Friday, September 30, 2011

Who Cares if al-Awlaki was a Citizen???

He was a person.

And in my government class, we were taught that the use of the word "person" in the Constitution was deliberate. The fifth amendment refers to "persons". Other portions refer to "citizens". I don't understand the contrast between the killing of al-Awlaki and the killing of bin Laden and it's disconcerting to me that people think rights like due process only matter for citizens. That should be disconcerting for you too.

Due process is of course dependent on circumstance. Due process on the battlefield is different from due process regarding prisoners of war. Due process for a criminal pointing a gun at a cop is different from due process for a criminal in hand-cuffs. Who the hell cares about "citizenship". Due process is a right that attaches to persons.

I don't personally know the ins and outs of combatants vs. soldiers, etc. But I do know one thing - I don't see this killing of al-Awlaki as any different from the killing of bin Laden. But I'm bothered by the fact that (1.) some people seem to think that non-citizens somehow ought to be treated differently when it comes to the rights of persons, and that seems dangerous, (2.) people are talking about totalitarianism with regards to this, which to me trivializes totalitarianism, and (3.) that people still talk as if radical Islamic terrorism is a criminal issue is really baffling to me.

29 comments:

  1. "Due process is of course dependent on circumstance."

    Due process is made up of two types; procedural and substantive. I'm just going to assume you mean the former.

    Procedural due process is mostly about issues like notice, neutrality of the arbiter (the judge for example), etc.

    To cut to the heart of the matter, in this case it is really the neutrality of the arbiter that is the case.

    I'd say one way to look at it is the way that Jacob Sullum looked at it in 2010:

    Before you take the government's word that Awlaki has been marked for death based on something more than his anti-American tirades, consider its track record in justifying the detention of alleged "belligerents." Even though the burden of proof is much lighter than it would be in a criminal trial, the American Civil Liberties Union notes, "the government has failed to prove the lawfulness of imprisoning individual Guantanamo detainees in 34 of the 48 cases that have been reviewed by the federal courts thus far."

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/09/license-to-kill

    Note that the courts have basically said "political question" when it comes to this issue, so what you are left with is a tussle between the Congress and the Presidency over issues like this. And since the executive tends to be given a fairly free hand in matters overseas, the President is going to be making the decision. So we're back to the perennial query - how much power do you want to grant the Presidency in national security/affairs? Unfortunately there are no answers that are going to satisfy everyone, and there are a number of answers that are both popular and are going to lead to very bad results down the line. Undergirding all that are matters like precedent - what sort of precedent did this set? In what way will future Presidents try to broaden? Can they do so easily via this action? How will this precedent interact with future technology? Etc. etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Due process for a criminal pointing a gun at a cop is different from due process for a criminal in hand-cuffs."

    And due process for a cop murdering dogs and pregnant women and engaging in deliberate confrontations with people is different from due process for a mundane to point a gun at a police dog or engaging deliberate confrontation with a cop.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel can you elaborate on (2)? What more does a government have to do, to become totalitarian, than claim the right to kill whomever it wants, and not even justify the action after the fact?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure I understand the question Bob. That does seem like all it would have to do to become totalitarian.

    Hasn't the government identified al-Awlaki as an affiliate of al Qaeda, who we are involved in military action against. It's hardly "whomever it wants", and it's hardly been left unjustified. What people are concerned about is that it didn't go through the courts. Patton didn't take Rundstedt to the courts before he went after him either. And what about bin Laden? How is this different from bin Laden for you? Why is it that American citizenship gets people concerned about due process? That's alarmingly nationalistic, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel,

    The historical example from WWII you are really searching for is the killing of Isoroku Yamamoto. To my knowledge von Rundstedt was never targeted in the way Yamamoto was. There was an effort to assassinate Rommel though.

    To get out of the "good war" analogies note that thousands of Viet Cong were assassinated as a part of the Phoenix Program. It proved to erode the U.S. position during the war via its effects on the population of the country.

