• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

Bob0627

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,523
Reaction score
1,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government's targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.

In a case pitting executive power against the public's right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.

... skipping

"The court reaffirmed a bedrock principle of democracy: The people do not have to accept blindly the government's assurances that it is operating within the bounds of the law; they get to see for themselves the legal justification that the government is working from," McCraw said in a statement.

... skipping

"This is a resounding rejection of the government's effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.

The case is New York Times Co et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 13-422, 13-445.

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

Sometimes the judiciary does get it right but I'm sure this will not rise to the level of war crimes as it should.
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government's targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.

In a case pitting executive power against the public's right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.

... skipping

"The court reaffirmed a bedrock principle of democracy: The people do not have to accept blindly the government's assurances that it is operating within the bounds of the law; they get to see for themselves the legal justification that the government is working from," McCraw said in a statement.

... skipping

"This is a resounding rejection of the government's effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.

The case is New York Times Co et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 13-422, 13-445.

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

Sometimes the judiciary does get it right but I'm sure this will not rise to the level of war crimes as it should.

And what happens if the government decides they don't want to turn this information over because of a DoJ internal investigation (that may or may not actually exist) or possibly a matter of national security. The Judiciary can only get it right if the government entity they are ordering complies. What we've seen so far is this current WH more so than any previous, will simply ignore the order - so then what? If this President says no to the order - who's going to make him? The DoJ? Congress? The media sure as hell won't badger him or his appointees. :shrug:
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government's targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.

In a case pitting executive power against the public's right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.

... skipping

"The court reaffirmed a bedrock principle of democracy: The people do not have to accept blindly the government's assurances that it is operating within the bounds of the law; they get to see for themselves the legal justification that the government is working from," McCraw said in a statement.

... skipping

"This is a resounding rejection of the government's effort to use secrecy and selective disclosure to manipulate public opinion about the targeted killing program," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement.

The case is New York Times Co et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 13-422, 13-445.

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

Sometimes the judiciary does get it right but I'm sure this will not rise to the level of war crimes as it should.

I think it would be very interesting to read how the government analyzed targeted killing.

Why war crimes? Possibly persons should be tried in absentia, but in general I don't really see any way to justify not stopping people from organizing mass murder of citizens and that is, what these targets do.
 
And what happens if the government decides they don't want to turn this information over because of a DoJ internal investigation (that may or may not actually exist) or possibly a matter of national security. The Judiciary can only get it right if the government entity they are ordering complies. What we've seen so far is this current WH more so than any previous, will simply ignore the order - so then what? If this President says no to the order - who's going to make him? The DoJ? Congress? The media sure as hell won't badger him or his appointees. :shrug:

Maybe the police need to be separated from the executive, you mean?
 
And what happens if the government decides they don't want to turn this information over because of a DoJ internal investigation (that may or may not actually exist) or possibly a matter of national security. The Judiciary can only get it right if the government entity they are ordering complies. What we've seen so far is this current WH more so than any previous, will simply ignore the order - so then what? If this President says no to the order - who's going to make him? The DoJ? Congress? The media sure as hell won't badger him or his appointees. :shrug:

The only thing a court can do is charge those who don't comply with contempt of court. Of course the defendants can appeal to a higher court, in this case it may be SCOTUS.
 
N

Sometimes the judiciary does get it right but I'm sure this will not rise to the level of war crimes as it should.

Use quotes, please.

Killing an american citizen without due process certainly is a domestic crime. But I agree, droning enemies (who are not americans) is just war. Id like to know how the executive keeps this secret from the congress.
 
Last edited:
And what happens if the government decides they don't want to turn this information over because of a DoJ internal investigation (that may or may not actually exist) or possibly a matter of national security. The Judiciary can only get it right if the government entity they are ordering complies. What we've seen so far is this current WH more so than any previous, will simply ignore the order - so then what? If this President says no to the order - who's going to make him? The DoJ? Congress? The media sure as hell won't badger him or his appointees. :shrug:

Congress. Its their job to check the executive.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
 
The only thing a court can do is charge those who don't comply with contempt of court. Of course the defendants can appeal to a higher court, in this case it may be SCOTUS.

