When is it okay to kill Americans abroad?

[The Northerner]

ON OCT. 14, a U.S. drone strike in southeastern Yemen took the lives of nine people, including Ibrahim al-Banna, a senior operative with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the intended target of the strike. Another casualty: Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American and the son of radical cleric and AQAP agent Anwar al-Awlaki. The elder Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen, was targeted and killed Sept. 30 in another attack.

An Obama administration official says the United States did not know that the teenage Awlaki was among the group traveling with Mr. Banna. But what if it had? Would the administration have changed course, had it known that a 16-year-old American was among those likely to be killed?

Administration officials, including State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, have outlined the factors that play a role in launching targeted attacks against a foreign national on foreign soil. Mr. Koh, for example, has said that such strikes would be carried out only if the targeted individual presented an imminent threat, the foreign country in question was unable or unwilling to act, and capture was not feasible. But no one in the administration has spoken publicly about what additional factors — if any — must be weighed when an American is the target. And no mention has been made about whether any special consideration must be given to an American who may become “collateral damage.” The administration also has not publicly addressed how age may factor into a decision to strike.

We believe that international and domestic laws allow targeted killings as a means of national self-defense. These attacks must be subject to rigorous checks, in part to prevent needless harm to innocent civilians, both foreign and American. U.S. citizens who take up arms with the enemy forfeit their rights to due process. The government should make every effort to alert the individual of his status as a target and to capture him, if at all possible; that obligation is all the more profound when a minor is involved. As with any operation of this type, the government has a legal and moral obligation to limit collateral damage to the greatest extent possible.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-is-it-okay-to-kill-americans-abroad/2011/10/19/gIQA9nQj4L_story.html

[sabrina 1]

1. This all reminds me of the tortuous attempts by the Bush

adminstration to justify torture. Rogue nation. I'd like to hear the administration's justification for the Oakland PD critically injuring an Iraq War Vet last night. Unarmed, no threat. I hope there will be a comment on this from the WH.

The President takes an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the US. A clear violation of the people's 1st Amendment rights occurred last night and a soldier was wounded by thugs wearing uniforms. What country do they serve? Every member of Congress needs to condemn this, it is their duty if they were serious when they took that oath.

[treestar]

2. The Administration did a legal analysis

People could at least look at that before judging.

But when people don't want to be objective, they consider only one side of a question.

[Angry Dragon]

4. The bush administration did a legal analysis also

so everything is just fine...............

[treestar]

14. That doesn't make legal analysis bad in itself!

Geez, Bush took a shit now and then too, so when you do, that makes you evil, doesn't it?

[Capitalocracy]

18. The difference is Bush took a shit on the Constitution.

Perhaps I'm being rude or unrealistic if I expect Obama not to do the same.

[treestar]

27. Well if he makes at least a legal argument

Then he's not crapping on it.

You just want it to be a simple matter, and it's not.

[Angry Dragon]

20. Then there should not be any problem telling the American

people what the ruling is and the facts they base that ruling on

But it seems that the American people don't deserve to know the rules

[treestar]

28. Anyone could look up the law

No one's stopping you from doing that.

No doubt there are already countless law review articles on the subject.

But reading them would be SO HARD. Just easier to jerk your knee.

[WinkyDink]

25. It doesn't make it automatically good, either. What's YOUR evidence?

"Obama did it."

[treestar]

29. Are you saying the rule of law is not a good thing?

Yeah, it is "automatically good." It's better than mob rule. It's better than totalitarian rule.

It just gets a little complex. It's not just what you think should happen. It includes all of history of the law and all of the issues. But if YOU'VE never thought of an issue, it should not be considered, no? You'd rather just be the dictator. Spare me all those legal precedents and boring, complicated questions. Let's just do it the way I think it should be done.

[ArcticFox]

7. Are you serious?

No "legal analysis" can void the Constitution.

Or maybe you're onto something: that the Constitution no longer has any force or effect, except in unimportant cases as window dressing.

[treestar]

13. Are you serious?

And maybe the law has no existence or effect? Or it's just simple, and states what you think it should state and never considers issues that never occurred to you.

[WinkyDink]

24. You've not heard of either John Mitchell or John Yoo?

[Liberal Veteran]

3. It is very much a sticky issue of which I see both sides

On one hand, the notion is somewhat repugnant to target a person like that.

On the other, I can see the logic (if not the ethics)of operating outside our jurisdiction in a country that may not be willing to extradite someone to the our custody.

I can't say I know enough about this, but I could make a case for it in the event someone with extensive national security information were to turn on us and take up residence in another country with the intent on undermining or attacking the US and we had no legal avenues to prevent the use of that info.

I guess that's why I am not presidential material.

[Fumesucker]

6. If you're OK with other countries coming in and doing the same thing here...

Then I'm sure it's OK to do it in other nations.

I'm sure Cuba would like to take out Luis Posada Carriles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

[treestar]

15. Would you have a problem with that?

[Fumesucker]

17. If my president doesn't have a problem with it then why should I?

Clearly he thinks it's a good idea.

:shrug:

[treestar]

26. As I understand it Luis Posada Carriles

Is a real terrorist that the US has allowed free reign.

[CarmanK]

5. This admin, my have, if known. BUSH/Cheney would not stop the kill!

[JoePhilly]

8. I love the hypothetical used in this article ...

"An Obama administration official says the United States did not know that the teenage Awlaki was among the group traveling with Mr. Banna. But what if it had? Would the administration have changed course, had it known that a 16-year-old American was among those likely to be killed?"

The reason to use this hypothetical is to avoid discussing what ACTUALLY happened. So that the author can then take a free stroll down hypothetical lane and attack the Obama administration for something that they did not do.

And so what if folks on DU, who only read the title come to think that Obama himself targeted the 16 year old ... SO WHAT????

Oh wait ... that's the POINT.

Obama Bad.

[gratuitous]

11. Nothing hypothetical about the war crime then

Because, according to the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, every effort is to be expended to avoid killing the wrong people. The admission by administration officials that they didn't know who all they were firing on is a confession that they were committing a war crime (or a crime against humanity, if you prefer). That's what ACTUALLY happened, by the administration's own account. Who is ultimately responsible for the actions of the military if not the commander in chief?

The president doesn't take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the United States or its people. He swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, because in doing so, he preserves, protects and defends the United States, which does not exist outside the Constitution.

[ArcticFox]

12. There's no dispute, dude

Obama is targeting U.S. citizens without so much as indicting them.

[Angry Dragon]

21. I believe Obama is the CiC -------

In what society is it okay to kill innocents??

[MrDiaz]

9. its okay

when Obama is president, and Bush is not.

[MFrohike]

10. Those standards are reasonable

I have no problem with the standards at all. I do have a question. Why was it feasible to send a team for Osama but not al-Awlaki and his son? Explain that without resorting to legalese or evasions and I'll be impressed.

[treestar]

16. That could be a logistical matter

A military matter.

[MFrohike]

23. It could be

It requires an explanation. As it stands, there is a disconnect between the two.

[Iggo]

19. When there's a D after the president's name. (n/t)

[PurityOfEssence]

22. When Obama does it.

Well, you asked...