Today in a congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism. I discussed this story in the segment on MSNBC Countdown below.
In the hearing, Blair stated “[w]e take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”
The story raises serious legal questions. It is one thing to kill an American in the course of a terrorist act or to prevent an imminent attack. It is quite another thing to kill someone suspected of terrorism without a trial. That would amount to the assassination of a citizen.
Once again, the Obama Administration appears to be following Bush policies. In late 2002, Kamal Derwish (aka Ahmed Hijazi), a U.S. citizen, was killed in an attack by a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator in Yemen. The U.S. knew it was killing a U.S. citizen because it was monitoring his phone at the time. We were targeting Al Qaeda figures. One of the men was Abu Ali al-Harithi, suspected of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. After the attack, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions wrote a letter to the United States stating the attack “constitute[s] a clear case of extrajudicial killing.”
Notably, Derwish was a key possible witness for the defense in the controversial Lackawanna case. He was reportedly the individual who recruited the Lackawanna defendants to travel to Afghanistan and knew facts concerning their travels, timing, motivation, and the material support to al Qaeda.
Such use of unilateral authority put the United States on shaky legal ground. The Annex to Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, has a provision that reads: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden … to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army … .” The provision is admittedly a bit vague when put into specific situations on a battlefield. However, the U.S. Army has interpreted this provision “as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy “dead or alive.'” While the military believes it can target individual soldiers, the line between an assassination and legitimate killing has become more blurred with new technology like predators. What is not blurred are the rights of U.S. citizens.
As reaffirmed in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are without or outside of the country. In that case, two American women who murdered their husbands on American military bases abroad were given the same protections under the Fifth Amendment regardless of the fact that they were located and committed the crimes abroad.
If a president can kill U.S. citizens abroad, why not within the United States? What is the limiting principle beyond the practicalities?
Duh,
Can you answer this? How will the new kid be able to tell which one is consorting with the enemy? The ones lost, the ones on an information journey, the ones that are on a pilgrimage, the ones that rode the camel because the ass was too slow? Come on tell me.
Byron,
Nice way to rely on the Constitution, but avoid the questions when asked for the specific reference.
Are they still citizens or not?
Technically, Yes, but that’s only because the laws have not recognized giving allegiance to foreign non-state actors. If we were actually at war with Afghanistan, and they were found to be giving aid to Afghanistan, they would have been expatriated under Section 349 of the INA. I’m willing to follow the spirit of the law. The intent to expatriot those who join the enemy is well settled. In time of war, many countries don’t just expatriate them so that they may punish them more severely if they can capture them and bring them back home. That’s how spies are treated.
Every traitor you protect is one more that will kill members of our armed forces, and innocent civilians if given the chance.
What if the guy from Blackwater is new. How will he be able to tell which ones to shoot or not to shoot?
So with a properly informed military was Tillman suspected of cooperating with the enemy? Or was he shot because he no longer believed in the cause and was to appear on a Television show that expressed his views.
If the military can’t figure out when it proper to shoot one of its own by friendly fire and get shot by unfriendly fire, how can you expect them to get it right the next time around.
Wait, you don’t get no next time if you are dead. I would ask Pat but he is dead. Explain the incongruous or was he just inconvenient?
Duh:
actually there are 3 young Americans in an Iranian prison because they got lost while traveling in Kurdistan. So Fixated isn’t too far off base. Although statistically the chances are very low.
Fixated,
“How do you know that they did not get lost? Bad directions. Have you ever gotten lost while driving?”
Ah. The dog ate my homework excuse. Do you really think the “I got lost and ended up with Al Queda” excuse holds any water? It might in your mind, but I don’t find it to be a plausable scenario. Besides that, one would think that the military must have performed enough surveillance to not only make the determination, but to request permission from the POTUS to go ahead with the strike anyway.
Can you tell me about one person who got lost and ended up with Al Queda? Just one?
I trust the U.S. Military to asess the association and the threat. If you don’t, you could always join and lend them a helping hand.
Duh:
“Congratulations! It sure didn’t take you long to invoke Godwin’s Law. :>) Oops. That was your second time tonight.”
I don’t invoke it lightly, in this case it is correct. What you are proposing is tyranny, if you want to diminish what you are saying by telling me I am invoking “Godwin’s Law” then be my guest.
How about I just say that what you are proposing is antithetical to our founding documents and if widely implemented would lead to a police state. Forget the Nazi analogy.
Byron,
I understand what duh is saying. You can kiss you ass good bye and your camel toe if your are caught with the enemy GI Joes.
How do you know that they did not get lost? Bad directions. Have you ever gotten lost while driving? Just because you are a male does not mean you can’t stop and ask directions? So if you stop and ask for directions, does that mean that you are consorting with the enemy? That somehow or another you now pose a credible threat because you are lost?