And of course that would yield nothing since no one is going to haul to jail Holder or Obama. So there you have it.
 
Killing an american citizen without due process certainly is a domestic crime. But I agree, droning enemies is just war. Id like to know how the executive keeps this secret from the congress.

Using armed drones may be part of war but using them on civilians and/or in countries where there has been no declaration of war is clearly a war crime.
 
Congress. Its their job to check the executive.

The House could impeach but the Senate does not have the votes to convict. Impeachment also takes a toll on the majority party bringing the impeachment to light unless it's a bi-partisan impeachment - in Obama or Holder's case, I would suggest impeachment proceedings regardless of the reason (whether this issue or any other or this compounded with other issues) would be drawn down party lines. Therefore Congress cannot compel a President or Holder to do anything unless there is a majority or better, super majority in the House and Senate of one party, and the President being the opposite party.
 
Using armed drones may be part of war but using them on civilians and/or in countries where there has been no declaration of war is clearly a war crime.

The Authorization for the US of Military Force (AUMF) very specifically does not limit its scope to a single country. It also specifically leaves these determinations to the discretion of the President. Affiliates of al-Qaeda seem to clearly fit the parameters of the AUMF and Congress has as yet not chosen to dispute that interpretation or invoke its power to curtail or further define that authorization.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The deliberate targeting of civilians has however always been a war crime.
 
Using armed drones may be part of war but using them on civilians and/or in countries where there has been no declaration of war is clearly a war crime.

According to what law/treaty/convention?

Understand, I'm not challenging you; this is a serious question.

In order for something to be a "war crime" it has to violate some "law of war".

Once you define a target as an irregular combatant (or something similar) (s)he leaves the strictly black-and-white definition of a "civilian" and enters a much more gray area of the law, and an area where most laws/treaties/conventions/etc... allow for his or her deliberate killing.

On the other hand, most laws of war carry some prohibition against perfidy, generally defined, in part, as the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.

In light of that, a "terrorist" can't be a part-time terrorist, attacking, or planning attacks against, their enemy at times and then laying down their terrorist hat and claiming protected civilian status at others.

I don't pretend to know international law in this respect well enough to give a definitive answer, but I know enough of it to know that it's anything but clear-cut.
 
The House could impeach but the Senate does not have the votes to convict. Impeachment also takes a toll on the majority party bringing the impeachment to light unless it's a bi-partisan impeachment - in Obama or Holder's case, I would suggest impeachment proceedings regardless of the reason (whether this issue or any other or this compounded with other issues) would be drawn down party lines. Therefore Congress cannot compel a President or Holder to do anything unless there is a majority or better, super majority in the House and Senate of one party, and the President being the opposite party.

I was simply addressing who has the power. Which is congress. If its split politically, then no, theres nothing they can do. The voters have to replace congress and the presidency with people who will enforce the law.

Of course, the voters are split politically too. So as long as half the country is ok with the President breaking the law, he will.
 
And what happens if the government decides they don't want to turn this information over because of a DoJ internal investigation (that may or may not actually exist) or possibly a matter of national security. The Judiciary can only get it right if the government entity they are ordering complies. What we've seen so far is this current WH more so than any previous, will simply ignore the order - so then what? If this President says no to the order - who's going to make him? The DoJ? Congress? The media sure as hell won't badger him or his appointees. :shrug:

If the courts issue lawful order and the President doesn't comply, it would then fall to the Congress to impeach.
 
According to what law/treaty/convention?

Understand, I'm not challenging you; this is a serious question.

In order for something to be a "war crime" it has to violate some "law of war".

Once you define a target as an irregular combatant (or something similar) (s)he leaves the strictly black-and-white definition of a "civilian" and enters a much more gray area of the law, and an area where most laws/treaties/conventions/etc... allow for his or her deliberate killing.

On the other hand, most laws of war carry some prohibition against perfidy, generally defined, in part, as the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.

