Obama’s executions without judicial review

Discussion in 'World Events' started by StrawDog, Mar 8, 2012.

  1. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Obama’s executions without judicial review

    Up is down and down is up - civilization has taken on an extra tinge of the bizarre when the highest law officer in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder, has gone on the record to defend and justify the policy of state sanctioned, extra judicial murder.

    The amazing thing is how seamlessly this issue has been received, ingested and seemingly accepted.

    A couple of dissenting voices can be heard here and here.

    The gist of this policy is:
    "the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he’s accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations"

    Any comments, views?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's war not murder. If you are actively fighting against the country, and you cannot be arrested, it's well within the law and the constitution to kill you. For instance, if you are an American citizen holding people hostage in a bank, the police are also within their rights to put a bullet in your head, with no due process.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Servant_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    What are you talking about?! This is a wonderful tool to destroy your enemies. Wouldn't you want the power as president to kill, detain, question, torture and extradite anyone who you deem threatening to America? Remember, we are at war! We face a nimble and determined enemy.

    Oh wait... yesterday we were told this authority is placed in the UN. The exchange between Senator Sessions and Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey clearly puts the constitution in the grave. The UN will now appoint the president I guess....

    Coup D’etat
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Torture is illegal.
     
  8. Chipz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    838
    What's annoying is it seems to be party-independent. Republican's and Democrat's in the US agree, killing foreign citizens outside the US in nations which do not extradite. You may not want to call it murder... but that might mean we need to redefine our word. I'd rather be in a world with dangerous men than one where murder is justified. This isn't like war. In war there is no bartering or imprisoning your enemy, today whether it's legal or not, there is.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    He's talking about American citizens.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    No one is denying it is 'murder'. It is an uncomfortable practice and it bothers me that the supposed good side does not play by the rules. However, the 'bad guys' also do not play by the rules. I try and look at it this way. If killing the individual who cannot be captured alive and brought to trial means no invasion and no war, then it makes me squirm to say this, but maybe.. A huge maybe and it would depend on the individual in question. For example, would you say 'no' if during WWII, someone had the opportunity to assassinate Hitler? I wouldn't have. What about Idi Amin? Or Théoneste Bagosora? Or the latest internet flavour of the month, Joseph Kony? It is fairly certain that Kony will never be captured alive. So should we not go after him because it would mean he would have to be killed?

    In an ideal world, children would not be kidnapped from their beds, made to murder their parents and turned into child soldiers and sex slaves or maimed, nor would retired army generals return to the fray to hand out arms and organise a genocide that resulted in the killing and ethnic cleansing of over 800,000 people. We do not live in an ideal world.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The issue is the American government assassinating American citizens without a transparent due process. It's not about killing foreigners.
     
  12. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    That’s absurd. Of course there’s due process. Police aren’t allowed to shoot people without following due process ie. until certain situational criteria have been met. After the event there is considerable due process to investigate the shooting and determine that it was warranted and justified.
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I guess so, but the same criteria are involved in these killings. The subject is an immanent threat to the country and they cannot be arrested due to their situation.
     
  14. Chipz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    838
    I see why it was misinterpreted, I meant to imply citizens on foreign soil.
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Obama is authorizing a blizzard of Hell Fire missles against our suspected enemies and your big concern is that the guy at the aiming point might have a US passport?

    I'd say that's a pretty trivial point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_missile_strikes_in_Pakistan
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2012
  16. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Hence the need for rules - so we can tell the good guys from the bad guys no?
    Killing which American will stave off an invasion and war?
    Sure, the emotive rationale is reasonable, but we are required to put 100% faith in an individual to make the judgment on who gets to die. With no oversight, no due process and no accountability. This is the world of the Grand Inquisitor.
    The reality of a flawed world does not justify reverting to lawlessness - on the contrary it should promote and enshrine the rule of law even more assiduously.
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I think the following premises are false:

    1. That Obama is to blame for what happens to these people. The fact is, he fought to bring them to the criminal courts. Congress rejected this.

    2. That anyone will be executed. That's pure speculation. If the government had anyone to execute, that is, if the evidence were sufficient, presumably these people would have already been given a show trial, instead of relying on the footage of Saddam Hussein as proof of justice served.

