Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexeisadeski3 | Hacker News Reader

In the US, laws against assassination and extrajudicial killing make no distinction between American citizens and others: Foreigners have the exact same protections as citizens. This goes for the Bill of Rights as well. (Aside, this explains why the NSA is only "supposed" to spy outside of the US. Wether the target is a citizen or not is technically irrelevant on this particular point)

If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda, then it is in no way surprising that the US government would then attempt to kill members of that organization. And, again, whether the members are American or not is quite literally irrelevant.

However, if the targeted individual is physically located within the US, then the US government is generally supposed to arrest them instead of assassinate them - and again this protects foreigners and US citizens alike.

View on HN

> If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda

Not just Al Quaeda, as the article notes:

> the title itself: "Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a US Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida or An Associated Force."

"An Associated Force." Don't forget, we're at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”[1] Also,

> At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.

> The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it.

> “…we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory.

> During the May hearing, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, said he was “not sure there is a list per se.” Describing terrorist groups as “murky” and “shifting,” he said, “it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track the designation of which are the affiliate forces” of Al Qaeda.

[1]: http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-tha... (This was on HN about two months ago, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6117846 )

Lethal Operations, Extraordinary Rendition, Enhanced Interrogation. My God, It's all Newspeak. There should be a constitutional amendment or something mandating that laws should use well understood terms or if that is not possible, clearly define the term before using it.

This language allows these people to say "We're going to kill and torture people without having any proof that they're criminals and we don't have to tell you about it" while making it sound like and extra step of paperwork.

That doesn't line up with the Constitution, which clearly states what the US Government can do (I know, people commonly mistake the Constitution for a list of rights for the people rather than a list of exceptions for the government as to how they may or may not act).

The Constitution grants the right to due process for citizens. It doesn't place a limit on where that citizen is currently resided.

Killing someone in combat is one thing. The same as if you are forced into a firefight with someone as a police officer. Targeting and assassinating someone who is not immediately and directly threatening realistic harm is another - and that is what has happened, so far.

Stating "well, if they're outside the geographical boundaries of the country (or, not at least 100 miles in from the shores and borders of the US, apparently) then they're fair game" is absurd.

It's not just citizens.

  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or 
  otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or 
  indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in 
  the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in 
  actual service in time of War or public danger; nor 
  shall any person be subject for the same offence to be 
  twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be 
  compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against 
  himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
  without due process of law; nor shall private property be 
  taken for public use, without just compensation.

Okay, let's agree with your premise. Then why is it only absurd in the case of US citizens? After all, the constitution unequivocally applies to everyone in the US. Even me!

So why should the fact that somebody is far away change any of that?

I think you're missing the main point:

> the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power - willfully ignore it.

No, he is not missing the main point. Rather, he is addressing part of the issue. All his post says is that it does not--and should not--matter whether the person in question is an American citizen. This is a fact which stands regardless of your opinion on the rest of the problem, and so it makes sense not to address that.

In more explicit terms: if you believe this sort of extrajudicial killing is illegal (which many, including me, do), you should believe it illegal for citizens and non-citizens alike. Similarly, if you believe it legal, it should still be legal for both citizen and non-citizens.

Not having citizenship does not magically make it fine to kill you and, similarly, having citizenship does not protect you if you are an enemy combatant.

Since the same logic applies in both cases, it's completely independent of the rest of the issue and should not be unnecessarily conflated.

As I see it, there are two issues here:

(a) an person is declared a terrorist in secret by a bunch of secret govt folks, basis which he or she is 'approved' for assassination by the US state,

(b) the person may or may not be a US citizen, though the former confers significantly better chances of not being assassinated.

While not disagreeing with the import of your argument, namely that "citizens and non-citizens" ought to be treated alike (it is a welcome change to hear that, because in the post Snowden era we are witnessing a clear difference in the rights of US citizens and maybe those of their 'Five Eyes' allies versus the rest of the world), I don't think its something that can ever be expected in any country. Compared to their own citizens, most countries will always place lower value on the lives of foreigners. By extension there will be a lower bar on their assassinations too.

So instead, its better to challenge the secrecy that surrounds how a person is classified as a terrorist, instead of hoping the US govt starts treating everyone in the world with the same consideration.

what i don't get is why the classification of terrorists must remain secret. I'd like to apply the logic of "if you aint got nothing to hide..." to these sorts of things, and see how they respond.

> Having citizenship does not protect you if you are an enemy combatant.

Actually in that case you loose your citizenship:

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it [may cause] loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html

> with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship

Note well this. And it's not just a statute, it's controlling Supreme Court precedent. That's actually why the language that gets used is so consistently weird -- old laws have basically had "with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship" forced into them by case law.

For a citizen to wage war against the United States is treason, but not even treason is punished by loss of citizenship. You could steal Putin's job and launch Russia's nukes at the US, and you'd still have your citizenship so long as you did not intend to relinquish it.

lose

Yeah, this is a powerful argument actually. Much as I'd love to argue the president is over-stepping his bounds here, I can see that if the fiction that a struggle against the entity "terror" is the fundamental equivalent of the real, shooting war with Germany, then everything else does follow. If a few rapscallions hatching plots in Yeman are fundamentally, essentially equivalent to an entire column of tanks engaged in a pitch battle with the army, well then it is logical, in the garbage-in, garbage-out form of logical, for the US army to just blow them away.

Shows just how pernicious these metaphors can be.

If you accept that the US is in a war with Al Qaeda

And if you no longer accept this as a valid justification for all of the actions that have followed the 9/11 attack?

Then you should take the position that assassinating Al Quaeda members is wrong (and illegal). Regardless of citizenship.

Which is entirely consistent with the parent's post.

True, but who deems and verifies if someone is a member of an enemy force? In traditional war, a soldier would have a uniform, and there are laws against killing non-uniformed peeps. In asymmetrical warfare, it's obviously much harder to ID legitimate targets. The problem isn't whether or not the government should be killing known enemies of the state, it's that the executive branch is unilaterally deciding and confirming who is an enemy of the state.

The worst case scenario message being sent is that if I or a fellow American steps outside our land, the executive can decide to blow us away, based on evidence they provide. Judge, jury, and executioner. Literally. But it doesn't really matter if the executive provides a photo of an American holding an AK-47, a court needs to decide if the citizen is a traitor or not (and i'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'd provide at least that much evidence, which ,actually, legally, I would think still isn't much).

US civilian courts have no jurisdiction outside of US borders, and again, why would such a requirement need to be met for US citizens but not foreigners? Everyone is afforded the same rights (equality under the law).

In a war, there is no legal need to justify killings in front of a judge.

This is all just legally speaking, however. Practically, I think that Obama would be very wise to seek approval from a panel of judges for all authorizations, regardless of whom is targeted. Unlike in traditional wars, the US government is very specifically going after certain individuals. It would seem prudent for the actors involved to seek the legitimacy granted by a panel of judges. But I would still say that the law does not require it.

In a traditional war, legality has already been met via law (either through a formal declaration of war or through the limited war powers given to the executive). There is no need to justify in front of a judge, because the rights have already been granted. But again, you can only kill certain people, also defined by law. You can't just start carpet bombing cities anymore, otherwise, yes, you may very well find yourself in front of a judge (and presumably these cities would consist of foreigners, so yes, there would be a requirement).

US courts may not have jurisdiction abroad, but the executor of actions is presumably or will presumably be on American soil at some point.

well, tax laws make distinction between non-Americans and Americans outside of the US. One can see how following the similar reasoning criminal law (or whatever law is the basis for extrajudicial killings (sorry for the oxymoron)) can make similar distinction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com