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,
That is true than a left handed handshake in a water closet.
Canadian Eh,
Ya just never know what can happen in a persons life. Hmm, so what kind of opposition would one face? I don’t mind a challenge but physically, I am not the scrapper I once was. So it would have to be a verbal joust. And in that event, local colloquialism would either have to be explained or prohibited.
Are you ready?
Wait, you didn’t say if you were the one being oppositional. Let me rethink this.
“what exactly is a dirty politician?”
Elected? 🙂
ROFL, that’s very funny AY. Although I’m pretty sure that there would be some opposition to my making such unconditional offers! However, I’m also sure others would get a kick out of it, I know I am.
Duh,
All to often you are correct. Too damn much “Officer/Prosecutors” Discretion and then when the Judge uses that same discretion the Judge gets blasted….
I think Bush using the FBI to bust Jefferson a couple of years ago was a clear abuse of Discretion. But he was about as dirty as you can be but in Louisiana, what exactly is a dirty politician?
Canadian Eh.,
Is that an unconditional conditional invitation? If so don’t you want more info? Hmm, Turley Dating on line, Turley Mating Season, ya just never know whats gonna happen on SuperBowl Sunday…..
I am getting a kick out of this..
AY,
I doubt the framers intended the commerce clause to extend jurisdiction in many of the ways it is currenlty being used. I’m talking about the federal level. I can understand the commerce clause being used “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” but I think it should be considered an ubuse of power for my government to arrest me for buying a bag of pot and consuming it in the foreign country where their laws would permit it.
States doing it too is even worse.
The problem with most of it, is that those arrested usually don’t have the funds appeal. We have so many unconstitutional laws on the books, but they never get a chance to be ruled unconstitutional because of the cost of doing so.
We actually have a child pornography law in Missouri that states “or appears to be a minor under 18 years of age”. Who gets to make that call? I think it is clearly unconstitutionally ambiguous, making it a violation of due process.
YVW….
Are you thinking of a move to the great white North if the number is high enough….lol?
Thank you ever so much.
Very good question AY, the answer is, I have no idea! I may know someone who does though. The agency that I work for is Mental Health & Addictions, hence I tend to know little and refer a lot when it comes to the addictions end. The addictions program actually runs a program for court ordered DUI offenders and I do believe the program is for any DUI offence ( alcohol or drugs ). I’ll ask the AC assocoiated with our team tomorrow and get back to you if she knows the answer.
Canadian Eh,
The question is in my mind how is how high (no pun intended) must for the THC be before they can charge? Or in the alternative how low must the THC be before they consider it to be just a trace element?
I am not scientist, but they say it should be out of your system after 28/30 days. I have seen some people charged with a Probation violation for testing positive for s spike after 60 days. My thought after doing criminal matters and trials more than 20 years is that in some people it will spike.
It spikes because it is stored in the fat. If a person is marginally fat/obese/big/plump/chunky etc, my thought is that the fat will secret it and burn put it back into the body as it is stored in fat cells. If you no longer have the muchies you start losing weight and it is slowly released and therefore it will spike for that reason.
So the question is what is the lowest that the THC be and still be charged with a DUI?
AY,
I think it is indeed actually legal to smoke weed here, however, it is illegal to be in posession. However, if one has smoked and then gotten behind the wheel and is caught & blood tested + for THC one would be charged with DUI.
I am talking about legally drinking and then coming back to the US and being arrested for doing what is legal in the other country. It happens in any border state. The interesting cases that I have read were from WA state, MI, NM. One case I am familiar with is it is legal to smoke weed in Canada. Specifically Windsor. Occupants of a vehicle were stopped for an alleged traffic violation. The car was searched and nothing was found in the car. The Officer, trying to cover his ass arrested the driver for impaired. After the person was taken to jail the BAC read .000 3 times. The officer then obtained a search warrant for blood and a blood draw was taken at the hospital. It showed .000 for alcohol, but tested positive for THC. The driver was then arrested for DUI, Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. A trace amount mind you.
It was appealed on the grounds that what is legal in one country you cannot be subsequently tried for a crime that is not a crime in which you committed that crime.
The result was that case was dismissed. Now it is common practice for the cops to test for drugs if they can’t get a legitimate read on the BAC. I shit you not.
AY, I’m not talking about a DUI. I’m only talking about performing an act outside of the territorial jurisdiction, and being charged with performing that act outside of the territorial act by their home state/country.
Are you talking about a zero tolerance policy for those underage drinkers who are caught driving drunk? Or are they actually being charged with violating a Michigan law while in Canada? (I’m assuming you’re talking about them returning from Canada)
Duh,
That has already been tried in Michigan. The drinking age is 18 or 19 and when they come back to the US specifically MI as they have a Zero Tolerance Policy.
AY, It sounds like corruption at the highest level. I think the U.S. Courts would have lacked personal jurisdiction over Noriega.
I’ve been reading about extratorial jurisdiction under the commerce clause. I have a problem with the U.S. Laws being imposed on a citizen who travels overseas and performs an act that would be illegal here, and then being tried here for the act upon their return.
Could you imagine if one of the states tried that? What if the drinking age in one state was 21, and the border state was 19 (as it was in MO and IL respectively when I was of that age). Could you imagine them prosecuting me for purchasing and consuming a beer in IL, and MO prosecuting me for it?
We live in strange times.
The guy that was President of Panama. Was employed by the CIA and when he no longer was useful to US he was brought to the US to be tried for drug trade. Never mind that a US Ambassadors wife was using the US Military to send those same white packages home on a weekly basis. She was not tried as a drug smuggler….
AY,
The Noriega case is indeed strange. Refresh my memory. Did he direct attacks against a territory or personnel of the United States? Under what law can we still be holding him? I would see it differently if we were currently at war with Panama.
Maybe I need to find out more about Noriega’s actions.
I guess you can find all sots of stuff out on the net….
Duh,
It is the case of another person that the US used and abused so long as he was beneficial to US. It is the case of Manuel Noriega vs the United States of America.
is a former general and the military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989.
The 1989 invasion of Panama by the United States removed him from power; he was captured, detained as a prisoner of war, and flown to the U.S. Noriega was tried on eight counts of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in April 1992. Noriega’s US prison sentence ended in September 2007; pending the outcome of extradition requests by both Panama and France, he remains in prison as of 2010.
Still there huh???????
Although the relationship did not become contractual until 1967, Noriega worked with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s until 1989, and was on the CIA payroll until February 5, 1988, when the US Drug Enforcement Administration indicted him on federal drug charges……
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
The court holds that it does not apply to foreign nationals….To be honest I think that W’s Daddy was getting nervous about the ties with the man…
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2202926