Targeting US citizens abroad

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

This article seems to sum up the situation where US citizens can be targeted by drones.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing

Frankly, I'm torn and I think there needs to be a national debate about this. I agree with the Obama administration's decision, but I also think it is a dangerous line to cross.

If, for example a US citizen were to join a foreign military that person would be fair game. But what happens when there is no military to join? When groups don't play by the "accepted" military rules. There has to be a way that we can legitimately claim a citizen has become an enemy combatant. OTOH, what will stop the powers that be from claiming that members of a domestic terrorist group are enemy combatants? Is it simply borders? Do the American ideals of due process stop at the border?

Here is my current line of thinking. Yes, borders matter, but these borders are defined as the places where US rule-of-law is supreme or covered by treaty. If you as an American citizen are engaged in certain activities within places where there is no US protection, then you place yourself at risk. If at any time you surrender and voluntarily come under arrest, then all rights, privileges and consequences should prevail, including if necessary, revocation of your passport. Since the US has an active military and law enforcement under its control, this would not allow the powers-that-be to target American citizens on American soil or elsewhere in cooperating nations.

What say you? I'm willing to be convinced either way.

Comments

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

My concern with this and all such laws is:

"Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power."

I'm frankly tired off these kind of proposals that use so much vague language that it's obvious there's plenty of loopholes there for someone who wants to destroy American lives for their own personal gain.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, which is why I feel we need public discussion and clearer codifying by congress and SCOTUS. I trust no one in power.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

It seems that only becomes an issue when it's The Other Guy in power. Americans, imho, no longer have the ability or the will to think beyond this week's news cycle.

Whenever there is a Republican in the White House and this law is invoked against a left-winger, it will become the Bush Mandate all over again to those who object, skipping any intervening Democratic presidents. And future Democratic presidents will be saddled with Obama's decision because their targets will be right-wing.

Ox. Gore. Disgusting overall.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Foreign policy pragmatism in terms of civil and human rights only happens when it's the right guy in office.

Bush detains people because he's evil. Obama does it because he must. It's true because it's true.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I've mostly been stalling on this. I can see it both ways. Mostly what annoys me is all the screaching about it. I think after about 9 years of constant screaching, you start to get dim and broken and stop taking things seriously. Mostly I come down against it, part of me can see being for it. In any case, the usual sort of internet blogosphere fulminating about it just turns my brain off.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

So you are saying hipsters are a product of the tone of our national political divide? It could be but I really don't care, too busy listening to music you've never heard of.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The reality is that nowadays it's almost impossible to have a protracted conventional war, especially if we're talking USA v. somebody else. If someone's hellbent on fighting the USA, thus, they're not going to choose the suicide route, they're going to try for the one that's the most effective: irregular warfare, mislabeled as freedom fighting when it's the kind the USA likes, and as terrorism when it's the kind the USA dislikes. US citizens that side with irregular bands are engaged in treason by the constitutional definition, and as such deserve the punishment one bestows on traitors: death. It makes no difference if the fighting is in an army with a regular uniform or in the form of a guy who plants an IED to blow up an IFV. QED.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The article closes:

These deaths and those to come, Holder insisted Monday, do not represent a violation of America's founding principles. "This is an indicator of our times," Holder said, "not a departure from our laws and our values."

I must say that I heartily disagree with this assessment. Assassination in the name of national security is something that I would expect from King George, not the founders of a republic that aspires to freedom.

It is ironic that Obama makes Reagan look liberal. Back in Reagan's time, assassinations had to be kept ultra-super-secret with plausible deniability.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

911 changed everything!

/for the worse, unfortunately

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Legal issues are always complicated.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You're making a lot of claims without citations here, and despite passing mentions of legalism, I don't see a lot of legal argument here. Why does the Art III "treason" definition apply only within the US? How is the Army not subject to "civilian law," given that the UCMJ is developed and implemented by civilians, and they are bound by other aspects of civilian law (search and seizure law, for instance)? What does Congress's power to set rules for the military have to do with the unilateral executive decision to revoke someone's right to life under the Fourth Amendment?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I agree its messy. I think just as a general rule, if a country declares war (not war on drugs war) on something, you should realize that turning traitor and actively fighting for the destruction of that country is probably not going to make you a friend of that country. In fact, if you're out in a battlefield, they may even off you.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I suppose we simply must trust the nice people in Washington when they tell us that someone is a traitor.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I would say that we don't have the right to assassinate anyone anywhere regardless of citizenship. We can declare war on a country, not on a group of people.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm sure the Sioux and Cherokees are delighted to know this.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

What do we consider an assassination and what do we consider killed in war?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, what do you call the targeting of Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku?

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

I'd say it works out badly if you consider the reverse. Let's say Russia would be able to assasinate its Russian traitors on US soil and we would have to watch simply because it's OK when we do it too.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

How much killing it will take to prove that killing is bad?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Let me know when the USA pays the Yamamoto family.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Killing is bad, however it often is necessary.

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

Wonderful--presidential hit machines. Why don't we just trample all over the checks and balances of our government?

Also, it's awfully easy to kill someone and afterwards concoct some sort of plot they were supposedly in.