No. They outline what’s possible under the law as it is.
59 karma · joined January 18, 2022
He had been directly tied to conspiring with terrorist groups to carry out attacks. Support, logistics, etc. He even publicly stated his support and affiliation. That is known. One of the arguments is that the US government was acting in self defense.
The logical justifications as outlined in the specifications for targeted killing in the target list is unknown, due to state secrets law. It’s impossible to say if the action was legal or not. As legal scholars have been able to make a legal case for targeted killings, it’s completely possible that it was legal. That’s why it’s relevant. But due to the law, we’ll probably never know. It’s probably a good indication too that the courts declined to pursue the case.
Have you taken the time to read what’s available of the actual memo? Heavily redacted: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/16firstolc...
“The conclusion draws further support from the fact that even, in domestic law enforcement, the operations the Supreme Court has noted that the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm , deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape and if, where feasible, some warning hasbeen given.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985), where a capture operation is infeasible and the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and poses a continued and imminent threat to persons or interests, the use of lethal force would not violate the FourthAmendment.”
The Supreme Courts ruling, as cited, seemed to support this. No formal charges need to be brought against an armed civilian threatening others in the street, they would simply be given a warning, and shot dead.
Al-Awlaki was not some innocent American sitting in a Starbucks drinking a coffee when the US decided it was his time. He was an active participant, facilitator, and leader of a hostile enemy group that sought, and tried to carry out terrorist attacks against the US.
>Keep conflating legal terminology.
Ok, man. I see. Take some time to read the legal opinion and memo I linked, and you would see justification under the law is possible. It’s very informative.
“Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf. Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.”
Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender.
Like I said, I’m no legal scholar. This is what I’ve come across for legal opinion:
The criteria set by the following, outlining the circumstances of legal targeted killing of US citizens, here:
https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
In conjunction with the original memo arguing justification, here:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-r...
…seems convincing to me.
As long as a certain criteria is met, extrajudicial targeted killings of US citizens is probably legal:
“The practice of targeted killing can be used in a manner that is consistent with U.S. and international laws. Permissible targets will be of a military nature, and killing them will serve a military objective. No laws, international or domestic, prohibit the practice if it is carried out by a state against an enemy of that state actively engaged in an armed conflict against that state. When the target is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. Constitution demands certain additional procedures before the U.S. government may kill the target. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause dictates these procedures. The procedures ensure a just determination of the target's permissibility as a military matter and the subjective intent of the target not to avail himself of the further protections to which he is entitled as an American citizen. A neutral decisionmaker should balance the targeted citizen's life against the risk he poses. If the decision comes out against him, then the military may launch a strike.”
Do you have an official release of this disposition matrix, AKA kill list? It seems it’s existence has been confirmed via leak. I don’t see any info about who exactly is/has been on it.
“The process determining criteria for killing is not public…”
Knowing about it is not very useful if you don’t know the criteria. It’s not very helpful at all, in fact, in determining legality here.
US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis on the premise of perceived threat.
Look, I’m no legal scholar. These are social contracts, ultimately what’s legal is what society deems legal.
Do you have any sources documenting legal challenges against the administration’s memo?
That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial?
The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.
Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks.
Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located.
Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.”
I think the point that needs to be asked is, at one point does a fellow American become justified as an enemy combatant?
We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban harbored the organization that committed 9/11 and refused to turn them over.
We went into Iraq primarily because a group of Neoconservatives were drunk on the unipolar moment and believed the US could spread democracy at the barrel of a gun and remake the Middle East. Haliburton definitely made money in Iraq, but we did not go in for oil.
The invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that Bush and Cheney were neoconservatives, which means essentially liberal Trotskyites. They believed that human rights were universal and it was legitimate to uphold them by force. So in their logic, Saddam Hussein was a bad a guy and Iraq was a good candidate for showing that the US can start rolling into places and giving the people their freedom, just like that.
The basic assumption was that stable democracies grow on their own once you get rid of the dictator. So show up to a country, get the dictator, rinse and repeat. Now you have nice democracies all throughout the world. In that view, not invading is immoral because it means you’re condemning millions of Iraqis to live under Saddam’s dictatorship.
The basic lesson from this is that countries don’t act out of material self-interest as much as armchair cynics assume. Instead they’re frequently operated on an emotional or ideological basis.
Have we become so delusional that we can’t recognize this simple fact?
Have a LinkedIn in for professional connections. Anyone that I see/communicate with regularly I just text.
“The rate of domestic violence declined 63%, from 13.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 1994 to 5.0 per 1,000 in 2012 (appendix table 3).”
- https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf
Also, getting accurate statistic pre 1960s for DMV is likely going to be difficult. Here’s a short TIME piece illustrating how views on DMV can alter studies and how DMV is qualified/quantified given the times.
