Well, assuming there is a "correct" view. I can't see what it would be.
Nothing will be perfect. My primary point is that the merits of each approach
should be acknowledged. Anyone who claims that all of the merits are at one
extreme is deliberately lying or blinded by their extremism.

------
devx
What bothers me most about what the government has been doing lately (for the
past decade or so), is that they seem to have total disregard for the _spirit_
of the law. All they do nowadays is try to find legal loopholes and mind-
bending justifications for doing anything they want and pretending that
anything is fair game and in the "legal limits".

I'm not sure what even the Courts can do against this, because this trend from
the government and authorities is so overwhelming and they're doing it so
much, that the Courts would really be fighting a very tough uphill battle,
while the government gets away with so many things they pretend are "legal"
for many years.

------
adamnemecek
Feels like some sort of line has been crossed.

~~~
shortcj
It was called the magna carta.

------
_s
What can a non-US citizen do? What can a US citizen do?

I don't mean this in a sarcastic or confrontational manner at all, but it is a
genuine enquiry - other than raising awareness of such issues to the voting
public and donating to foundations such as the EFF - what more can an average
Joe do to prevent / reel back these reaches and abuses of power?

------
ck2
It's legal when WE do it - The Government

~~~
pstack
More relevantly:

"When the president does something -- that means it is _not_ illegal." \--
Richard M. Nixon

~~~
ck2
Nixon would be freaking out over what politicians get away with today and
never have to resign. In fact their successors simply up-the-ante.

Remember how hated Bush's lawyers were? Now we know why Obama didn't prosecute
any of them.

~~~
adventured
The next Nixon will bring a reign of terror down on the US (regardless of
which party he comes from), using the laws that Clinton, Bush and Obama and
others have passed.

------
hrasyid
How to respond to this kind of argument: We don't need to give "due process"
to enemy soldiers before we kill them. How are al-Qaeda members different?

~~~
roryokane
I think the difference is that these targets aren't Al-Qaeda members. They are
people accused, with no oversight, of being Al-Qaeda members. So you have to
trust the targeting decisions of just the president and his aides, rather than
those people plus judges in the judicial branch. Whereas in a normal war, it
is easier to justify who the enemy soldiers are, since they are in uniform or
shooting at you.

~~~
TheLegace
I can't believe no one looks at Guantanomo Bay and giving free reign to
secretly killed supposedly accused people of crimes may/may not have committed
without any recourse.

I think many here anyway can agree that Guantanomo Bay needs to be shutdown,
but obviously won't be. What if later down the line we need to decide that the
power has gotten out of control(if it hasn't already) and needs to be shut
down. But can't because the terrorists win.

------
jeroen94704
Yes, this is bad, as everybody has a right to a fair trial.

However, I think it is _far_ worse that it is EVER, in any way, shape or form,
deemed acceptable that innocent bystanders get killed in order to get rid of a
single individual, no matter how horrible their acts may have been.

It is frankly appalling that people get all upset about the fact that the
target in question was a US citizen, and blatantly ignore the addition that
"at least five other civilians" were killed in the same attack.

------
Mordor
They are so fond of telling us, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got
nothing to fear."

What does Obama fear?

------
CmonDev
It's funny how they used "US citizens" instead of "people".

------
MysticFear
> (2) capture is infeasible

I am not sure how they can even justify how any capture can be infeasible.
Since, the US clearly found capturing Osama Bin Laden to be feasible even
within an allied country.

------
ad80
And he got a Nobel price... it sounds like an terrible joke.

------
shortcj
The sad fact is that 99% of people just don't understand the concept of 'rule
of law.' They think it means 'rule of the law man.'

------
maxcan
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." \- Malcolm
Reynolds, Firefly

------
gtirloni
Funny thing Hail to the King started to play while I was reading this article.

------
Fuxy
Heil Obama!

