Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Not-So-Innocent Abroad
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/eric_holder_s_speech_on_targeted_killings_was_incredibly_unsatisfying_.htmlEric Holder says the United States can kill American citizens overseas and he doesnt think he should explain why.
In his speech Monday explaining when he thinks the U.S. government can kill American citizens, Attorney General Eric Holder offered bare bones without much meat. We know now that the Obama administration thinks its lawyers dont have to get a judges approval before a top government official makes the call to assassinate someone. As Holder put it, " 'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." We know that the internal review process includes some limits. As Adam Serwer explains, The target has to pose an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States and be beyond the ability of American authorities to capture, and the strike can't violate international standards governing the use of force by killing too many civilians or noncombatants.
But thats about it. Holder didnt explain how the administration arrived at the conclusion that due process within the executive branch is enough. He has refused to release the legal memo from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice that must lay out how the administration got to here from therethe meat that was missing from his speech. And he didnt say how the government arrived at the conclusion in September that it was OK to kill not just Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American cleric in Yemen whom the government says is linked to underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, but also Awlaki's son, Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, who was also an American citizen.
If you want to believe that the government does its grim best to fight terrorists, and youre inclined to think that their dirty tactics justify some ruthlessness on our part, then maybe a few killings of bad guys in faraway lands doesnt bother you much. But there are a couple of unsettling implications here that are so obvious that its amazing Holder thinks he need not address them. The first is that if the Obama administration claims this kind of extra-judicial power for a few cases, whats to stop the next president from expanding upon itand citing this step as precedent for taking others that Obama wouldnt countenance? And the second is that when the executive branch wont release the legal memos that underlie its decision-making, were blocked from evaluating how strong or weak the arguments are. When the federal government takes a bold and new step like this, testing the boundaries of the Constitution, its crucial for Holder and his lawyers to explain how and why. Instead, were being asked to take the wisdom of the president and his national security apparatus for granted.
Advertisement
Thats a precedent that the Bush administration set in the bad old days of Attorney General John Ashcroft. It was this Department of Justice that produced John Yoos legal memos approving waterboarding and other interrogation techniques that amount to torture, the finding that the Guantanamo detainees werent prisoners of war protected by the Geneva conventions, and approved of warrantless wiretapping. Yoos legal innovations were dizzyingto put it kindlyand the leaking of his memos in 2004 was the first step toward official Department of Justice repudiation of them.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 624 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not-So-Innocent Abroad (Original Post)
xchrom
Mar 2012
OP
MisterP
(23,730 posts)1. it's also the same line of thinking that drove Argentina 1975-83
of course, it's been the status quo in US official circles since WWII