DUE PROCESS IS A DRONE MISSILE UP YR ASS
Mar. 7th, 2012 10:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: Attorney General Eric Holder has come up with legal reasons why it’s totally not against the law to assassinate US citizens overseas.
Basically, as long as that citizen poses “an imminent threat of violent attack”, he can’t be captured, and “law of war principles” (such as use of proportional force and the minimization of collateral damage) apply, it’s completely legal, he says.
Not that these legal reasons would necessarily hold up in court:
But that’s okay, since – as Glenn Greenwald helpfully points out – the details are so classified that it’s impossible for judges to determine if these assassinations are lawful or not.
See what they did there?
I’ve talked about President-sanctioned assassination before, and all I can really add is that it probably doesn’t matter at this stage, because the US govt has successfully changed the terror paradigm from crime to war so that different rules of engagement apply. Enough people in the US have bought into this arbitrary and convenient re-definition of terrorism that it’s just become natural to think of it in terms of actual war (which means you get to kill people without having to actually prove in a court that they’re guilty of anything).
As such, the general public doesn’t give a f*** about due process when it comes to terrorism. Obama can go on the Tonight Show and brag to Leno that he ordered a bearded Muslim guy living 8,000 miles away to be killed to protect America, and he gets applause, because that’s what Americans want to hear – at least as long as the targets are bearded Muslim guys living 8,000 miles away.
But who am I to be critical?
Whether all this is a good or bad thing is up to you, of course. All I’m saying is, that’s the world you get to live in now.
If you want blood you got it,
This is dF
Basically, as long as that citizen poses “an imminent threat of violent attack”, he can’t be captured, and “law of war principles” (such as use of proportional force and the minimization of collateral damage) apply, it’s completely legal, he says.
Not that these legal reasons would necessarily hold up in court:
Mary Ellen O’Connell, the vice president of the American Society of International Law, found Holder’s legal rationale flimsy.
“First, [Holder] restates the renamed global war on terror, which Obama himself condemned. Then he tries the United Nations Charter Article 51 but does not include the whole article: It says member states of the U.N. have an ‘inherent right of self-defense’ if an armed attack occurs. Article 51 does not provide a legal green light for targeted killing,” O’Connell said in an e-mail. “Finally, he adds the argument that the U.S. may use force against states that are ‘unable or unwilling’ to act. This argument has no basis in international law. It simply does not exist. So regardless of how carefully you target under the law of armed conflict, there is no right in the first instance to target at all.”
“First, [Holder] restates the renamed global war on terror, which Obama himself condemned. Then he tries the United Nations Charter Article 51 but does not include the whole article: It says member states of the U.N. have an ‘inherent right of self-defense’ if an armed attack occurs. Article 51 does not provide a legal green light for targeted killing,” O’Connell said in an e-mail. “Finally, he adds the argument that the U.S. may use force against states that are ‘unable or unwilling’ to act. This argument has no basis in international law. It simply does not exist. So regardless of how carefully you target under the law of armed conflict, there is no right in the first instance to target at all.”
But that’s okay, since – as Glenn Greenwald helpfully points out – the details are so classified that it’s impossible for judges to determine if these assassinations are lawful or not.
See what they did there?
I’ve talked about President-sanctioned assassination before, and all I can really add is that it probably doesn’t matter at this stage, because the US govt has successfully changed the terror paradigm from crime to war so that different rules of engagement apply. Enough people in the US have bought into this arbitrary and convenient re-definition of terrorism that it’s just become natural to think of it in terms of actual war (which means you get to kill people without having to actually prove in a court that they’re guilty of anything).
As such, the general public doesn’t give a f*** about due process when it comes to terrorism. Obama can go on the Tonight Show and brag to Leno that he ordered a bearded Muslim guy living 8,000 miles away to be killed to protect America, and he gets applause, because that’s what Americans want to hear – at least as long as the targets are bearded Muslim guys living 8,000 miles away.
But who am I to be critical?
Whether all this is a good or bad thing is up to you, of course. All I’m saying is, that’s the world you get to live in now.
If you want blood you got it,
This is dF
