The Drone Operator Who Said "No"

[Alyosha]

Too bad his name wasn't "Obama".


http://youtu.be/DuGqA-c_-n0



"The actual breaking point happened when we were hunting an American citizen, and they were saying he was maybe the next bin Laden. This was an American citizen - these were the people that I swore to protect. I believe that at that moment we were doing the wrong thing and that was when I decided to turn my back and walk away."


I'll await the usual crickets or the "but Bush did it, too" moral-partisan relativism of the modern left.

[Newpublius]

Perfectly legal for the soldier to 'pull the trigger' and his failure to do so is an act of insubordination that will mos likely be treated like a form of conscientious objetion, Neverthis, the fact pattern is no different from the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki-Recently The United States targeted and killed a US citizen named Anwar Al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi) in Yemen. Many have questioned the legality of not only his killing but the killing of Osama bin Laden as well. Notwithstanding, the legality of unilaterally targeting enemy belligerents in accordance with the laws of war is fundamental to the ability of the military, the Executive Branch, to wage war. The nature of this power over life and death poses such a threat threat to liberty that the Constitution grants the War Power solely to Congress who alone is empowered to authorize the use of military force. In this particular instance, the Congress has so authorized. In 2001, the Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force which states: “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” There is no question that Congress delegated to the President the authority to utilize military force. Once such authority is granted, the military can engage the enemy and can do so based on a reasonable belief that the targets engaged are enemy belligerents. Like it or not, this is how wars are fought. Of course, Al-Awlaki is a US Citizen and surely this must prevent the military from targeting him as an enemy belligerent? Al-Awlaki’s status as a US Citizen does not preclude his inclusion as an enemy belligerent. As the Supreme Court stated in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: “"There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U.S., at 20. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war." Id., at 37-38." Hamdi of course was a US citizen and while the case was a 'POW' detention case, its clear that the Supreme Court specifically states that his status as a US Citizen does not preclude his detention as a POW and by extension, prior to his capture, an enemy belligerent, within the meaning of the law of war. Of course, prior to Hamdi’s capture as a POW he was an active enemy belligerent, as a matter of fact, he must have beeen, otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to become a POW. As such, any private in the US Army can raise his M16, make the unilateral determination that he is 'the enemy' and, just like uniformed German soldiers during WWII, shoot him dead. Many people remain uncomfortable with this authority and will typically make the argument, like Ron Paul, that this authority would permit the President to target non-combatants like say, journalists that the administration might find to be saying inconvenient things. On this point, Ron Paul misses the point of the War Power and the ability of the Executive Branch to wage war. The ability to target the enemy is not completely unilateral and remains subject to the laws of war, and of course specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Perhaps the Executive Branch was wrong, either willfully or negligently, in its targeting? Naturally this remains within the realm of possibility. Of course, and these cases will range from the friendly fire incidents like Pat Tillman’s to intentional murders like at Haditha. Nothing absolves the President and the military from continuing to target in accordance with distinction and proportionality. And to the extent that they do not follow these important protocols, they will be committing war crimes. Nevertheless, until then, Osama bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki were legitimate military targets subject to targeting by the military in accordance with the AUMF of 2001.

[Alyosha]

Anwar Al-Awlaki is not the individual we're questioning, but his 16 year old son, Abdulrahman, with no history of terrorism and an individual the government has stated we have no intel on.

[Newpublius]

This isn't the criminal justice system. Every use of MILITARY force, every one, no exception IS extrajudicial. Military force is applied on the belief, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the target is the enemy, force that is unleashed politically by Congress but when Congress does act the Executive Branch can make the determination as to who the enemy is. That's what war is. The fact it's his son actually IS enough for purposes of the laws of war. In a criminal trial, guilt by association is taboo, in war, guilt by association is fucking obvious, the military CAN make that inference that people associating with the enemy ARR the enemy.

[Alyosha]

This isn't the criminal justice system. Every use of MILITARY force, every one, no exception IS extrajudicial. Military force is applied on the belief, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the target is the enemy, force that is unleashed politically by Congress but when Congress does act the Executive Branch can make the determination as to who the enemy is. That's what war is.

1. This happened in Yemen, not Iraq or Afghanistan--two areas justified by Congress for military activity.
2. We cannot arbitrarily expand the war to every nation on the planet "because we said so".

[Newpublius]

1. This happened in Yemen, not Iraq or Afghanistan--two areas justified by Congress for military activity.
2. We cannot arbitrarily expand the war to every nation on the planet "because we said so".

The AUMF is not geographically limited. As a matter of fact most wars DONT have geographic limits, you fight and engage the enemy WHEREVER you find him. Now, granted, without Yemen's consent, Yemen could rightfully perceive this independently as an act of war, but that's a different question.

you have a war with the axis, we fought them on every continent in every ocean. We weren't limited to fighting Germany in Germany.

[Alyosha]

The AUMF is not geographically limited.

The AUMF was not so sweeping and broad that the Executive Branch is allowed to bypass Congress in order to kill American civilians wherever and whenever by swipe of pen alone. I'm sorry but you're wrong.

