Another Kind of Extra-Judicial Killing

[MineralMan]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/calif-police-sniper-kills-kidnapper-who-was-holding-girl/1#.URLFpx1WyuI

Calif. police sniper kills kidnapper who was holding girl

A SWAT sniper killed an armed kidnapper who was holding the 11-year-old daughter of his ex-girlfriend, whom he abducted early today in the heart Silicon Valley, the San Jose Mercury News reports.

The girl, identified as Taylor Vo, was taken at gunpoint from her home about 1:20 a.m. PT (4:20 a.m. ET) by 42-year-old Tri Truong Le, police said. The girl was unharmed.

Such shootings by police snipers in hostage situations occur with some regularity in the United States. Every last one of them is extra-judicial, and happens when the risk to a hostage or hostages is deemed by police at the scene to require deadly force. Generally, someone at a relatively high rank gives a sniper permission to fire if an opportunity presents itself.

Such shootings are almost always determined later to be justified by a court or other body.

You can find more such incidents by Googling "police sniper kills" hostage.

They don't happen every day, by any means, but they do happen, and are virtually always extra-judicial. Often, they save a life or lives, by taking one. Are such shootings wrong? That depends on how you look at them, I guess, and on the individual situation, but they occur regularly.

It seems to me that blanket condemnation of such actions is not wise. That is why I am taking no position on this topic in general, especially as it applies to our military, when in operation outside the US. I do not have adequate information to make a call on these, and I'm unwilling to make a blanket statement about them.

[redgreenandblue]

1. They are not extra-judicial.

Imminent threat is a well-defined concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law

The imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair, described as being "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test). This concept was introduced to compensate the strict, classical and inefficient definition of self-defense used by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend of an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

[Recursion]

2. They are entirely extra-judicial

A homicide by a state agent without a trial is "extra-judicial". That's what it means. There was not a legal judgement on the subject's guilt; it was deemed necessary for security reasons.

Note that all cases of self defense are by definition extra-judicial.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extrajudicial


ex·tra·ju·di·cial (kstr-j-dshl)
adj.
1. Outside of the authority of a court.
2. Outside of the usual judicial proceedings.
extra·ju·dicial·ly adv.

[Vincardog]

9. IF they were outside the authority of the court how would it be required that:

Such shootings are almost always determined later to be justified by a court or other body. Are you claiming that when a police snipper takes out a target that is the end of the process?

[Recursion]

11. No, and as we're seeing a drone strike is hardly the end of the process either

Though, far too often, whatever the cop says is just taken as true.

[Vincardog]

14. Please link for me the judicial review of these drone strikes. The authority claimed is

exclusive and unaccountable.

[Recursion]

19. This was leaked because the Senate subpoenaed it

Generally it's the Legislative branch that oversees the Executive, and we're seeing that happen now.

[Vincardog]

30. What was leaked was the Administration's claim of an legal reasoning behind an unconstitutional

power. The power claimed in to take these actions without notice or review.
We are not seeing executive oversight of these claimed powers.

[Recursion]

33. Yes, we are. That is what we are seeing right now

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/02/senators-ask-obama-for-legal-opinions-oking-drone-156084.html?hp=t3_3

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/02/04/senskillopsltr.html

Legislative oversight of Executive actions. There will be a legal tug of war for the next several months and eventually somebody will give up. That's how it works.

[markpkessinger]

44. The administration has taken the position . . .

. . . that it is under no obligation even to disclose these targeted assassinations, let alone submit to any ex post facto review of them.

[Recursion]

52. Of course they have. And the Senate is disagreeing

Congressional oversight has worked this way since Washington's administration.

[MineralMan]

3. Imminent threat is not decided by any

judicial authority in these cases. It is decided by the police. It is, by definition, extra-judicial. In fact, such cases sometimes end up in court later. Almost always, they are determined to be justified.

What qualifies as an "imminent threat" is not well-defined, either. Such decision are made in the field, sometimes wrongly, I imagine. Such decisions are made tactically, not judicially.