    Really what the Obama administration is claiming is they, upon their judgment, can determine who and who not to kill not in some broad offensive but via assassination. So yes, they identified him - but that isn't the end of the analysis of the question.

    "What people are concerned about is that it didn't go through the courts."

    What I am concerned about is whether the President should wield this power unilaterally. Obviously the President has a number of advisors on this matter, but that again brings up the neutral arbiter issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What are you talking about Daniel? I was deeply disturbed by the bin Laden situation too. I didn't dwell on it because I'm still not sure they actually killed him that night. The whole thing was so fishy.

    And are you saying with a straight face that a government isn't totalitarian, so long as it claims (without offering any proof to outsiders) that the person it killed was a bad guy? By that token, Big Brother wasn't totalitarian. That Emmanuel Goldstein was a real jerk (so he claimed).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daniel, is this what's happening here? Are you saying something like, "I can't believe these hypocrites! The same people who cheered bin Laden's death are now raising concerns over AA's, because of some arbitrary thing like nationality!" ?

    If that's what you mean, I think it's overblown. I am a lot more concerned about the people (like you) who don't have a problem with either outcome.

    The reason the consistent antiwar crowd (of which I'm a member) are stressing this guy's citizenship, is that we're trying to wake the rest of you up. The real distinction for most Americans isn't citizenship, it's whether the guy has a funny Muslim name. By stressing the citizenship, I'm trying to get Joe Sixpack to realize, "Oh wait, if Obama can do that, then Obama can unilaterally assert--without any judicial overview--that Joe Smith is a terrorist and needs to get blown up by a drone. Hmmm."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gary -
    No, that's not the historical example I'm looking for because I don't see a difference between "assassination" and "killing during war" if you happen to be the guy being aimed at.

    re: "What I am concerned about is whether the President should wield this power unilaterally."

    Having a commander in chief is not a concern to me. I'd prefer we didn't have to wage any wars. But since as far as I can tell that's going to be a necessity, it seems to me one person ought to have final say and it seems to me that one person ought to be elected by the people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. re: "What are you talking about Daniel? I was deeply disturbed by the bin Laden situation too."

    It's not a matter of being "disturbed". I asked whether you see the situation differently. What's amazing to me is that so many people who didn't think twice about bin Laden except to say "it seems strange to celebrate a death" are getting upset over this because al Awlaki was an American citizen, when due process protections ought to have nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship status. Everyone deserves due process. That does not mean due process is always going to mean being taken before a court.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob -
    re: "And are you saying with a straight face that a government isn't totalitarian, so long as it claims (without offering any proof to outsiders) that the person it killed was a bad guy? By that token, Big Brother wasn't totalitarian."

    What are you talking about? I don't judge totalitarianism by what a given government says. I judge totalitarianism by what it does.

    re: "Daniel, is this what's happening here? Are you saying something like, "I can't believe these hypocrites! The same people who cheered bin Laden's death are now raising concerns over AA's, because of some arbitrary thing like nationality!""

    I have lots of concerns. One simply is that all the people talking about the 5th amendment act as if due process is just something for citizens. That reaction ought to bother you, Bob. But I'm also concerned that a member of al Qaeda is viewed differently than bin Laden because he happens to be an American citizen - as if that changes anything. Yes, that's an extremely problematic way to view things for me.

    re: "By stressing the citizenship, I'm trying to get Joe Sixpack to realize, "Oh wait, if Obama can do that, then Obama can unilaterally assert--without any judicial overview--that Joe Smith is a terrorist and needs to get blown up by a drone. Hmmm."

    How the hell do you connect those dots, Bob? How does the fact that the president - authorized by Congress - can prosecute a military action threaten the average citizen? When has judicial review EVER been required for the president to take military action that is authorized by Congress, Bob? Don't make me out to be some totalitarian-endorsing monster. I resent that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daniel,

    "No, that's not the historical example I'm looking for because I don't see a difference between 'assassination' and 'killing during war' if you happen to be the guy being aimed at."

