The Executive can assassinate any citizen they want?

[Ddrak]

Apparently...

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/06/obama ... horrifying

Essentially the memo says that while terrorism exists, the executive branch can unilaterally decide any citizen may be executed in secret, and then proceed to do so without oversight. Thoughts?

Dd

[Kulaf]

I am just curious.......what is the alternative? We send in special forces and attempt to arrest him and return him to the US to face trial? And then if he resists arrest and is shot and killed everything then is kosher? Because we tried right?

Or do we try him in absentia for treason? And if he is convicted then we can legally kill him?

[Ddrak]

Interesting question - I'd expect some sort of oversight, even if it was after the fact. Being able to unilaterally decide a citizen can be assassinated isn't really something the constitution had in mind for the executive, particularly with the "he might be doing something bad at ANY TIME!" excuse.

Dd

[Arathena]

I am just curious.......what is the alternative? We send in special forces and attempt to arrest him and return him to the US to face trial? And then if he resists arrest and is shot and killed everything then is kosher? Because we tried right?

Or do we try him in absentia for treason? And if he is convicted then we can legally kill him?

Frankly, yes.

The murder of Awlaki was illegal, full stop. A citizen terrorist is still a citizen, even if he has committed a crime.

[Minute]

I am just curious.......what is the alternative? We send in special forces and attempt to arrest him and return him to the US to face trial? And then if he resists arrest and is shot and killed everything then is kosher? Because we tried right?

Or do we try him in absentia for treason? And if he is convicted then we can legally kill him?

Frankly, yes.

The murder of Awlaki was illegal, full stop. A citizen terrorist is still a citizen, even if he has committed a crime.

Yeah, I'm wondering why this wasn't done as well? Even if we have the address of a known serial killer here we don't drone bomb his house, we go there & arrest him. If he resists arrest, we shoot the shit out of him, but we attempt the due process first.

[Kulaf]

So we invade another sovereign country with ground troops? Who has to authorize that? And what if the country in question refuses to either extradite or allow said ground mission?

[Ddrak]

There's the problem with military action against non-state actors. Fundamentally, terrorism is a criminal act and a police matter. The same goes for drug trafficking. There's a bunch of hoops to jump through when dealing with police matters across national boundaries for very good reason! So, yes. This does need to be dealt with in a bilateral manner with the other nation, and my understanding is dropping bombs on another sovereign nation (without permission) is an act of war against that nation no matter who is sitting under the bomb. I don't think Australia would take kindly to a US bomb targeting the random idiots we have going over to fight in Syria, for example.

In this particular case though, despite whatever the Yemeni government said publicly, I'd assume there was enough discussion to get some sort of approval. I'm comfortable enough that congress was insane enough to authorize unlimited action against all nations in the pursuit of Al Qaeda (they should revoke that, but that's a different discussion). I'm just saying that the extra-judicial assassination of your own citizens when they are not posing a *clear* and *present* danger should be all sorts of illegal.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Right. So what we are saying is that law has not kept pace with this issue. Therefore why look to the judiciary rather than Congress.

[Ddrak]

I'm not looking to the judiciary to fix things, but to oversee things. Whether the law has kept pace or not, it's still the law and the executive can't just ignore it because it's inconvenient. I've no problem with congress passing new laws, or in this case possibly crafting amendments to the constitution, but until that the judiciary would seem to be required.

Dd

[Arathena]

So we invade another sovereign country with ground troops? Who has to authorize that? And what if the country in question refuses to either extradite or allow said ground mission?

Then you're up shit creek without a paddle. That's pretty much one of the entire points of having sovereign nations. You want that to change, you better start campaigning for a world government.

[Kulaf]

Well right now the President is still using the AUMF to go after known Al Qaeda associates. So the question then becomes whether Congress can authorize the President to attack and destroy non-state actors who are at war with the U.S. when they also happen to be citizens of same.

And really all Congress needs to do is pass a piece of legislation outlining what acts a citizen may commit that would constitute voluntary relinquishment of citizenship.

[Arathena]

And really all Congress needs to do is pass a piece of legislation amend Article III, section 2, and repeal the 7th and 8th Amendments, before outlining what acts a citizen may commit that would constitute voluntary relinquishment of citizenship.

Fixed that for you. Citizen sponsored terrorism is a crime. Citizens are entitled, by their citizenship, to indictment by grand jury, to a trial by jury, and they are entitled to confront that jury. The only exemptions are the President and members of the military.

It would be reasonable, imo, to argue that the assassination of a US citizen by the administration is an impeachable offense.

