So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have - Page 5 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

The White Paper does not require actual planning of an attack against the U.S. for one to become a target. So the actual standard for becoming a target is nothing more than guesswork by some unknown government employee.


I think there is a little more to it than that

I'll defer to the white paper for the conditions they set

quote:

Here the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful:

(1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;

(2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and

(3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

This conclusion is reached with recognition of the extraordinary seriousness of a lethal operation by the United States against a U.S. citizen, and also of the extraordinary seriousness of the threat posed by senior operational al Qa'ida members and the loss of life that would result were their operations successful.


There is room to criticize the white paper but I don't think you've hit upon it yet

quote:

Per the White Paper just the fact of communicating with the suspected terrorist is enough.


Where are you seeing that? I'm having trouble finding it.






Back to top
C
LSU Fan
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Dec 2007
21423 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida


Al qaida must recruit them young for a 16 year old to reach senior status so young.






Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

Al qaida must recruit them young for a 16 year old to reach senior status so young.


You're assuming he was the target in that strike. It's not clear if he was or if he was with the wrong group of people at the wrong time.






Back to top
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
10996 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

You're assuming he was the target in that strike. It's not clear if he was or if he was with the wrong group of people at the wrong time.


You're wasting your keystrokes with this group. They will cry and whine no matter what you say because the guy who is doing this has the (D) next to his name.

Now if it was an (R)...I assure you they would be lauding the use of our advanced technology to smite our enemies abroad.

amirite?






Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64108 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

amirite?


That you're a cunt? Yup, spot on...






Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

Anwar al Awlaki's son said he hoped "to attain martyrdom as my father attained it" just hours before he was killed in a US Predator airstrike in Yemen in mid-October, according to a journalist who sympathizes with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, Anwar's 16-year-old son and an American citizen, made the statement to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's emir of the city of Azzam in Shabwa province. Azzan is one of several Yemeni cities currently under AQAP control.

"His sadness reached its peak after the American planes assassinated his father," said Abdul Razzaq al Jamal, a Yemeni journalist from Al Wasat, according to a statement posted on jihadist forums that was translated by the SITE Intelligence Group. Jamal spent weeks with AQAP in the Zinjibar area and elsewhere in southern Yemen, and wrote articles that sympathized with the terror group's attempts to control the region.

"But when he said to the Emir [Leader] of the city of Azzam, 'I hope to attain martyrdom as my father attained it,' it did not come to his mind that this will happen, and just one day after he said it. This actually happened. The son joined the father in another American raid that came only two weeks apart from the one that assassinated his father," Jamal continued.

Jamal said that AQAP members referred to Abdul Rahman, as "Usayyid," or the lion's cub, and intimated that Abdul Rahman would one day replace his father.

"The word 'usayyid' is the diminutive form of the word 'assad [lion],' and in this name is a reference to an Arab proverb: 'This cub is from that lion,'" Jamal said.


LINK

Looks like he got his wish

quote:

Abdul Rahman was killed in a Predator strike in Shabwa province on Oct. 14. The strike targeted Ibrahim al Bana, AQAP's media emir. Al Bana was not killed in the attack. Abdul Rahman's death sparked outrage from the Awlaki family, which has claimed the teenager was not involved in terrorism and was merely in Shabwa to search for his father, who had been killed two weeks earlier.






Back to top
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
10996 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

That you're a cunt? Yup, spot on...


No but I do enjoy one now and again.

Must be difficult. You have run out of arguments and you are down to name calling.

I feel for you ...really I do.






Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

When did Congress declare war?


September 18, 2001

quote:

The Fifth Amendment:


quote:

The Department assumes that the rights afforded by Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as well as the Fourth Amendment, attach to a U.S. citizen even while he is abroad. See Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (plurality opinion); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259,269-70 (1990); see also In re Terrorist Bombings of US. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157, 170 n.7 (2d Cir. 2008). The U.S. citizenship of a leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces, however, does not give that person constitutional immunity from attack. This paper next considers whether and in what circumstances a lethal operation would violate any possible constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen

...

As the Hamdi plurality
observed, in the "circumstances of war," "the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizen's
liberty in the absence of sufficient process ... is very real," id. at 530 (plurality opinion),
and, of course, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a citizen's life is even more
significant. But, "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and
appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the
armed conflict against the United States and whose activities pose an imminent threat of
violent attack against the United States-and "due process analysis need not blink at
those realities." !d. at 531 (plurality opinion). These same realities must also be
considered in assessing "the burdens the Government would face in providing greater
process" to a member of enemy forces. !d. at 529, 531 (plurality opinion).






Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64108 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

You have run out of arguments and you are down to name calling.



I haven't run out of anything. Its hilarious that you automatically assume that someone is an R on here because they disagree with a policy under Obama.

quote:

I feel for you ...really I do.


Awww, thanks...






Back to top
  Replies (0)
C
LSU Fan
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Dec 2007
21423 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

Looks like he got his wish


Yep. better to kill them as kids the first sign that they may be radical.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64108 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

But, "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and
appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the
armed conflict against the United States and whose activities pose an imminent threat of
violent attack against the United States-and "due process analysis need not blink at
those realities.


From the Justice Department... Doesn't jive with what you posted

quote:

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”


Boy, sure seems like a frick ton of grey area... So the attack doesn't have to be imminent, like your quote says.



This post was edited on 2/13 at 12:21 pm


Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

Boy, sure seems like a frick ton of grey area... So the attack doesn't have to be imminent, like your quote says.


This is a legitimate criticism IMO

The paper does go into "imminence" a little further though

quote:

Certain aspects of this legal framework require additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. Given the nature of, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, in which civilian airliners were hijacked to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, this definition of imminence, which would require the United States to refrain from action until preparations for an attack are concluded, would not allow the United States sufficient time to defend itself. The defensive options available to the United States may be reduced or eliminated if al-Qa'ida operatives disappear and cannot be found when the time of their attack approaches. Consequently, with respect to al-Qa'ida leaders who are continually planning attacks, the United States is likely to have only a limited window of opportunity within which to defend Americans in a manner that has both a high likelihood of success and sufficiently reduces the probabilities of civilian causalities. See Michael N. Schmitt, State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law, 17 Yale J. Int'l L. 609, 648 (1992). Furthermore, a "terrorist 'war' does not consist of a massive attack across an international border, nor does it consist of one isolated incident that occurs and is then past. It is a drawn out, patient, sporadic pattern of attacks. It is very difficult to know when or where the next incident will occur." Gregory M. Travalio, Terrorism, International Law, and the Use of Military Force, 18 Wis. Int'l L.J. 145, 173 (2000); see also Testimony of Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, 660 Hansard. H.L. (April21, 2004) 370 (U.K.), available at http:/ /www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo0404 21 /text/404 21- 07.htm (what constitutes an imminent threat "will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats . . . . It must be right that states are able to act in self-defense in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack."). Delaying action against individuals continually planning to kill Americans until some theoretical end stage of the planning for a particular plot would create an unacceptably high risk that the action would fail and that American casualties would result.

By its nature, therefore, the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces
demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning
terror attacks presents an imminent threat, making the use of force appropriate. In this
context, imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of
opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood
ofheading off future disastrous attacks on Americans. Thus, a decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of
violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of alQa'ida (including any potential target of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks
against the United States; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly to the
extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qa'ida
plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and
that, in light of these predicates, the nation may have a limited window of opportunity
within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces
the probability of American casualties.

With this understanding, a high-level official could conclude, for example, that an
individual poses an "imminent threat" of violent attack against the United States where
he is an operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force and is personally and
continually involved in planning terrorist attacks against the United States. Moreover,
where the al-Qa'ida member in question has recently been involved in activities posing
an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, and there is no evidence
suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities, that member's
involvement in al-Qa'ida's continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would
support the conclusion that the member poses an imminent threat.

Second, regarding the feasibility of capture, capture would not be feasible if it
could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the
relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation. Other_ factors such as
undue risk to U.S. personnel conducting a potential capture operation also could be
relevant. Feasibility would be a highly fact-specific and potentially time-sensitive
mqmry.

