Debate III, the one just for Languish: US Foreign Policy

[Count]

Obama has not even laid out the legal justification for the targeted killings:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/us-must-explain-targeted-killings-its-own-citizens

[crazy canuck]

What does that have to do with you answering the question?

[Ed Anger]

Ugh. ACLU. Commies.

[The Minsky Moment]

Count - what is your mind is the significance of the distinction between citizen and non-citizen in this context?

[Count]

What does that have to do with you answering the question?

I answered you; in "terrorist lighting a fuse in a mall" situation, of course force is justified, in the same way that someone shooting up a mall can be shot. I also asked for clarification of what situation you had in mind.

it's worth remembering how many people accused of terrorism have been acquitted (see Minsky's thread), or just let go from Gitmo.

[crazy canuck]

What does that have to do with you answering the question?

I answered you; in "terrorist lighting a fuse in a mall" situation, of course force is justified, in the same way that someone shooting up a mall can be shot. I also asked for clarification of what situation you had in mind.

it's worth remembering how many people accused of terrorism have been acquitted (see Minsky's thread), or just let go from Gitmo.

So lets take your fuse analogy - what does a President have do know or do in your opinion before he takes steps to stop terrorist acts?  And what if it was a Canadian that was killed?  Do you have any objections to that?

Obama has not even laid out the legal justification for the targeted killings:

Not quite right.  There is apparently a justification for it but not made public because I assume the government is taking the position that making it public would do more harm then good in terms of revealing intelligence etc etc.

[Count]

Count - what is your mind is the significance of the distinction between citizen and non-citizen in this context?

Long history of attaching constitutional rights to citizens in a way we do not to non-citizens (IIRC one or more of the Gitmo cases blurs this distinction in the interest of attaching at least some constitutional rights to those in U.S. custody, but I don't remember the details). You could make an argument that we shouldn't be doing targeted assassinations against anyone without some form of due process, but I do think in this case we should at the very least be holding the U.S. government to a higher standard in regards to its own citizens than it is currently living up to.

[crazy canuck]

Long history of attaching constitutional rights to citizens in a way we do not to non-citizens (IIRC one or more of the Gitmo cases blurs this distinction in the interest of attaching at least some constitutional rights to those in U.S. custody, but I don't remember the details). You could make an argument that we shouldn't be doing targeted assassinations against anyone without some form of due process, but I do think in this case we should at the very least be holding the U.S. government to a higher standard in regards to its own citizens than it is currently living up to.

So how would this work Count?

Issue a summons to appear to a US citizen currently living abroad that reads:

Please attend a hearing at a secure location for a determination as to your potential to commit future acts of terror which my justify you death.

Or would you hold such hearings without the accused - some due process there!

[Count]

Long history of attaching constitutional rights to citizens in a way we do not to non-citizens (IIRC one or more of the Gitmo cases blurs this distinction in the interest of attaching at least some constitutional rights to those in U.S. custody, but I don't remember the details). You could make an argument that we shouldn't be doing targeted assassinations against anyone without some form of due process, but I do think in this case we should at the very least be holding the U.S. government to a higher standard in regards to its own citizens than it is currently living up to.

So how would this work Count?

Issue a summons to appear to a US citizen currently living abroad that reads:

Please attend a hearing at a secure location for a determination as to your potential to commit future acts of terror which my justify you death.

Or would you hold such hearings without the accused - some due process there!

I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.

Based on the article you posted you have something, its just that the government isnt making that something public at the present time.

[Count]

I don't know, but we have some process now for electronic surveillance of people abroad (which, as a general rule, happens without telling them). Seems like a much stronger version would be needed for killing people abroad, as opposed to listening in on them. Instead we have nothing.

Based on the article you posted you have something, its just that the government isnt making that something public at the present time.

It's an internal (and unexplained!) process, though, without any judicial oversight and incredibly high stakes. I think it sets a terrible precedent.

[merithyn]

We're watching the CNN pre-show, and they just interviewed Bill Clinton. I'd forgotten how much I love that guy, and he's more fun now that he gets to say what he wants.

And I really, really hope that Hillary runs again in 2016. Aside from the fact that I really like her, it'd be freaking awesome having Bill as the first husband.

[Neil]

Inter arma enim silent leges.

[CountDeMoney]

I really, really hope Mittens stays on the whole "Russia is our number one geopolitical foe" thing.

[sbr]

Hillary announced yesterday that she isn't running in 2016 and this was her last political job.  I didn't catch whether she would stay on if Obama wins re-eection.

EDIT:  Yep she is leaving her post in January either way.

MBM:  The interview is on November issue of Marie Clair.