[99Forever]

10. Correct.

It seems however, that the True Believers can justify the same immoral behaviors they once were indignantly outraged by, simply because it's our guy doing it. It makes it quite clear to me just how thin their mask of moral superiority really is.

[MineralMan]

16. I am neither justifying nor condemning anything.

I'm raising a question. I clearly stated that I have not formed an opinion so far on this.

[99Forever]

32. If I am directing a comment to you personally...

... I will address you by name. This ain't all about you.

[MineralMan]

35. That's funny.

Any post you make in the thread I started is a reference to that thread, and I will reply if I wish.

ETA: I mistakenly thought this was regarding #5 in the thread. So, I edited my comment.

[99Forever]

58. Good grief.

Did I say you couldn't reply?

Defensive much?

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. Take a breath before responding to 99 ...

I know what's running through your mind.

[MineralMan]

37. Yah. I edited my post.

I was thinking of another reply. #5 in this thread. My mistake, so I edited.

[Vincardog]

4. My problem is with the claim that the Administration can do them without review or oversight.

[redgreenandblue]

7. This.

If a cop shoots someone, there is an investigation. If it is found that the cop acted inappropriately, all kinds of things can happen, right up to murder charges.

If the drone strikes are necessary for security reasons, then investigate them retroactively, and throw the president in jail if he abused the power.

[MineralMan]

12. That's an interesting point.

There is always oversight of the military, and on a number of levels. As for review, it seems to me that there is plenty of review that is ongoing already. The nature of and findings of those reviews are things for which I have no access.

[Vincardog]

24. These acts are not limited to the military in a declared war. The authority claimed to

justify them is not constitutional.
If it is a war power where is the declaration of the war?
If it is the war on terror; where are the limits on personnel place or time?
How can it ever end?

How are these claimed unconstitutional powers not applicable to the "War on Drugs"?

The "war powers" and the "national Security requirements" are the cloak behind which hides dictatorial authority.


When people ask "where were the people of Germany when the nuts took over"?
We are there. It happens by small steps.
Each one incrementally worse until the end result is a horror beyond belief.

[MineralMan]

27. Again, you raise good points, for which I have no ready answer.

As I said, I'm not taking any position at all on this. I'm still considering what position to take.

[randome]

31. Congress gave up that authority, remember?

They gave the Executive Branch their power to declare war.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Wouldn't that oversight and/or review ...

come at the next election? If the American electorate deem the policy legitimate, the administration enacting it would go unscathed; however, if the electorate deemed the policy illegitimate, it will be punished at the polls. This, admittedly, is by no means a "judicial" judgement; but it does represent a measure of oversight/review, even if the specific facts of the secific action are not reviewed or even known.

[Vincardog]

26. Are we to surrender all oversight to the Black Box voting machines?

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Are we to have any more faith in a bought and paid for judiciary?

[Vincardog]

40. I am arguing that the powers claimed are illegal and unconstitutional. The actions should be

Prohibited not reviewed. The fact that they are irrevocable decisions made on secret information without review indicates that the policy should be forbidden not reviewed.

This is about killing people outside a (declared or implied) war zone guilty of nothing more than Suspicion or accusation. Remember all the evidence of WMDs?

Remember the Committee on UnAmerican activities?

They would be illegal unconstitutional acts even if they were rubber stamped by a "court" like FISA.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Would the actions be constitutional had ...

the tool of death been a Seal Team attempting to arrest the suspect, but killing him/her instead?

BTW the "declared or implied war zone criteria is out-moded in that a nation-state cannot "declare war" against non-nation state organizations.

[Vincardog]

57. If the "war zone is out-moded" what is the source of the "War Powers"? A Seal Team

Does not do arrests police do arrests.

The problem is the executive is claiming "war powers" to circumvent limits places on it by the Constitution. If a war is declared, there are limits on it by treaty.
The Executive wants the freedom of "War Powers" absent the responsibility of our treaties. Enemy prisoners have rules on how and for how long they can be held.
Enemy combatants are defined on the battle field.

I oppose giving the Executive unlimited power in an unending universal "war".l

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. The source of the War Powers ...

is the U.S. Constitution ... a document written 250 years ago, where "War" was limited to actions between nation-states, not multi-national organizations.