[Harlowe]

And really all Congress needs to do is pass a piece of legislation amend Article III, section 2, and repeal the 7th and 8th Amendments, before outlining what acts a citizen may commit that would constitute voluntary relinquishment of citizenship.

Fixed that for you. Citizen sponsored terrorism is a crime. Citizens are entitled, by their citizenship, to indictment by grand jury, to a trial by jury, and they are entitled to confront that jury. The only exemptions are the President and members of the military.

It would be reasonable, imo, to argue that the assassination of a US citizen by the administration is an impeachable offense.

I wonder why they don't use that angle to go after the administration? To me, it seems like the only rational offense they have. Our government assassinating an actual citizen for any reason is pretty scary shit.

[Ddrak]

I wonder why they don't use that angle to go after the administration? To me, it seems like the only rational offense they have. Our government assassinating an actual citizen for any reason is pretty scary shit.

If the GOP went after Obama for overacting on National Security then they'd lose the Neocon support. Same reason they aren't going after him on all the lies that were told to congress about the NSA's activities (also impeachable).

Dd

[Kulaf]

And really all Congress needs to do is pass a piece of legislation amend Article III, section 2, and repeal the 7th and 8th Amendments, before outlining what acts a citizen may commit that would constitute voluntary relinquishment of citizenship.

Fixed that for you. Citizen sponsored terrorism is a crime. Citizens are entitled, by their citizenship, to indictment by grand jury, to a trial by jury, and they are entitled to confront that jury. The only exemptions are the President and members of the military.

It would be reasonable, imo, to argue that the assassination of a US citizen by the administration is an impeachable offense.

That is not true. An oath to a non state actor (terrorist organization) can be considered an oath to an enemy of the US and grounds to be considered a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship under Congress's Constitutional power to regulate foreign affairs.

... the activities of the citizens of one nation when in another country can easily cause serious embarrassments to the government of their own country as well as to their fellow citizens. We cannot deny to Congress the reasonable belief that these difficulties might well become acute, to the point of jeopardizing the successful conduct of international relations, when a citizen of one country chooses to participate in the political or governmental affairs of another country. The citizen may by his action unwittingly promote or encourage a course of conduct contrary to the interests of his own government; moreover, the people or government of the foreign country may regard his action to be the action of his government, or at least as a reflection if not an expression of its policy.... It follows that such activity is regulable by Congress under its power to deal with foreign affairs.

http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of ... nship.html

2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;

All Congress has to do is alter either section 2 or section 3 to include non-state terrorist organizations as another method of voluntary relinquishment.

[Arathena]

And really all Congress needs to do is pass a piece of legislation amend Article III, section 2, and repeal the 7th and 8th Amendments, before outlining what acts a citizen may commit that would constitute voluntary relinquishment of citizenship.

Fixed that for you. Citizen sponsored terrorism is a crime. Citizens are entitled, by their citizenship, to indictment by grand jury, to a trial by jury, and they are entitled to confront that jury. The only exemptions are the President and members of the military.

It would be reasonable, imo, to argue that the assassination of a US citizen by the administration is an impeachable offense.

That is not true. An oath to a non state actor (terrorist organization) can be considered an oath to an enemy of the US and grounds to be considered a voluntary relinquishment of citizenship under Congress's Constitutional power to regulate foreign affairs.

... the activities of the citizens of one nation when in another country can easily cause serious embarrassments to the government of their own country as well as to their fellow citizens. We cannot deny to Congress the reasonable belief that these difficulties might well become acute, to the point of jeopardizing the successful conduct of international relations, when a citizen of one country chooses to participate in the political or governmental affairs of another country. The citizen may by his action unwittingly promote or encourage a course of conduct contrary to the interests of his own government; moreover, the people or government of the foreign country may regard his action to be the action of his government, or at least as a reflection if not an expression of its policy.... It follows that such activity is regulable by Congress under its power to deal with foreign affairs.

http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/loss_of ... nship.html

2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;

All Congress has to do is alter either section 2 or section 3 to include non-state terrorist organizations as another method of voluntary relinquishment.

... Legal, maybe. But a steaming pile of bullshit. Beyond the impossibility of proving an oath to a non-state organization; we have a defined crime for taking up arms against the state, and do not particularly need to discard due process in favor of the ability to declare random organizations as non-citizens. Under your proposal, we could strike the citizenship of, oh, say, the entire Oath Keepers militia and start dropping bombs on the Bundy Ranch. (They are domestic terrorists, after all).

Harlowe: Dd's almost got the impeachment angle right, imo. I think what he's missing is that the Republicans want the power to do so for themselves.