Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

[grumbler]

It's a significant result, among other things it allows the government to use results from overseas wiretaps that probably wouldn't pass muster here.

I agree.  It's a fascinating example of the USSC using languish-style nitpicking to determine that "the people" have an entirely different set of right than do "persons."  The USSC majority got the result they wanted, no matter how objectively silly their argument was.

Of course, the rights in the case of drone strikes are those of "persons" and not "the people," so it isn't clear how the precedent of US v. Verdugo-Urquidez would be applied.  On the face of it, it would seem that everyone, US citizen or not, is a "person" who cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.  If we apply the spirit of US v V-U, though, the ruling would be that the constitution means whatever the executive wants it to mean. 

The Insular Cases ...

I am familiar with those others and agree that they are not really applicable.

[Berkut]

Why is any of this related to drones per se?

Are the rules for killing somenoe with a missile from a drone somehow different from the rules for killing someone with a missile from a manned fighter, or a Tomahawk, or even a sniper?

I don't understand why we need a set of drone-specific rules - surely the legal justifications for the use of deadly force in whatever circumstances (war or peace, citizen/non-citizens, etc., etc) do not hinge on how the instrument of that force is delivered?

[derspiess]

Why is any of this related to drones per se?

Are the rules for killing somenoe with a missile from a drone somehow different from the rules for killing someone with a missile from a manned fighter, or a Tomahawk, or even a sniper?

I don't understand why we need a set of drone-specific rules - surely the legal justifications for the use of deadly force in whatever circumstances (war or peace, citizen/non-citizens, etc., etc) do not hinge on how the instrument of that force is delivered?

Drones are scary.

[dps]

It's a significant result, among other things it allows the government to use results from overseas wiretaps that probably wouldn't pass muster here.

I agree.  It's a fascinating example of the USSC using languish-style nitpicking to determine that "the people" have an entirely different set of right than do "persons."  The USSC majority got the result they wanted, no matter how objectively silly their argument was.

Of course, the rights in the case of drone strikes are those of "persons" and not "the people," so it isn't clear how the precedent of US v. Verdugo-Urquidez would be applied.  On the face of it, it would seem that everyone, US citizen or not, is a "person" who cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.  If we apply the spirit of US v V-U, though, the ruling would be that the constitution means whatever the executive wants it to mean. 

Had there actually been a DoW, I'd argue that Congress voting for war constituted due process. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Why is any of this related to drones per se?

It isn't.

[frunk]

Drones are being used in ways that, if the payload was delivered from a fighter or a warship into the areas they have been, there would probably be at least a few bigger media/diplomatic/political incidents than we've had.  For some reason they are avoiding those consequences for now, but I think that will change in the future.

[The Minsky Moment]

Had there actually been a DoW, I'd argue that Congress voting for war constituted due process.

There was the AUMF, but that isn't as broad as some seem to assume.

[Ed Anger]

Drones are scary.

Robots in disguise.

[derspiess]

Drones are scary.

Robots in disguise.

Exactly.  Which is why I have robot insurance from Old Glory.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insurance/n10766/

[Eddie Teach]

Did someone get a box set of SNL vids for Christmas? 

[fhdz]

I can't bring myself to get very worked up about the targeting of terrorists by drones or any other similar means. Is the collateral damage from drone strikes higher than the collateral damage from, say, rockets fired from manned fighters?

Nitpicking over whether the terrorist is a US citizen or not seems to me a strange distinction; if someone's gone overseas in order to plan to blow up a building as a political act against the USA, surely they've renounced their US citizenship if spirit if not in writing, haven't they?

[Valmy]

I can't bring myself to get very worked up about the targeting of terrorists by drones or any other similar means. Is the collateral damage from drone strikes higher than the collateral damage from, say, rockets fired from manned fighters?

I am just concerned about establishing the standard acceptable international procedures in using these things.  Sure we are using to target bad bad people but very shortly every country will have these things and we are basically announcing it is perfectly fine and legal to take out anybody you consider a threat anywhere in the world.  Like all really really bad ideas they are done for what at the time seemed like a reasonable expedient.

[fhdz]

I am just concerned about establishing the standard acceptable international procedures in using these things.  Sure we are using to target bad bad people but very shortly every country will have these things and we are basically announcing it is perfectly fine and legal to take out anybody you consider a threat anywhere in the world.  Like all really really bad ideas they are done for what at the time seemed like a reasonable expedient.

You're worried about setting precedent rather than whether the threat is a US citizen or not. That makes sense.

[Valmy]

You're worried about setting precedent rather than whether the threat is a US citizen or not. That makes sense.

Well the Bill of Rights makes no distinction as far as due process.  If the process involved works for non-citizens there is nothing constitutionally requiring the government to make another one for citizens so the damage there has already been done as far as precedents are concerned.  Besides if the rationalization is these guys are at war with the US last I checked being a US citizen did not do much if you were considered a belligerent against the US.

My deal is that I question whether all these dangerous precedents and disregard for implications were even necessary in the first place, if there might have been a way to deal with these guys that would be less problematic in the long term.  I think that is everybody's concern, who care about this sort of thing.  Not that they are wanting to offer warm fuzzies to terrorists like we often get lampooned.

[fhdz]

Are these drone strikes considered assassinations? Serious question.