In light of that, a "terrorist" can't be a part-time terrorist, attacking, or planning attacks against, their enemy at times and then laying down their terrorist hat and claiming protected civilian status at others.

I don't pretend to know international law in this respect well enough to give a definitive answer, but I know enough of it to know that it's anything but clear-cut.

It is a good question, what international legal procedure is concerning attacks from a third country that does not prevent the attacks. Do you really want to declare war on Lebanon, Yemen or Pakistan? Same is true for the pirates off the Horn of Africa. What do you propose?
 
If the courts issue lawful order and the President doesn't comply, it would then fall to the Congress to impeach.

That would be the way one would have to proceed.

But why would the Executive not publish its take on the legality of what it does? Of course, there are a lot of differing opinions on what is okay and the adversaries are not going to change their minds lightly. So as publishing the documents on enhanced interrogation did not help much, as most people didn't read the documents and studies, when they were published, the present set of docs probably won't do any good either. But at least the people that are interested in the facts would understand, what the Administration was thinking.
 
We arent targeting civilians though. They just happen to be nearby. Are you saying those treaties forbid collateral damage?

Our entire judicial system is based on the doctrine of innocent unless and until proven guilty by a proper court. So all these drone attacks target INNOCENT people in countries we are not at war with. People are being declared terrorists or insurgents, then targeted for murder. This is classic guilty by accusation (judge, jury and executioner). "Collateral damage" is a cover word for murdering innocent men, women and children, just like "enhanced interrogation" is a cover word for torture. This is a war crime and genocide (see treaties).
 
That would be the way one would have to proceed.

But why would the Executive not publish its take on the legality of what it does? Of course, there are a lot of differing opinions on what is okay and the adversaries are not going to change their minds lightly. So as publishing the documents on enhanced interrogation did not help much, as most people didn't read the documents and studies, when they were published, the present set of docs probably won't do any good either. But at least the people that are interested in the facts would understand, what the Administration was thinking.

Why doesn't Congress? They're all doing suspect crap be it drone bombing civilians or authorizing massive spying and data collection against its own citizens. Congress passed legislation to protect phone companies and such for giving away your data.

It would be great if the lot of government published their results and reasoning...but then they could be held accountable, so they won't. No Rebublocrat is going to open up the process.
 
Our entire judicial system is based on the doctrine of innocent unless and until proven guilty by a proper court. So all these drone attacks target INNOCENT people in countries we are not at war with. People are being declared terrorists or insurgents, then targeted for murder. This is classic guilty by accusation (judge, jury and executioner). "Collateral damage" is a cover word for murdering innocent men, women and children, just like "enhanced interrogation" is a cover word for torture. This is a war crime and genocide (see treaties).

Our judicial system only extends to cases under the constitution. Foreign enemies do not get the same protections. And we are at war with terrorism wherever that may be. I havent seen any treaties or laws that would prohibit us from defending ourselves by killing enemies in their homes. In fact the UN charter allows a state to defend itself. The ICC even stated that collateral damage was not a crime.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyre...letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

Genocide is ridiculous of course because we arent targeting a genetic makeup of people.

The law simply isnt on your side.
 
Using armed drones may be part of war but using them on civilians and/or in countries where there has been no declaration of war is clearly a war crime.

A war crime and a violation of at least the spirit of the US Constitution.
 
Our judicial system only extends to cases under the constitution. Foreign enemies do not get the same protections. And we are at war with terrorism wherever that may be. I havent seen any treaties or laws that would prohibit us from defending ourselves by killing enemies in their homes. In fact the UN charter allows a state to defend itself. The ICC even stated that collateral damage was not a crime.





Genocide is ridiculous of course because we arent targeting a genetic makeup of people.

The law simply isnt on your side.

We're at war with terrorism?

Heck, I thought we were at war with poverty and drug use. Oh well.....:(
 
Not officially. The war on terror is official though, and simply self defense.

Nonsense. The Global War On Terror is a fraud of epic proportions and a hoax upon the American people.
 
Back
Top Bottom