23-06-2014, 10:43 PM
Here's my initial impresions of the memo, if you don't have the patience to read it all:
Memo asserts:
1. The federal statute forbidding US citizens from killing other citizens abroad doesn't apply because the kind of killing prohibited is just the "unlawful" kind, and a killing under color and authority of law isn't the unlawful kind. (the same way a soldier is allowed to kill, or an executioner, or a police officer.)
2. US Drone strikes against US citizens abroad isn't prohibited by the Geneza convention, nor the Hague Convention. Although this is an "armed conflict" involving military forces, it isn't an "international" one, because al-Qaida and its affiliates aren't a "nation." The US is not forbidden to use military force in geographic areas outside the main area of combat.
3. The CIA and the DoD have provided enough information to justify their actions. (Even though we can't see that information) The CIA and the DoD will operate according to the accepted military practices (to minimize collateral damage). The CIA will allow the citizen a chance to surrender.
4. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is not offended because this warrantless seizure of a US citizen's life is justified under the circumstances.
My initial response:
1. The memo assumes the answer that it is supposed to prove, namely, that this sort of killings aren't unlawful. Saying that if an action isn't prohibited by Federal statutes, or by the Fourth Amendment, isn't at all the same thing as saying it is perfectly ok for the Federal Government to do it. Our federal government is supposed to be one of limited and enumerated powers, not one with general rule making authority. There isn't a specific rule saying that the FBI can't come to my house, kick down my door, and eat all my delicious food; how many place settings should I use?
2. Even if no other "nations" are combatants, uses of military force in other nations' territory does have international implications (and consequences). What about if trans-national corporations go to war all across the globe? Are we chucking away a century of international goodwill (and common sense) for sufficient reason?
3. Are you sure that allowing the persons and groups ordering the killings to self-determine whether or not they have sufficient justification to act is wise? We've always used more or less public hearings by the Judicial Branch of the government for that (up to now). You might be setting a bad precendent for others to justify thier actions. What if (hypothetically) a future Texas Governor Ted Cruz decides to authorize the Texas Department of Public Safety to shoot illegal immigrants on sight ? (You might think that's silly, but the problems posed by illegal immigrants is bigger than the Federal government wants to hear about, and feelings in Texas are quite polarized.) I peronally represent people charged with crimes who personally believe that their actions were justified - do they get a free pass? A "chance to surrender" sounds a lot like a Robocop movie.
4. The intricacies of the Fourth Amendment should be decided by the judicial branch of the government. That stated, this problem is far bigger than a Fouth Amendment "search and seizure" question. There are Due Process implications, common law implications, balance of power (between the 3 branches of government) problems, and more. At a bare minimum, before the government acts to deprive a citizen of thier life or their property, they are entitled to notice and a hearing.
There is one last thing you should know about the memo. The legality of all this stuff rests on a single assertion of fact, that al-Qaida caused 9/11. From that sprang the Patriot Act, Congress's gift of war making powers to the President, the AUMF, and much else. If that fact weren't true, the legality of drone strikes and presumably most everything else the US has done, folds up like a house of cards.
Conclusion: The memo, long as it is, doesn't contain sufficient Constitutional law to justify the actions, but contains a fair summary of how drone strikes, on certain US citizens, without notice or hearing, don't violate any existing statute or treaty. I recall my oath, and that of the President, and (I assume) all of the soldiers and generals, was to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is apparent to me on whose side the Contitution is, unpopular (and inconvenient) as that may be.
Memo asserts:
1. The federal statute forbidding US citizens from killing other citizens abroad doesn't apply because the kind of killing prohibited is just the "unlawful" kind, and a killing under color and authority of law isn't the unlawful kind. (the same way a soldier is allowed to kill, or an executioner, or a police officer.)
2. US Drone strikes against US citizens abroad isn't prohibited by the Geneza convention, nor the Hague Convention. Although this is an "armed conflict" involving military forces, it isn't an "international" one, because al-Qaida and its affiliates aren't a "nation." The US is not forbidden to use military force in geographic areas outside the main area of combat.
3. The CIA and the DoD have provided enough information to justify their actions. (Even though we can't see that information) The CIA and the DoD will operate according to the accepted military practices (to minimize collateral damage). The CIA will allow the citizen a chance to surrender.
4. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is not offended because this warrantless seizure of a US citizen's life is justified under the circumstances.
My initial response:
1. The memo assumes the answer that it is supposed to prove, namely, that this sort of killings aren't unlawful. Saying that if an action isn't prohibited by Federal statutes, or by the Fourth Amendment, isn't at all the same thing as saying it is perfectly ok for the Federal Government to do it. Our federal government is supposed to be one of limited and enumerated powers, not one with general rule making authority. There isn't a specific rule saying that the FBI can't come to my house, kick down my door, and eat all my delicious food; how many place settings should I use?
2. Even if no other "nations" are combatants, uses of military force in other nations' territory does have international implications (and consequences). What about if trans-national corporations go to war all across the globe? Are we chucking away a century of international goodwill (and common sense) for sufficient reason?
3. Are you sure that allowing the persons and groups ordering the killings to self-determine whether or not they have sufficient justification to act is wise? We've always used more or less public hearings by the Judicial Branch of the government for that (up to now). You might be setting a bad precendent for others to justify thier actions. What if (hypothetically) a future Texas Governor Ted Cruz decides to authorize the Texas Department of Public Safety to shoot illegal immigrants on sight ? (You might think that's silly, but the problems posed by illegal immigrants is bigger than the Federal government wants to hear about, and feelings in Texas are quite polarized.) I peronally represent people charged with crimes who personally believe that their actions were justified - do they get a free pass? A "chance to surrender" sounds a lot like a Robocop movie.
4. The intricacies of the Fourth Amendment should be decided by the judicial branch of the government. That stated, this problem is far bigger than a Fouth Amendment "search and seizure" question. There are Due Process implications, common law implications, balance of power (between the 3 branches of government) problems, and more. At a bare minimum, before the government acts to deprive a citizen of thier life or their property, they are entitled to notice and a hearing.
There is one last thing you should know about the memo. The legality of all this stuff rests on a single assertion of fact, that al-Qaida caused 9/11. From that sprang the Patriot Act, Congress's gift of war making powers to the President, the AUMF, and much else. If that fact weren't true, the legality of drone strikes and presumably most everything else the US has done, folds up like a house of cards.
Conclusion: The memo, long as it is, doesn't contain sufficient Constitutional law to justify the actions, but contains a fair summary of how drone strikes, on certain US citizens, without notice or hearing, don't violate any existing statute or treaty. I recall my oath, and that of the President, and (I assume) all of the soldiers and generals, was to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is apparent to me on whose side the Contitution is, unpopular (and inconvenient) as that may be.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."