    Well, why then do advocates of such efforts try to use the term "targeted killing" instead of assassination? Indeed, they avoid the latter because they directly consider it an unlawful act. Now it may seem strange, but some acts in war are unlawful, and others not, even if they end up with the same result (someone dead) - concealed weapons is an example. There are numerous reasons why these sorts of distinctions are made.

    "...it seems to me one person ought to have final say and it seems to me that one person ought to be elected by the people."

    Sure, but determining jus in bello is a power that the executive holds at best in part with the Congress (indeed, the Congress probably has far more constitutional authority in that area than the President does). Determining jus in bello really isn't exclusively up to the President in other words; their are significant constitutional limits on the President's powers when the President is engaged in warfare - where the line between creating policies associated with the conduct of war and say operational decisions ("take that hill" sorts of decisions) is not exactly bright, but whether drone attacks meant to kill specific people is lawful seems at least in part within the power of the Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  12. re: "Determining jus in bello really isn't exclusively up to the President in other words"

    I never said it was, Gary. If Obama or anyone in the chain of command is guilty of anything at all he should be hauled before a court. Don't act as if I've been arguing that the president has a free hand. I haven't.

    If you want to critique a point I've actually argued, fine. If you want to critique the claim that the president has no limits during war, then go find someone who has made such a claim.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DK said:

    How the hell do you connect those dots, Bob? How does the fact that the president - authorized by Congress - can prosecute a military action threaten the average citizen?

    Daniel, the reason people like Glenn Greenwald are going nuts on this, it that AA was hardly a military target. He wasn't on a battlefield ordering airstrikes against the US.

    Yes, taking him out is closer to a "military operation" than, say, if they launched drones against the Wall Street protesters. But that's how slippery slopes work.

    There is no doubt in my mind that within our lifetimes, there will be similar assassinations conducted on US soil. There won't be trials for people the government doesn't like; all the government will have to do is say, "He was a terrorist, but we can't show you the proof."

    Are you saying that can't possibly happen here? They're already doing drone surveillance on US soil.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Daniel,

    I never wrote that you did.

    We're having a conversation.

    "Don't act as if I've been arguing that the president has a free hand. I haven't."

    I didn't. I don't really know what your drama is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bob,

    Right, it is the precedential status of this combined with the new technologies that is most critical to understand.

    BTW, if you want some different responses to what Greenwald has had see here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bob -
    re: "Daniel, the reason people like Glenn Greenwald are going nuts on this, it that AA was hardly a military target. He wasn't on a battlefield ordering airstrikes against the US."

    Neither was bin Laden. Is your argument that one must be on the battlefield to be a military target? Is that really appropriate to military action against al Qaeda or any other dispersed network?

    re: "Yes, taking him out is closer to a "military operation" than, say, if they launched drones against the Wall Street protesters. But that's how slippery slopes work."

    What do the Wall Street protesters have to do with any of this? They aren't even breaking any laws that I know of - MUCH LESS waging war against the United States.

    This is a really strange argument you're making Bob. What prevents you from applying this anywhere? We dropped bombs on al Qaeda cave complexes, ergo the next thing is dropping bombs on the Wall Street protesters. We engaged the Taliban in fire fights, ergo the next thing is engaging the Wall Street protesters in fire fights. I don't see any logic to this except "We do A in war therefore its a slippery slope and the next thing is doing A in not-war".

    If by "slippery slope" all you mean is that human beings aren't perfect and will do wrong on occasion, I agree. But that doesn't seem like a "slippery slope" to me. That just seems like reality. And that's why we have constitutions to clearly define presidential, congressional, and judicial power, and that's why we try people in courts when we think they've broken the law.

    re: "There is no doubt in my mind that within our lifetimes, there will be similar assassinations conducted on US soil."