Third, it is a premise here that any such lethal operation by the United States
would comply with the four fundamental law-of-war principles governing the use of
force: necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity (the avoidance of
mmecessary suffering). See, e.g., United States Air Force, Targeting, Air Force Doctrine
Document 2-1.9, at 88 (June 8, 2006); Dinstein, Conduct of Hostilities at 16-20, 115-16,
119-23; see also 2010 Koh ASIL Speech. For example, it would not be consistent with
those principles to continue an operation if anticipated civilian casualties would be
excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
ofStafflnstruction 5810.01D, Implementation of the DoD Law of War Program~ 4.a, at
1 (Apr. 30, 2010). An operation consistent with the laws ofwar could not violate the
prohibitions against treachery and perfidy, which address a breach of confidence by the
assailant. See, e.g., Hague Convention IV, Annex, art. 23(b), Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat.
2277, 2301-02 ("[I]t is especially forbidden ... [t]o kill or wound treacherously
individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army .... "). These prohibitions do not,
however, categorically forbid the use of stealth or surprise, nor forbid attacks on
identified individual soldiers or officers. See U.S. Army Field Manual27-10, The Law of
Land Warfare,~ 31 (1956) (article 23(b) ofthe Annex to the Hague Convention IV does
not "preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone
of hostilities, occupied territory, or else-where"). And the Department is not aware of any other law-of-war grounds precluding use of such tactics. See Dinstein, Conduct of
Hostilities at 94-95, 199; Abraham D. Sofaer, Terrorism, the Law, and the National
Defense, 126 Mil. L. Rev. 89, 120-21 (1989). Relatedly, "there is no prohibition under
the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed
conflict-such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs-as long as they are
employed in conformity with applicable laws of war." 2010 Koh ASIL Speech. Further,
under this framework, the United States would also be required to accept a surrender if it
were feasible to do so.

In sum, an operation in the circumstances and under the constraints described
above would not result in a violation of any due process rights.






Back to top
C
LSU Fan
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Dec 2007
21423 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


So by this, the strike on the 16 year old was likely a mistake/collateral and not the intended target?

ETA: I still don't get why this can't be at least reviewed by a judge or some judical party like the wiretaps were.



This post was edited on 2/13 at 12:36 pm


Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

So by this, the strike on the 16 year old was likely a mistake/collateral and not the intended target?


It appears he was with the target(s)

quote:

ETA: I still don't get why this can't be at least reviewed by a judge or some judical party like the wiretaps were.


There has been some talk of a FISA-like court for this...perfectly fine by me.




This post was edited on 2/13 at 12:38 pm


Back to top
C
LSU Fan
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Dec 2007
21423 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

It appears he was with the target


I don't see how that was justified. If simply saying "death to america" was reason enough then we should be carpet bombing a lot of muslim cities.

quote:

perfectly fine by me.
or preferred?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64108 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

This is a legitimate criticism IMO


It would put my views on the strikes into a "Possible" category if the decisions were taken out of the hands of politicians and put in the hands of a grand jury.

But then there's still the same issue of the person not getting the right to defend themselves against their accusers. Who's to say that the govt wouldn't just come with false information in order to get the ok to kill







Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

It would put my views on the strikes into a "Possible" category if the decisions were taken out of the hands of politicians and put in the hands of a grand jury.


Never gonna get a grand jury for this. This is some of the most sensitive classified info we keep. A FISA-like court will be the closest thing it gets to, if that.

We are at war with these people (it was declared over 12 years ago). The President and his Generals already have the prerogative to make the decisions to kill these people. They don't use courts for pre-clearance to determine what military targets they can take out.

quote:

But then there's still the same issue of the person not getting the right to defend themselves against their accusers.


From Hamdi:

quote:

But, "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including force against U.S. citizens who have joined enemy forces in the armed conflict against the United States and whose activities pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States-and "due process analysis need not blink at those realities." !d. at 531 (plurality opinion).






Back to top
Lsut81
USA Fan
Member since Jun 2005
64108 posts
 Online 

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


I understand where you are coming from, but what stops them from tweaking their "Rule" in the future to include strikes inside of the US on "threats"...

Then it gets down to "Oh, we can't show you our classified information, but just trust us, they were bad people"

Its a slippery slope and will not end well.






Back to top
Decatur
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2007
17552 posts

re: So I am reading the Obama memo on drone killings and so far, I don't have


quote:

I understand where you are coming from, but what stops them from tweaking their "Rule" in the future to include strikes inside of the US on "threats"...


They can't just tweak what they do willy-nilly. They are governed by the United States law (both statute and SC caselaw), treaties, the recognized laws of war, etc. They can't just do whatever they want to do by drafting a new white paper without a basis in those laws. The white paper has no legal effect.






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top