A Seal Team Does not do arrests police do arrests. The Executive wants the freedom of "War Powers" absent the responsibility of our treaties. Enemy prisoners have rules on how and for how long they can be held. Enemy combatants are defined on the battle field.

So the distinction is modality of death?

BTW, we agree ... I, also, oppose giving the Executive unlimited power in an unending universal "war". I just don't see this as an Executive's exercise of unlimited power in an unending universal "war".

[Vincardog]

64. Then we must be seeing two different things. The Constitution says only Congress can declare war.

Where is the war declaration?

If this is a "new" kind of war where does the authority come from?
What rules apply?
When does it end?
Where does it occur?

[markpkessinger]

47. . . . and without even necessarily disclosing that they occurred n/t

[whatchamacallit]

5. A ladle of weak sauce

I think I've seen this ploy used by the right. Are you channeling the mineral man of yore?

[MineralMan]

6. I'm bringing something up for discussion.

Is it weak sauce? I don't know. And I have no idea of the point behind your last sentence.

If you would care to address what I brought up, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I'm not interested in discussing vague insults with you.

[mike_c]

8. every such killing is subject to external oversight and accountability....

Nice try, but your example is a false equivalent.

[MineralMan]

13. Actually, there are many levels of

oversight and review in military actions. Those include congressional investigations and internal review by the military itself. Public review is also ongoing, although the available information for that is rather limited.

Every action like this undergoes review by the military. In the same way, police sniper shootings are always reviewed by an internal board. Sometimes, but not always, there is also an independent judicial review. Having been in the military, I have seen such reviews of actions firsthand. It's very rare that any operation is not reviewed.

[mike_c]

21. except that the Obama administration has just asserted that it is NOT SUBJECT...

...to those forms of oversight, and can in fact perform extrajudicial killings in complete secret if it chooses. I'm sorry, that is precisely the sort of authoritarian abuse that the constitution was designed to protect U.S. citizens from.

Are you unaware of the real issues we're discussing here? Your response makes that seem likely.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. It seems some are deliberately missing you point ...

I say deliberately because it is clear there is the same level of review/oversight, even more, as with the police sniper scenario that you raise.

[MineralMan]

45. Yes. Anyone with military experience is aware of the review process

conducted after every operation. It's internal, just as the police review board is internal.

External review, too occurs in both cases, and is occurring right now in Congress. It takes a helluva lot of time, doesn't it?

People are ignoring, too, that I have not stated an opinion on this, since I have not formed a solid one yet. Somehow, some folks seem to think that I'm in favor of drone strikes. I am not, nor am I opposed to them. I have not formed a solid position so far.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Black and white thinking ...

seems a lot easier these days, huh?

[Recursion]

22. We know about this because the Senate subpoenaed it

So, other than the actual oversight that is currently happening that is the reason we know about this, you're right, there's not oversight

[mike_c]

25. it was leaked to NBC....

eom

[Recursion]

29. After it was delivered to the Senate

They're doing their investigation, and somebody decided to leak in the process.

[Luminous Animal]

39. What was leaked was not what the Senate asked for and as Wyden points out... this "white memo"

still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

[Recursion]

41. Right, but this what the Senate got last summer, so oversight has been going on for a while.

[Luminous Animal]

49. Wyden finds the memo inadequate thus oversight is hampered.

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-doj-memo-on-the-killing-of-americans-during-counterterrorism-operations

“As I and ten other senators told the President yesterday, if individual Americans choose to take up arms against the United States, there will clearly be some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to use force against the Confederate Army during the Civil War. At the same time, it is vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets this authority, so that Congress and the public can decide whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

“The Justice Department memo that was made public yesterday touches on a number of important issues, but it leaves many of the most important questions about the President’s lethal authorities unanswered. Questions like ‘how much evidence does the President need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?’, ‘does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender?’ and ‘can the President order intelligence agencies or the military to kill an American who is inside the United States?’ need to be asked and answered in a way that is consistent with American laws and American values. This memo does not answer these questions.