    We've probably had instances of this already, although of those waging war on the U.S. or spies that we couldn't capture. But I seriously doubt it will happen to persons not in these categories.

    re: "There won't be trials for people the government doesn't like; all the government will have to do is say, "He was a terrorist, but we can't show you the proof.""

    If all that's behind it is their say-so, they ought to be tried and thrown in jail.

    re: "Are you saying that can't possibly happen here? They're already doing drone surveillance on US soil."

    I'm not saying it "can't possibly happen" here. Of course it COULD. And if it does, they'll probably cite Obama as precedent. But I don't think these actions justify this sort of thing, and I certainly don't think this eventuality is likely at all. As for drone surveillance in the U.S., I don't see how that should be any more disconcerting than camera surveillance before that or the beat cop looking around the street before that. If drones start searching peoples' homes without a warrant or something like that - obviously THAT would be a problem. But the mere introduction of new technology to do legal, constitutional searches and surveillance doesn't bother me. I would be concerned if police forces didn't keep up with technological advances.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daniel,

    OK I'm not trying to "win" this debate, I'm trying to get you to see something. So first, let me be clear: If the people in government were really just doing their best to keep all of us safe, then we wouldn't need to worry about this stuff.

    But suppose the people in government (either right now, or at some point in the future) are NOT so trustworthy. You are saying, "If they assassinate someone with a drone who actually isn't doing anything deserving of death, then we'll haul them before a court." But that's precisely what we CAN'T do, because their position is that they can't show us the evidence.

    So how could we prosecute Obama et al. for doing something improper here? They are asserting that they just saved American lives. What if they are making that up, or what if they are misinterpreting circumstantial evidence? How could the judicial system possibly do anything about it, if the alleged evidence can't come to light?

    Keep in mind, there were pending lawsuits against Dick Cheney and others from the Bush administration. But Obama came in a said, "We're not looking at the past, we're moving forward." So if you're relying on government officials to keep each other honest and make sure other government officials only blow up bad guys, I think that's very naive.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't know the legalities around classified information, Bob. I'm guessing you don't either. It's quite possible Obama is illegally withholding information. I just don't know that. Try him for that. Impeach him for that.

    What's wrong is saying that we can't take military action against an enemy because of problems like this. We need to fix problems like this (if it even is a problem - like I said I have no idea what the laws or what reasonable expectations ought to be around this sort of classified information).

    Think about the argument that you're making. It's like saying we shouldn't put anyone in jail because sometimes things are inhumane in jail. It's saying we can't have judges try people because some judges are crooked. Of course the world isn't perfect. What I don't understand is why that in and of itself:

    (1.) means a president somehow doesn't have the ability to prosecute a war, or

    (2.) mistakes, problems, and crimes mean that there is some slippery slope towards all out war on citizens.

    That there are problems with our justice system is something you don't need to convince me of. That those problems go up to the highest level is something you don't need to convince me of. What you do need to convince me of, but haven't are those two points I just outlined.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Think of it this way, Bob. Does Gulf of Tonkin mean that we shouldn't be able to go to war anymore? Or does it mean Congress clamps down on the presidency? Does Watergate mean we can't elect our presidents anymore? Or does it mean we prosecute the criminals and clamp down on them?

    In a free society people are going to do bad things. Taking away our ability to do these things: elect people to represent us, wage war on people who threaten us, etc. seems to me to be precisely the wrong approach to politicians who do wrong. The ability of a free people to build the sort of society they want to live in and make these sorts of constitutionally provided for public decisions shouldn't be threatened by politicians that do the wrong thing (if the wrong thing is even done here). I'm not prepared to shackle a free people for that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think that the prime problem is the fact that the government can assassinate someone without any evidence against them. I also think that the reason that people are bringing up citizenship and due process has nothing to do with nationalism per se, rather it is merely illuminating the fact that the protections of the people provided in the constitution no longer apply (whether you're a citizen or not).