    3. That criminal courts are inherently more fair than military tribunals. We have seen a phenomenal number of false convictions under the supposed fairness of the judicial process exposed by DNA evidence alone. Who knows how many other people are serving life for crimes they did not commit, and who have no chance of relief, simply because there was no DNA found at the crime scene, or (in some cases) it was found and lost, damaged or destroyed. However, as I'm sure you know, people are often convicted merely on the statements of other people who claim to know that this person committed the crime. Often they are right. But often they have been proven wrong. How or why this is exacerbated simply by the military affiliation of the judges in the tribunals is beyond me—I see no special sanctity or honor afforded to the black robe as opposed to the uniform. In my mind, they are equally likely to falsely convict, and equally likely to falsely set free. It's just that we have a hell of a lot more data telling us the black robe is not what it's cracked up to be, and prone to falsely convict.

    It is clear that some of the people captured were innocent, victimized, falsely arrested, tortured, and denied their (presumed) rights to counsel, access to courts and visitation. For this reason alone it was long ago in the interest of justice to remove them from military custody. But Congress has made that impossible. The majority have been released. What else is there to do? It's easy to attack a course of action, but quite another to solve a dilemma.

    IMO it's not Obama who's to blame, but the public will that refuses to reform the courts, prisons, and military. And this was reflected in the 2010 congressional elections.
     
  18. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Police have been known to shoot criminals too, subject to the very same objections about the officers acting as judge, jury and executioner...and most of the time they are let off without jail time. The reason is that we recognize that sometimes law enforcement is left with unpalatable options, and killing a suspect who poses a threat (usually a more immediate threat than al-walaki, but a threat all the same) is often the lesser of two evils.

    In 1985, the city of Philadelphia authorized C-4 explosive bombs to be dropped from a police helicopter on a row home occupied by a few dozen annoying but only arguably dangerous MOVE members, resulting in the deaths of all but two inside and burning down several city blocks from the resulting fire. It was a travesty and everyone condemned the poor judgment (mostly because innocents clearly died). You know who went to jail? No one.

    Al Walaki is a different case. He does pose a threat, albeit a less immediate one, but the problem is he is not someone we could bring to trial if we wanted to (assuming of course the U.S. doesn't want to invade places like Yemen, starting a new war in the process and costing many more lives, just to capture him).

    Some people, faced with that dilemma prefer to let the alleged criminal alone, free to plot or not plot, knowing that he's immune from U.S. prosecution. Others prefer targeted strikes that are calculated to take out the alleged bad actor. It seems to me that letting plotters go free is a very unpalatable option, but the only alternative (absent drone strikes) is to invade Yemen to capture him, which is even more unpalatable.

    Personally, I think Congress should pass a law allowing for an in absentia trial, in secret (it would be stupid to do it any other way), in which the government needs to present clear, convincing evidence of the guilt of the alleged terrorist, and then get a judicial order to proceed with a drone strike against that target. Note that everyone in the vicinity of that target still dies as "collateral damage", but collateral deaths are a part of modern warfare. Still, on balance, I do agree that this is a big enough issue that it would be best if the Executive branch didn't make the call on its own.

    That said, until Congress passes such a law, the Executive can't apply to a court and has to either let the accused go or lean on its war powers. In war, you do not need a judicial order to attack enemies...even if you are dubious that they pose a significant threat. If the Allies had wanted to bomb the German's latrine cleaning squads in WWII, that would be a valid military target under the long accepted laws of war. (And, note, that that doesn't change if, after the bombing, you discover you made a mistake and the "squad" you thought you were killing turned out to be the Von Trapp Family Singers...intelligence errors happen and the law excuses them.) If, during the Vietnam War, they wanted to bomb a North Vietnamese automobile carrying an American who was spying for the NVA, despite the likelihood that civilians would also be in that car, that would also be legitimate (even if they did not know what, if any, information the spy was carrying). Like it or not Congress authorized strikes against al qaeda agents. If we have no other means to capture and subdue them, killing them is not terribly extraordinary. What is extraordinary is the relative ease with which we can do it.

    Now, if you do not trust the President to make the call fairly, that's a terrifying power he has. If you do trust the President to try to do the right thing, it's less frightening. I trust this President enough to not be too worked up over it, but I do see how other Presidents might give me some pause, so I'd like them to get the equivalent of a warrant.

    The real problem with that, is Congress will never do it. Congress doesn't want to put its fingerprints on the dirty business that is warfare (they are happy to interfere behind the scenes, but not so much publicly), and no one will ever propose any limits on the President's power as a result.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2012
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I hadn't gotten to the second half of Eric Holder's speech before I realized the OP may be referring to ongoing military operations.That wasn't clear in the OP. It's not clear whether the OP is concerned about the killing of Bin Laden and the people who are said to have raised a defense during that assault.

    Maybe it would help to be more specific about what kind of military operations are tantamount to executions. For example, Eric Holder points out that in WWI we tracked and shot down the airplane carrying the Admiral of the Japanese fleet. Is that an execution? What are the boundaries that are expected in designating targets in the first place, before the order to kill is given?