“I will continue to press the Administration to provide Congress with any and all legal opinions that outline the President’s authority to use lethal force against Americans, and I will not be satisfied until I have received them. I have not yet received an official response to the letter than I sent to Deputy National Security Advisor Brennan on this topic three weeks ago, but I look forward to raising the issue with him again at his nomination hearing this Thursday.”

[Recursion]

54. Yes. It's his job to ask for more, and WHC's job to fight that

This is how oversight happens. It's not elegant or awe-inspiring.

[Luminous Animal]

66. Oversight happens when the person or persons is given adequate information to provide oversight.

Hampering oversight is not how it happens, it is how to make it NOT happen. So no. Oversight is not happening and hasn't been happening. Wrangling between two presumably equal branches of is what is happening.

[SidDithers]

15. DU rec...nt

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

38. The reflexive nature of your recs

Embarrassing...

[NCTraveler]

17. A review is done almost immediately after all...

hostage crisis situations where someone is killed.

There are situations in life where IMMEDIATE ACTION is necessary. Drone strikes against american citizens are not one of them. Apples and oranges.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. No ...

It would seem that the "vetting" of the action occurs well before the action.

[NCTraveler]

68. By whom?

You and I agree that there is time be for these killings. These people are put on a list and then sought out. If that is the case why the hell should it be done without judicial review.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Two reasons ...

off the top of my head:

First, the time factor, and secondly, the secrecy factor.

But let's face it ... whomever seats on the judicial process will be met with the same distrust, to those that believe this action wrong, as the military and civilian authorities currently reviewing/overseeing the process.

[NCTraveler]

80. I disagree on one point....

and feel there is time for a judicial review before these killings happen. Many are put on a list and then sought out.

I could not agree more on this point:

"But let's face it ... whomever seats on the judicial process will be met with the same distrust, to those that believe this action wrong, as the military and civilian authorities currently reviewing/overseeing the process."

[Marr]

18. This is almost getting funny.

Some people are bending over backwards to find some other action that makes this alright. And every one of them is more pathetic and flawed than the last.

The Obama Administration is asserting that the President can order an American citizen killed, whether they're engaged in any hostile acts or not, or even in a combat zone. They simply decide the person may be a threat under some circumstance eventually, somehow, and that's it. No oversight at all.

This would be more like the Police Chief in your story sending his officers out to execute all the locals who had 11 year old daughters in order to prevent possible, eventual, abductions. Would you be comfortable giving the Police Chief that authority?

[cali]

23. More like embarrassingly silly.

And it's depressing that it's coming from some pretty bright people here.

[leftstreet]

28. Watching Ardent Supporters™ defend this is hilarious

It shouldn't be funny, but it is

There's but a mere handful able to string together any decipherable defense. The rest just make increasingly lame and embarrassing comparisons.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. The better, more accurate comparison would be ...

the Police Chief sending out his SWAT Team to sit on a specific local who he, and his command staff, has evidence indicating that that specific local has kidnapped and plans to kill an 11 year old girl that and the order is given that if that specific local makes a move that can be interpreted as beginning to act on the local's threat to kill the child, he/she is to be stopped, i.e., shot.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Huh? The man has already committed the crime of kidnapping and if the local is armed, the

child is under immediate and imminent threat. Though the SWAT team may be in attendance, they wouldn't be the only team trying to solve the situation without violence. Law enforcement will first do all that it can to 1) convince the kidnapper to release the child and, 2) surrender unarmed.

I think you watch too much TV.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. Maybe ...

and maybe you have not lived enough life.

It was you attempting to apply a sanitized analogy using the Police Chief, acting as if the target was merely a unvetted suspect. In real life, the level of scrutiny to do this type of thing goes far beyond a mere suspicion.

But I susect you know that ... but it doesn't lay well in the OUTRAGE.

[Luminous Animal]

75. In regards to level of scrutiny: So it is claimed but neither we nor our representatvies are allowed

to know. How outrageously democratic!

[whatchamacallit]

69. Watched a lot of 24?

Your scenario assumes the authorities information and motivations are de facto valid. We have a system of checks and balances because no such assumption can, or should be made. "Trust us" didn't used to cut it in the good old USA.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Never seen it ...

and it seems it is you that wishes to ignore that there ARE checks and balances, albeit, non-judicial.