    Daniel, you keep bringing up the issue of war as if it makes everything alright. However, there exists international laws with regard to warfare, as well a rules of engagement, neither of which would allow for the assassination under question. Of course, the Geneva conventions provide no protection for terrorists regardless of citizenship, but the US constitution does (as do other nation's constitutions).

    If a person engages in a crime against America(ns), citizenship status is very important, as well as where the crime is committed (i.e. where the person is while committing the crime). For instance, if a foreign national commits a crime within the US, he is subject to the laws of the US, as well as their protections. However, if the crime is committed against America(ns), but done outside the US, then the system of law under which the crime is prosecuted depends whether their is a treaty between the two nations or not; it could go either way.

    Now, you would say, "this is war, therefor this does not apply", and you would be partially correct. Yes, under the Geneva Conventions, it is permissible to assassinate a terrorist, because the GC provides no protections to terrorists regardless of citizenship. But, the person in question was a US citizen and is afforded the protections of the Constitution, thus making the issue of terrorism non-applicable. Let me elaborate on exactly what I mean.

    As I said above, citizenship status and the location of the crime/criminal is very important. If a foreign national commits a crime against America(ns) on American soil, he is provided the protections of the Constitution. The same is true if an American commits a crime in a foreign nation, chances are that he will be prosecuted under the laws of that nation. However, if an American commits a crime against America(ns), he is afforded the protections of the constitution no matter where he was when he committed such crime. Whether he is a terrorist or not does not matter.

    Understanding these distinctions is very important in understanding the wording of the Executive Order that this last assassination was carried out under, because what the EO attempts to do is put US "terrorists" under international laws of war (which provide no protections to terrorists regardless of citizenship), and they do this by making the distinction that the assassinations cannot be carried out on US soil. Essentially, what they are trying to do is put the US "terrorist" into a battlefield situation, where the protections provided to them by the constitution are waived (you cannot verify citizenship status on a battlefield). But, if this is the case, then the rules of engagement would apply, meaning that deadly force can only be initiated to stop an immediate danger to life.

    The bigger problem as I see it is that none of the above can be shown to be the case, because all we have to go on is the government's word (no evidence has been offered). The burden of proof lies with the government to show that they carried this out within the confines of the law. In order to do that they need to provide evidence, which they are refusing to do, instead they are using the "National Security" excuse (lame). Of course, most Americans think that Awlaki is guilty of crimes against America because the media and the government has told them so thousands of times. But, that is the problem. Instead of using evidence as the basis of a decision, people are instead using a perception given to them over time. I think that we've seen this before....

    ReplyDelete
  21. re: "I think that the prime problem is the fact that the government can assassinate someone without any evidence against them."

    I don't understand what people mean when they say this. What exactly do you expect the evidentiary standard and the evidentiary procedure to be in a war? I was never under the impression that we had to compile a dossier on every enemy combatant that we go after. Why are people thinking about this like we are building a court case against him? Why are people thinking that it's reasonable to just dump military intelligence on the front page of the New York Times in order to present evidence for an action that it seems to me has never been one that we've needed evidence for. When we kill other members of al Qaeda nobody complains about this. We've been killing al Qaeda members for ten years now. What is the concern about this? Because more planning went into this strike than usual?

    As for your discussion of crimes committed... if you want to charge him with 3,000 counts of murder I have no problem with that. That could certainly stick. If they could capture him I'd have no problem with that. But in addition to being guilty of participation in the murder of 3,000 Americans - a criminal act - he is at war with the United States. If they decide to go the criminal prosecution route, of course it goes without saying it should be done with due process. But if they go the military route - which is entirely appropriate - that should be done with due process too. Gathering intelligence on and then striking enemies in war is entirely appropriate. The criminal case didn't pan out this time. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Now someone needs to help me with the legal issues surrounding rules of engagement. They seem quite restrictive. How, for example, are air strikes ever allowed given the rules of engagement? There has to be something more to it than what I'm reading just by googling. It seems from what I'm reading that gathering intelligence on an al Qaeda location and then hitting that location with no prior warning is a violation of the rules of engagement? Is that really true? I've got to be misunderstanding something. I imagine ROE only determines activity when a soldier encounters an enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And who cares that all those Japanese who were held in concentration camps were "citizens"? The government had "identified" them as "affiliates" of imperial Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, it's tough for me to argue this one with you, Daniel, since I'm a pacifist and an anarchist in the sense that I don't believe in the modern nation-State. So it's probably pointless for us to continue this discussion, since a lot of your values/institutions etc. I reject. It would probably make more sense for you to argue with somebody like Glenn Greenwald who is way way closer to your worldview.