The Congress may not delegate war powers to the Executive Branch, any "law" that tries to do this is unconstitutional. Furthermore the language of the AUMF states that he may do so in response to nations which have attacked us on 911.


"nations, organizations, or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or person."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

While it was very general and vague it applies only to 911 planners, not an ongoing "war on terror".

Regardless, it is still the abdication of duty on the part of the Congress, but they are rather spineless creatures.

[Newpublius]

The AUMF was not so sweeping and broad that the Executive Branch is allowed to bypass Congress in order to kill American civilians wherever and whenever by swipe of pen alone. I'm sorry but you're wrong.

Yes, it is actually: "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist) attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Its the Executive Branch's (military's) call. They don't even need the swipe of the pen. A lowly 18 year old private can raise his rifle and SHOOT HAMDI, a US Citizen, DEAD.

You're conflating the laws of war and the civil operation of the law. Terrorists are criminals, that doesn't mean they can't be belligerents, Congress, IN ITS POLITICAL JUDGMENT, made that very determination, that this rose to the level to require MILITARY FORCE, and then AUTHORIZED IT. When US Citizens are belligerents they can be engaged.

We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war."

Internalize that because that has been our law since WWII. NOTHING has changed. Being a US Citizen does not create a bar of immunity with respect to belligerent actions a US Citizen may take against the US.

[Alyosha]

Yes, it is actually: "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist) attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Its the Executive Branch's (military's) call. They don't even need the swipe of the pen. A lowly 18 year old private can raise his rifle and SHOOT HAMDI, a US Citizen, DEAD.

You're conflating the laws of war and the civil operation of the law. Terrorists are criminals, that doesn't mean they can't be belligerents, Congress, IN ITS POLITICAL JUDGMENT, made that very determination, that this rose to the level to require MILITARY FORCE, and then AUTHORIZED IT. When US Citizens are belligerents they can be engaged.

We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war."




Please reread that part about being associated with 911 again and then while you're at it find the part in the Constitution where the Congress is allowed to abdicate its powers, thanks.

[Newpublius]

Aulaqi was in Al-Qaida. Congress didn't abdicate anything, they authorized the Executive Branch to use military force. They can rescind the AUMF tomorrow if they feel like it. If they 'abdicated' they wouldn't be able to do that, ie. An abdication of a crown leaves you in a position where you cannot unilaterally decide to take back the crown. You might doubt the son is. I don't care, the Executive Branch simply needs to believe it. (He determines), not a judicial question. All applications of military force are extra judicial, EVERY ONE.

[Alyosha]

Aulaqi was in Al-Qaida.

His son was not in Al-Qaeda and Yemen was not involved in the act of harboring terrorists, either. Moreover, the use of the AUMF to extend to ISIS, a group not only not affiliated with AQ but rebuked by them is overstepping the 2001 AUMF's conditions.

But aside from all that it's still unconstitutional, so I ask again where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can abdicate its powers to the Executive Branch?

[Newpublius]

His son was not in Al-Qaeda

NOT your determination to make, that's the determination of the Executive Branch. nations, persons or organization that HE DETERMINES (referring to the President as C in C but obviously meaning the military and soldiers in the field). I don't care if 15 years from now you prove in a court beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't all that matters is that there be a reasonable BELIEF, not proof, BELIEF, that he's in Al-Qaida. THIS IS NOT A TRIAL, ALL APPLICATION OF MILITARY FORCE IS EXTRAJUDICIAL.


and Yemen was not involved in the act of harboring terrorists, either.

Then either Yemen can give us permission or not give us permission. If they give us permission (and I think Yemen has actually) there's no problem, if they don't, like Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, then Pakistan can tolerate it or consider it an independent act of war but that still has NO BEARING on the legality of the killing of the belligerent under US Law. (Pakistan obviously might look at it differently obviously, they might look at the killing as an illegal murder constituting a violation of their sovereignty, but that's NOT the question I'm answering, is it ILLEGAL under US law? NO)


Moreover, the use of the AUMF to extend to ISIS, a group not only not affiliated with AQ but rebuked by them is overstepping the 2001 AUMF's conditions.

Political question that Congress can answer by acting in revoking the AUMF or redefining it so as not to include ISIS, specifically: The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which was renamed Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—when the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004

You'll never get an injunction on that.


But aside from all that it's still unconstitutional, so I ask again where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can abdicate its powers to the Executive Branch?

No, it isn't, I actually went to Con Law and paid attention. The fact you're using the word 'abdicate' is just fucking bizarre, it doesn't mean anything. Congress has in fact utilized its war power with the AUMF.

US Citizens can be belligerents within the meaning of the laws of war.

Do you, or do you NOT understand what that means?

At this point you're going to need to start, you know, citing to some LEGAL AUTHORITY besides what you simply WANT the law to be.

[Mac-7]

In war there are always a few malcontents.

[Newpublius]

In war there are always a few malcontents.

Well, they can be malcontents, but if they DO become belligerents, we can shoot them dead. 'De Jure' traitors are traitors that 'levy war' against the United States and they can be engaged as such.