- https://time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/
Take a look at some of these poster, DMV was more or less normalized in the cultural ethos at the time: https://ibb.co/279sjZ2
Good luck, friend.
Also, every legitimate economist states that measuring trade policy by the size of the goods deficit is probably not a passing grade in a basic economics class. Do you have any clue what you’re talking about?
“Deficit” in the term “trade deficit” is not analogous to a deficit in personal or business finance. Trade deficits are always offset by capital inflows. A trade deficit with a financial account surplus does not necessarily mean that the U.S. is over-consuming in the present and under-investing for the future. When a trade deficit’s offsetting inflow of foreign capital goes toward government debt, it increases U.S. productivity by freeing capital for private investment.
A country like the U.S. runs an annual trade deficit with a partner country when Americans buy more goods and services from the partner than they sell to it. As a result, money flows out of the U.S. to the country, which sounds bad.
But that’s not the end of the story. Those foreigners with the trade surplus – let’s say in China – now have extra saving that needs to be put to work. A lack of productive investment opportunities at home means they look to other countries – like the U.S. – to profitably use their money.
In other words, money flowing out to pay for imports flows back in to help pay for productive investment in new capital.
The statistics I’m reading from WB, Oced, CB, don’t seem to backup what you’re saying, at all.
New business open soared to a historical record high in 2021. Right now, it’s difficult for many, but this time of uncertainty is not any worse than crisis’ in the past.
“Confusion & feeling lost”…pretty anecdotal, don’t you think? My generation felt the same way too in the early 2000’s. My parents as well in the 70’s. How does that statement hold any weight at all? I will agree though that this generation is undergoing a mental health crisis. They are also the first generation to really be immersed by and grow up with social media.
Were have you been? Lol. The rust belt has been the ‘rust belt’ since the 1980s.
The rust belt, namely Detroit, Ohio , Pittsburg, Cleveland, have received quite a bit of development over the last decade. I honestly believe these areas will see even more investment and growth given the climate crisis, growing investment and population.
I don’t know why people paint the US as all doom and gloom. Out of my friend group, 2/5 are doing better, 2/5 are doing about the same, 1/5 is doing worse.
With all do respect, I feel like you pulled much of what you said out of thin air.
OCED data on productivity: https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm FDI trends in the rust belt: https://www.fdiintelligence.com/article/77298 Business opens: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072057249/new-business-appli...
Dental Insurance / Free Breakfast / 5 days a week / Free food / Gym-Wellness Reimbursement / Gym Discount / Health Insurance / Health Savings Account (HSA) ($1000 per year contributed by employer) / Life Insurance / Maternity Leave 16 weeks / On-Site Fitness Classes / On-Site Mother's Room / PTO (Vacation / Personal Days) - Unlimited / Paternity Leave 120 days / Pet Insurance / Sick Time - Unlimited / Vision Insurance / Transport allowance / Phone Bill Reimbursement / 401k- 25% match on the first 1% of base salary / Employee Stock Purchase Program / Roth 401k / Tuition reimbursement /
And these benefits are not even anything special, just standard. I work for a tech company thats not even in the top 25.
Your telling me you would rather make 50k in Spain with higher taxes, than what I have above with 160k?
160k per year. I have money in a variety of investment vehicles. No family (wife, kids) atm. Moderate rent since I do hybrid work and can tolerate a longer commute 2 days a week. If I’m good with expenses I can retire at 38. I could go move to a more rural area of the US or some other country and never work again.
This stuff about ‘taxes’, and QOL…meh, I’ll take more cash now, please, especially when I’m younger and can afford to.
Blah blah blah, health insurance, services…I’m 28, not really worried about it. My QOL is higher than 99 percent of the world.
I would give my daughter (if I had one) a small allowance, yes. I doubt this is the answer you’re looking for.
“We use public documents from the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University lawsuit to examine admissions preferences for recruited athletes, legacies, those on the dean’s interest list, and children of faculty and staff (ALDCs). More than 43% of white admits are ALDC; the share for African American, Asian American, and Hispanics is less than 16%. Our model of admissions shows that roughly three-quarters of white ALDC admits would have been rejected absent their ALDC status. Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students away from whites.”
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/713744
Plus, as a percentage of student population, Asian Americans are over represented at elite colleges. Both Black and Hispanic Americans have seen their representation decrease over the last 40 years. Asian Americas, in relative terms of US population, hold 4-5x the seats in top colleges. In some case 10x!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmativ...
But yeah, let’s blame the 4% black population at UCLA, or the 8% at Harvard for taking Asian Americans deserved spot. Oh, and probably 2-3 % of all black admits are international students.
How about the focus be on expanding school capacity? College admission rates have hit all time lows because of increased competition and a failure to increase capacity.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-pandemic-ivy-league-accep...
Its pretty ridiculously that in 1980 most Ivy League schools had admission rates between 20 and 30%. Low admission rates are not a sign of good health for our education system.