Why did they go over to that place would be the first question I would ask an American before shooting them? Because after you shoot them it seems a little disingenuous to ask them don’t you agree?
Duh:
you don’t need an executive order to blow some American’s ass away if he is hanging with Al Qaeda. It would be a military action and he got caught in it. Fair game as far as I am concerned, he should have chosen better “friends”.
What about this don’t you understand? You have some blind spot about it. what is it?
Duh:
I have explained myself and answered all of your questions in the above posts.
“Do you think traitors who voluntarily leave this country to join the enemy should be afforded the same protections of a citizen who defends this country?”
Are they still citizens or not?
“How many members of our armed forces are you willing to sacrifice to protect these traitors?”
What I am saying is not incompatible with protecting our troops. If Chumley Patterson jumps up and says God is great and he is holding an AK-47 or a detonator, blow his ass away. If Chumley’s name is on an executive order that says he is to be assassinated that is wrong.
You want to put too much power in the hands of one man. With the type of power you are proposing no one would be safe.
Fixated,
Do you think a U.S. Citizen who leaves their country and is found in the company of Al Queda is not a threat? I think they are, and unless you can come up with some reason honorable reason to justify their association, I think it’s a pretty reliable means of determining that they are a threat.
Remember, I’m talking only about those who have left this country and joined up with Al Queda. Those that have been deemed acceptable targets are only those with known members of Al Queda.
answer my question first not the other way around. You think its perfectly permissible to shoot at someone just because you think that the person that they are with pose a threat. How credible is that threat, the same as what the war mongering Cheney and Bush utilized to take on Iraq?
What is the standard that you utilize before shooting somebody? Just because they are with people in diapers on the head? Would having a clean shaven face make a difference? Duh, do you know?
Fixated Neurotic.
“You are willing to give up all your freedoms, discard the Constitution and throw Liberty under the bus so you can kill a terrorist by executive order so you can feel safe.”
Byron,
Try to answer these questions:
What freedoms have I given up by permitting a traitor, in the company of and exhibiting allegiance to the enemy to be viewed as the enemy?
Where in the Constitution does it prevent the use of force as a means of self-defense?
You are claiming that I want to “discard the Constitution”. Are you referring to “Due Process”? Would that be substantive or procedural due process?
Do you think traitors who voluntarily leave this country to join the enemy should be afforded the same protections of a citizen who defends this country?
How many members of our armed forces are you willing to sacrifice to protect these traitors?
Finally, what liberty am I giving up by saying that it is ok to kill a traitor who is in the company of the enemy?
Can you answer those question? I would like to see if you’re just spweing rhetoric, or if you really have thought about what you’re saying.
Bdaman:
right on!
Duh:
I cannot actually believe a conservative would say what you are saying. It is beyond my comprehension. Please tell me that you are not a Goldwater conservative but believe guys like Bill Krystal, Fred Barnes, and the PNAC crowd.
I dont care if you are a Neo-Con but please not a real conservative. If you are I am quitting the republican party. How many people think like you do? Do you know what you are saying? The full implications? Do you know? Can you not take your assertion to it’s logical conclusion?
What you are proposing leads to Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China. You are talking dictatorship. You are willing to give up all your freedoms, discard the Constitution and throw Liberty under the bus so you can kill a terrorist by executive order so you can feel safe.
You wrong on so many levels, I shouldn’t even have to explain this to you.
Mike,
You’re right. I should have clarified my point. I was talking about foreign entities attacking the U.S.
The National Guard was deployed to New Orleans as a police action when the infrastructure was not able to perform their roll. They were not deployed as a strike force.
I said ““The point was that if an American citizen is giving aid to Al Queda, they should no longer be considered an American Citizen.”
Mike Spindell said “Under whose authority or what legal process, currently in effect would allow that?”
That’s my opinion as to how they should be treated. I supported the idea by referencing Section 349 of the INA. While no law currently exists, I don’t see anything that would prevent the POTUS from making the same determination in relation to U.S. Citizens abroad that are giving aid to Al Queda.
I didn’t make the 9/11 changed everything statement.
“911 Changed everything.”
The only way that is true is in the minds of the idiot TV broadcasters, their pundits and the Bush Crime Family. Same Constitution, Same Bill of Rights and same legal protections in place. Only in the minds of scared rabbits and crooked politicians did anything change.
“The point was that if an American citizen is giving aid to Al Queda, they should no longer be considered an American Citizen.”
Under whose authority or what legal process, currently in effect would allow that?
“The President does not have the authority to use military force inside the United States.”
New Orlean and The National Guard under the command of DHS.