    In closing, let me just point out that it strikes me as very ironic that you are saying (in effect):

    "We need the president to be able to kill anybody he declares is a threat to us, without any procedural review whatsoever and no way for outsiders to challenge the decision. Otherwise we would no longer live in a free society."

    I would think most classical liberals would go the other way with that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Daniel,

    The answer to your question ought to be obvious. Think about it in the context of possible future hypotheticals, not merely in the context of this single individual.

    "When we kill other members of al Qaeda nobody complains about this."

    There you go with that use of "nobody" again. The answer is of course people have complained about it; the use of drone attacks, targeted killings of all types, etc. has been the subject of a great deal of debate. Which is why since their inception in roughly 2002 there has been a significant amount of effort on the part of the Bush and Obama administrations to justify them - because there has been pushback against these policies.

    As for ROE, it is always engaged in (at least in theory) over a continuum; if they throw their guns down and surrender you don't blow their brains out. What the current ROE regarding the specific example you use is I can't say.

    Nerdy McGee,

    Technically the government claimed that if the person in question could demonstrate their loyalty, then they could be freed. Of course in that instance the whole neutral arbiter issue rears its head. Some Japanese-Americans did get out of the camps.

    It is definitely one of the more unseemly aspects of American history; some via court challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bob Murphy,

    If radical whigs stood for anything they stood against the continental European notion of a uber-strong executive whose powers were at their zenith during war time. That's why the Constitution puts most of the war powers in the hands of the Congress. Currently Congress is not living up to that role.

    ReplyDelete
  27. But, that is just the problem, Daniel (in reference to your reply to me).

    We don't know that he was involved with the murder of 3000 Americans. In fact, I was not even aware that he had ever been implicated in 9/11 (the FBI interviewed him and released him). In fact, the only allegations against him that I am aware of is that he was "in contact" with individuals who committed (or, attempted to commit) crimes. You're making the same logical leap that I see others make all of the time and I cannot tell you how disheartening it is to see extremely intelligent people do this- you're making an association based upon a perception that you have, not upon any facts.

    Also, you are inferring that I am saying that he should have been tried in criminal court, yet this is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that it must be demonstrated that this was carried out within the law, whether it be international laws of war, Constitutional law, criminal law, and/or military law (ROE). Further, that in order to do so requires evidence. I am also saying that the issue of citizenship IS important with regard to the law, because the only instance where the protections of the constitution are waived for a US citizen is on the battlefield as per the ROE. Considering that the targeted killing took place in Yemen with a drone strike, and that the target was merely driving down the street after leaving a restaurant (at least, that is what we are told), I don't think that we could apply the ROE to this situation.

    continued below....

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Gathering intelligence on and then striking enemies in war is entirely appropriate"

    I agree, having been to war myself and having been part of such data collection/dissemination, as well as acting on such data, what you describe is exactly how the process works. But, this is only true if it has been established that the party in question is an enemy combatant. In the standard warfare model it is fairly easy to establish if an entity is an enemy combatant, it is not so easy when dealing with terrorism.

    For example, let's say that country A is at war with country B (who started it is immaterial) and that the battle-zone is located in country B. Obviously, it has already been established by a declaration of war (or the equivalent) that the uniformed soldiers of each country are enemy combatants and are fair game for strikes. The solders of both sides belong to an actual entity, a nation, and they bear the uniforms, flags, jacks, equipment, etc reflecting this. So, targeted strikes against combatants are not beyond the confines of the law. But, what about the civilians of country B?