[whatchamacallit]

72. Did you read the paper???

It pretty much says "we can do this anytime, anywhere, without oversight or review". Wise up.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Okay. n/t

[Marr]

77. No, it would be to have them executed on suspicion that he *might* do something someday.

That is what the memo describes. The Administration claims the right to target American citizens, whether they are engaged in any hostile action or not. Whether they are in a combat zone or not. With no review.

They specifically state in that memo that a complete lack of evidence is not a problem, so your analogy is pure bullshit.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. You are reading what is not there ...

They specifically state in that memo that a complete lack of evidence is not a problem

Talk about histronic bullshit!

[Marr]

81. Quote:

"The condition that an operational leader presents an 'imminent' threat of violence attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."

You didn't even read it before you started excusing it, did you?

[malaise]

46. You're still lucky

Here the cops always remember to say that it was self defense and the 'gunman' attacked them with gun X, Y C

[MineralMan]

48. You appear to have missed the fact that I was talking about

hostage situations and snipers, not the run of the mill police shooting that doesn't involve anything like that.

I'm discussing a very specific situation, where the shooter cannot possibly claim self defense. A sniper shoots to kill after receiving orders to do so, just as whoever is piloting a drone does so on orders.

[malaise]

65. I got it but was pointing out that extra-judicial killings are

frightening normal in some places with or without hostages

[FarCenter]

53. If the drone pilot makes a mistake, the President can use the power of pardon anyway

So long as the killing is done outside the United States border, any criminal charges would have to be Federal ones, since no State court has jurisdiction. Therefore the President can choose to pardon the drone pilot in the case of any Federal offense. So long as the President is reasonably careful in who is on the targeting list and so long as the miltary/CIA are reasonably careful in carrying out the policy, no Congress is going to impeach.

So judicial oversight is moot.

[WinkyDink]

61. "So long as the President is reasonably careful in who is on the targeting list" = Orwellian.

[Kalidurga]

55. Another Kind of Extra-Judicial Killing...

Oh look it says right in the header that is is another kind or a different kind of extra-judicial killing. Looks like we can compare and contrast them.

I saw a lone DUer assert that snipers are murderers. This was after that famous sniper was murdered. I rather take exception to that. A sniper may be a murderer or a sniper maybe a person that saves the lives of hostages.

Killing US citizens that aren't in the US with drones might be somewhat the same. It could be murder or it could save lives. We really won't know which it is.

I think there needs to be some checks and balances in place on drone killing even if it is after the fact. I don't have a problem so much with the US citizen part. I don't think the life of a US citizen is worth more than the life of any other person. We need this oversight to extend even to non-US citizens IMO.

[LittleBlue]

59. Ignores the concept of imminent danger

And quite desperate

[WinkyDink]

60. I think we have clear evidence that: 1. Pilots are not police; 2. Drone hits aren't sniper-accurate;

3. Drones generally do not stop crimes-in-progress, as this SWAT sniper did;

4. And finally, drone hits do not allow for the voluntary surrender of the accused; i.e., for the willing cessation of the illicit activity.

[barbtries]

63. yep.

i am in a general sense distraught about drone killings. i have not read the white paper nor engaged in any conversation however and i think your position as stated works for me as well.

on the other hand it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where i would think it's okay, particularly given the fact of innocent victims. i worry about the people carrying out these strikes, what it does to their humanity. i really don't think it should be easy to kill a human being. no, it should be very, very difficult.

sometimes i think i am either centuries behind or millenia ahead of the rest of the human race.

[slackmaster]

76. The purpose of a police sniper shooting a suspect in that situation is not to kill the suspect

It's to make the suspect STOP whatever he or she is doing that is putting innocent lives at risk.

If the suspect happens to die as a result of the shooting, that is an unfortunate unintended consequence of a desperate action that is taken only when all other options have been exhausted.

[MineralMan]

78. You are incorrect.

In those police situations, the shot is always made. to kill. Anything less does not end the threat to the hostages.