The rules for Drone strikes are now out, and they show the same disregard for the constitution as the torture framework created under the Bush administration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21333570
The part that I find most disturbing is the legal framework for using lethal force against US Citizens. I lifted this paragraph from the leaked memo:
“the United States would be able to use lethal force agains a US citizen, who is located outside the United States and is an operational leader continually planning attacks against US Persons and interests, in at least the following circumstances: (1) where an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;(2) where a capture operation would be infeasible–and where those conducting the operation continue to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) where such an operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles.”
Incredibly, this paragraph is followed by a total disclaimer of constitutional principles:
The condition that an operational leader presents an ‘imminent’ threat to violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
This framework centers around the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki – a US citizen that was droned in 2011. Interestingly, even if you believed we had the right to kill anybody using the rules defined above, the argument that Anwar al-Awlaki meets these criteria is weak.
Al-Awlaki was targeted because he was a radical Islamist speaker and spiritual leader – he was not an ‘operational leader’. If you read his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki), it’s not even conclusive he was a member of al-Quaida. And no proof has been provided by the government that he himself ‘posed an imminent threat of violent attack against the US’.
Punishment for imminent lawless action has been defined by the Supreme Court in the Brandenburg vs Ohio case. In reading that case, it doesn’t seem to me there was proof of an ‘imminent threat’ – not to mention that the penalty al-Awlaki paid was death, and without due process.
Because there is no constitutional basis for this, the statements in the memo mean lethal force could be stretched to apply to any political activist, speaker or author critical of the United States – depending on the how the government defines ‘violent attack’. If history is any guide look for this framework to be loosened and expanded by subsequent administrations. Torture was re-legitimized in the 21st century in the name of national defense, and has been expanded to American citizens accused of crimes against the state. Worse yet, this lethal force is being administered and committed not by a police force or the Defense department, but by the CIA – a department with limited governmental oversight and near zero public scrutiny.
Death to American citizens by executive order has been justified, without debate or review by either the judicial or legislative branch. This is truly a sad day in American history, and unfortunately only the beginning.
We are doomed.
I know a person who is a socialist-like Bernie Sanders fan, someone who wanted to vote for Ralph Nader every time he ran and he has no problem with this. ‘We are at war’ and someone needs to decide. As long as we don’t do it in the USA then it is ok.
No regard for foreign innocents who might be killed or for any oversight issues.
His advice to me was just to turn the station to the tennis channel.
WOW! Ignore the bad things going on and trust that an ‘informed high-level official of the US government’ will make reasonable decisions.
If someone like this can be swayed then we really are in deep trouble.