    There are only three ways that I know of where country A can target the civilians of country B. The first is pretty straight foreword, the civilian in question performs an act that meets the criteria for the use of deadly force against him as per the ROE. The limitation of this is that the act has to be occurring at the time that deadly force is used. For instance, you cannot witness a particular civilian kill someone and then a week later you recognize the same individual and shoot him dead (you would go to prison for that). The most that you could do is detain him and bring a trial against him.

    The second way that a civilian of country B can be targeted starts where the first leaves off, and that is if the civilian has been found guilty in a trial of directly aiding the enemy against country A and is thus considered an enemy combatant (i.e. no longer a civilian). Now, there is some ambiguity in this, because it could easily be reasoned that ALL civilians of country B directly aid the enemy of country A. But, that is why there is a trial performed. Though the civilian in question does not have to be present for the trial, he and his government of origin must be made aware of such trial and the evidence against him, and he and his government must be offered the option of providing a defense.

    The last situation that I am aware of where a civilian can be targeted is if such civilian is more or less caught in the crossfire. Now, I am not saying that if two armies are fighting in a field with civilians in the middle that it is ok to directly target those civilians. Sure, when bullets fly accidents happen, and some of those civilians will die. But, you cannot directly target them because that would be the crime of murder (and the laws reflect this). What I mean by caught in the crossfire in this example is if, say, the civilian is on a military installation that is bombed (or a tank, or a ship, or a plane, etc). While the civilians do not represent your prime target, since you are aware that they are there you are indeed targeting them, as well. However, the presumption is usually made that since they are contained within the primary target they are directly aiding the enemy and are thus enemy combatants.

    Continued below....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Al Queda doesn't represent a nation, it has no uniforms, no flag, it has no central organization, no leaders, no chain of command, etc. AQ is not an actual entity, it is a system of beliefs. Now, I know that many people believe that AQ is an actual entity and that its uniform is comprised of ANY type of Arab garb, this simply is not the case. Essentially what you have is many small organizational groups (or, simply random individuals) who all share a common belief system. Now, the obvious question is how to determine whether these individuals are civilians or an enemy combatants. Well, you can only determine that through their individual actions which would require evidence and a trial of some sort. If the individual didn't meet the criteria for the use of deadly force on the battlefield and the individual doesn't belong to an actual identifiable entity (other than a set of beliefs), then the only process to determine the status of the individual is to treat him as if he were a civilian as described above.

    I am trying really hard not to get into a debate about the justification of the wars with Iraq and A-stan (i.e. nations, entities), so I will just assume for now that those conflicts are entirely moral, legal, blah blah blah. With that in mind, let's say that Awlaki was killed on the battlefield fighting against US forces. I don't see anybody really making a fuss about that even if he is a US citizen; but, that is not what happened. So, I don't understand how you are injecting the war argument. Of course we are at war with Iraq, A-stan and Libya, but what does Awlaki have to do with that other than that he shares the same set of beliefs as those who wish to see the collapse the US government and that he allegedly knows or has come into contact with people who have committed crimes. If you use a set of beliefs (esp. anti-government) as a criterion for targeted killing, then every libertarian that I know would be fair game. If you use a persons associations as a criterion, then that could implicate just about anybody. This is the problem, we are fast heading toward a reality where perception and belief rule, while the law is immaterial, and that any action can be justified just so long as everybody believes/perceives it to be so.

    Let me ask you this, Daniel. Let's say that the government of Iraq decides to order a targeted killing of George W. Bush and that they are successful in that endeavor- what would your opinion be? My opinion would be that the Iraqi government was wrong. Mind you, I absolutely despise GWB and I think that he is a war criminal, but I would still demand evidence for such actions by the Iraqi government. I would imagine that you would demand the same (probably for very different reasons) even though your current reasoning would preclude it.

    Just a little something to chew on....

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.