Obama Administration policy about when it’s justified to kill U.S. citizens
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.” [Source: NBC news].
Hear what Rachel Maddow has to report about the “Killing” Paper
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Read the “Killing” Paper
Commentary
It’s a new world out there that requires new strategies to deal with people, groups, and countries that pose a real danger to the United States and our citizens. I agree with the Obama Administration policy. How about you?
Read more…Update
NY Times article, “The Questions Brennan Can’t Dodge” [published February 7, 2013].
NY Times article, “Bangladeshi Admits Trying to Bomb Federal Reserve Bank” [published February 7, 2013].
NY times video, “Targeted Killings under Scrutiny” [published February 8, 2013].
Okay, I’ll bite. Here’s my answer: we shouldn’t be killing anyone, much less US citizens. Random bombings and drone attacks on people in Afghanistan don’t do anything to improve security in the US or to improve the image of the US in the rest of the world. Probably the opposite. Each attack creates a new horde of people who will hate America and Americans. It would be better if we stuck to a policy of staying out of other people’s business and prosecuting criminals who reach our shores instead of bullying the rest of the world. With our attacks, we just reveal that we are lawless brutes. If the cost of this is that sometimes people die in unexpected terrorist attacks, then so be it. We should live by principles that people can admire. We should be a shining beacon for all the people in the world who need a hero.
If you start saying it’s okay to kill people, then where do you draw the line? It’s a slippery slope that will only steepen over time.
I also don’t believe that the President should be able to imprison people (anyone, not just US citizens) without a trial, as is currently permitted for those that he arbitrarily declares as “enemy combatants”. This opens the door to despotism. Guantanamo is a national embarassment.
Dear Shining Beacon,
Good morning.
As per usual, a wonderful, thoughtful comment. Your points are well-taken.
The nature of war has changed, as well as the persona’s of individuals and groups that pose major threats to US citizens here and abroad. The strategies and tactics available to wage this war against enemies of the US are not the same strategies and tactics that the British used to fight the revolutionary war, our fathers and grandfathers used to fight World War I and II, the US used to fight the war in Viet Nam, and so on…
My understanding of the “terrorist agenda” is to attack the United States or its citizens, anywhere-anytime. I don’t agree that we should limit our strategy and tactics to defending against attacks by these people and groups of terrorists on US soil, or waiting for these people or groups of terrorists to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, plant explosives in the underwear of airplane passengers, plant explosives in an SUV and leave them in Times Square, or attack our embassies and kill our ambassadors and embassy personal.
Are you suggesting that if the United States stopped acting like a bully, these groups of terrorists, these religious fanatics would leave the US alone? Or, that the US should not have assassinated Bin Ladin in his Pakistani compound, which was obviously protected by the Pakistani government?
Your points about imprisonment without due process present a much more difficult issue for me. But, I agree with you that there must be a process in place to prevent kidnapping, imprisonment, and torture.
Shining Beacon…Kudos for participating in this discussion and sharing your opinions.
Best,
Larry
I can remember supporting the initial attacks on Al Qaida in Afghanistan to eliminate what was essentially an openly terrorist state. It was also an important blow to take down Osama bin Laden — a known terrorist should not be able to thumb his nose at the US with impunity. And, certainly, we should take measures to protect US citizens both at home and abroad. Finally, it doesn’t particularly bother me, if we’re attacking a valid terrorist target, that there are some American idiots there that get caught in harm’s way.
But let’s face it. Ultimately, we cannot defeat terrorism with bullets on a battlefield. We are attacking poor people in tents and caves on the other side of the Earth, not real threats to American security. At this point, our main accomplishment with continued attacks is to fan the flames of hatred and ensure the future health of terrorist recruitment.
Our greatest weapon in this war is to stand for peace and justice and the rule of law: to remain a nation that stands by its principles and earns the respect of fair-minded people everywhere.
Thus, the terrorists win a victory every time that we sacrifice our civil liberties. They win a victory when the President’s legal team drafts memos condoning torture or murder. They win a victory when we allow the executive branch of government to take over judicial roles. We lose when we are not the country of the Statue of Liberty, but rather the country of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. I hardly think it’s a credit to Obama’s tenure that his legal team gives a thumbs-up to targeting Americans for death. We should issue arrest warrants for suspected terrorists and try them in a proper court.
Really, to win this war, we need to rebuild our image. We are seen as greedy by our willingness to support oppressive regimes in order to secure our economic interests. We are seen as not even-handed in dealing with Israel and the Palestinians….
Well, on the other hand….maybe it’s easier just to keep shooting at terrorists.
Dear Shining Beacon,
Well said.
Maybe the answer is to fight this awful war on terrorism on all fronts…Winning hearts and minds of the populations and killing the bad guy that pose a genuine threat against our “homeland.”
Let’s see if our new secretary of state has some new ideas in his diplomatic tool chest.
Best,
Larry
Worth reading:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/objections-houses-killing.html