    If this is the intended topic, then I still find issue with the claim that judicial procedure has not been followed. A court is convened, and a judge reviews the evidence before a the military operation is sanctioned. For my opinion of the fairness of courts, see my preceding remarks above at #3. Nevertheless, this is a legal procedure, presumably ratified by Congress. Furthermore, although these may seem tantamount to executions, the system appears designed to reduce the odds of hitting innocent civilians. That to me favors fairness, insofar as the intent of the President is concerned. Whether the proceedings are fair or not would seem to rest solely on the judge, and blame ought to fall there alone. It would not seem right to blame Obama for any unfair court proceedings against foreign targets any more than it makes sense to blame him for other false convictions and all other injustices that come down from the judiciary against Americans all the time.

    In short, when is the last time the Judicial Branch was ever held accountable for its actions? Why is the Executive Branch to blame for abortions of justice that arise out of Congress and the judiciary?

    That fairly well summarizes my position.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    But we do have rules so that we can tell the good guys from the bad guys. However, when it comes down to invading a country to arrest someone or shooting that one individual who poses the threat or risk or has committed crimes which resulted in the deaths of many, which option do you think the US or any other country for that matter go with?

    Any American which poses a threat to the country and the populace I would imagine. At present, in America for example, extremists groups are on the rise. Some of these groups are pushing for an overthrow of the Government. Now if the leadership of such groups cannot be arrested [ie going in and arresting them would result in the deaths of many] and you know they plan to commit a terrorist act, should we sit by and say 'we follow the rules and are the good guys' and let them kill many others?

    As many have already pointed out and have yet to be responded to by you for example, the police can and will and have killed suspects for a variety of reasons. That is a part of their job and they are trained to do it. Are you suggesting law enforcement never open fire on anyone because 'we are the good guys'?

    If a person as a gun pointed at your child's head and the police can take one shot to kill him and save your child, you would refuse due to the lack of due process?

    This is what law enforcement do. If people are threatened, they will eliminate that threat and thus, act as 'judge and jury and executioner' if the need arises.

    There will be moments where arresting someone is not possible and in those moments, killing them may be the only option available.

    Killing suspects in situations where arrest is impossible and the lives of others are at risk is a known method of law enforcement and has been that way for a long time. I don't hear you complain each time a police officer kills a dangerous suspect... Why is that?
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes.
    what you have said does not apply to US citizens or to ANYONE known to be in the US.

    the methods explained are applicable to terrorists.

    FISA also provides for biannual reviews of these cases.
     
  22. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    To be fair, Anwar al Walaki was a U.S. citizen, and it was used with him. I agree with you though that it hasn't been used in the U.S. (some would say "yet").

    If it were used to get a target on U.S. soil, that would be more questionable, as one expects more traditional methods could be used. If it were used on U.S. soil (against a terrorist suspect) as a last resort, though, then it's not much different than the use of lethal force against dangerous criminals generally.

    Al Walaki is a somewhat odd case of an American who was living in Yemen, with the Yemeni government being opposed to allowing American group troops in their country, and opposed to using their own forces to capture him...but seemingly not opposed (or, in any event, if they had misgivings, it blew over quickly and quietly) to the U.S. using quick drone strikes within their country.

    In thinking the issue through, I realize that I might find it to be more questionable in any case where we are working with a western ally (like, say, using drone strikes to kill an alleged terrorist living in England). There again, I would expect more traditional methods would be used to attempt to apprehend the suspect...and in any event would expect the local government to use force on their own to apprehend the suspect if push came to shove. In places like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, though, practical and political realities limit what the local government can do.

    I also would question it more if the local government viewed the drone strike (or rocket attacks generally) as itself an act of war. So far the use of drones has been unwelcome, but not egregiously so to local governments. (Koran burnings in Afghanistan generated more direct outrage than strikes that killed civilians.) This concern is more practical though, and has less to do with due process concerns for the suspect, but still it's hard to argue that a drone or rocket strike ordered on foreign soil is a legitimate and understandable casus belli if the local government wished to declare war over it. (And, due process aside, the government relies on the post 9/11 authorization from Congress to make such attacks legal in that regard.)
     
  23. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    456
    At the time of his demise, Anwar al-Awlaki was one of the operational commanders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

    The way I see it, Mr. al-Awlaki had every opportunity to peacefully surrender to the FBI and rebut any and all criminal charges/indictments in courts of law. He chose otherwise. Good riddance to bad rubbage.
     

Share This Page