Eric Holders defence of Targeted Drone killings

Be like Nutella

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=safari&q=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&oq=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...9933l16545l0l19057l15l12l0l0l0l0l996l4664l2-1j1j0j1j4l7l0.frgbld.&mvs=0

Would Love to get a few legal guys agree/disagree here... Or even ideally a poll.. But I'm not sure if this is the right place.

blueythebear

Be like Nutella wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=safari&q=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&oq=holder+targeted+killing+speech+youtube&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...9933l16545l0l19057l15l12l0l0l0l0l996l4664l2-1j1j0j1j4l7l0.frgbld.&mvs=0

Would Love to get a few legal guys agree/disagree here... Or even ideally a poll.. But I'm not sure if this is the right place.

You might be better off not posting a link to a 40 minute video and merely asking for an opinion...

For what it's worth, I'd agree with the judge here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZeluKxEdWc&feature=related

Any country that claims to uphold basic human rights should not have a policy that permits the killing of anyone without a trial, regardless of anything they may have done. It's essentialy government sponsored assassination (but I'm also not blind to the fact that this has and does happen anyway).

I can't imagine that anyone who practises law or studies law would think that it's a good idea for a death sentence to be imposed without any form of trial.

Be like Nutella

blueythebear wrote: »

You might be better off not posting a link to a 40 minute video and merely asking for an opinion...

For what it's worth, I'd agree with the judge here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZeluKxEdWc&feature=related

Any country that claims to uphold basic human rights should not have a policy that permits the killing of anyone without a trial, regardless of anything they may have done. It's essentialy government sponsored assassination (but I'm also not blind to the fact that this has and does happen anyway).

I can't imagine that anyone who practises law or studies law would think that it's a good idea for a death sentence to be imposed without any form of trial.

yeah fair enough stupid post... but I agree with your opinion.... it's a pretty sad situation

- Essentially assassinating a suspect in a country you're not at war with
- without due process or even an attempt to capture them
- And in the process killing a few innocents on average with every killing
- and stupidly creating more jihadists looking for vengence in the process

The whole thing rests on the arbitrary designation of this US vs Extremist Islamists situation as 'War' which it clearly is not. This 'War on terror' is not a war it's just a bull**** phrase. Yes there are many jihadist terrorists out there in Al Qaeda and other groups who wish to do the US and in some cases Britain harm and I don't agree with them in any way but surely doing this with an unmanned robot is no better than what these terrorists do?

Wiki :

30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.[30]

fcuking 70-80 people ??????????? That's a god damn massacre and people should get arrested for that ****...like today!!

blueythebear

Be like Nutella wrote: »

yeah fair enough stupid post... but I agree with your opinion.... it's a pretty sad situation

- Essentially assassinating a suspect in a country you're not at war with
- without due process or even an attempt to capture them
- And in the process killing a few innocents on average with every killing
- and stupidly creating more jihadists looking for vengence in the process

The whole thing rests on the arbitrary designation of this US vs Extremist Islamists situation as 'War' which it clearly is not. This 'War on terror' is not a war it's just a bull**** phrase. Yes there are many jihadist terrorists out there in Al Qaeda and other groups who wish to do the US and in some cases Britain harm and I don't agree with them in any way but surely doing this with an unmanned robot is no better than what these terrorists do?

Wiki :

30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.[30]

fcuking 70-80 people ??????????? That's a god damn massacre and people should get arrested for that ****...like today!!

These actions are sanctioned by the USA government so there will be no repercussions from within the USA in legal terms. USA refuses to cooperate with the International Criminal Court also so esentially the USA can do what it wants...

Victor

blueythebear wrote: »

Any country that claims to uphold basic human rights should not have a policy that permits the killing of anyone without a trial, regardless of anything they may have done.

There are exceptions (a) soldiers in combat (b) police killing violent people out of necessity (c) police or other security forces killing criminals in an attempt to stop or arrest them (d) killing of escaping prisoners (e) householders or others killing in self defence.

Now, while I don't advocate using such powers will-nilly and most such deaths can be seen as a failure somewhere along the line, most countries do allow such killings.

Now, as to whether you accept that Al Qaeda or the Taliban can be considered to be at war with the Americans is important, but is there much difference between such killings and killing soldiers in a barracks during a war?

I attach little significance to the fact that it is happening in Pakistan - the Pakistani authorities have long turned a blind eye to the Northwest Frontier Province being a safe haven for militants involved in the Afghan wars. Pakistan's duplicitous neutrality in the Afghan wars has been compromised by those militants and the occupying powers (whether that was the Afghan government of whatever flavour or their Allies or the occupying powers in 2001-2003) in Afghanistan are entitled to attack them there.

The number of civilian casualties in a number of these incidents is both disturbing and unacceptable and better target discrimination is needed. I'm not sure that a 'boots on the ground' solution would result in fewer casualties in all such situations.

Be like Nutella

I don't think Bluey was talkin about anything to do with your first two paragraphs there... although you are obviously right these situations are permitted.. the issue is not the totted up number of dead figure at the end of it all although a very military thinking prone individual might think that way I have not served in the military and so I do not.

My main contention is one of morality. I put to you that it is substantially easier to make a decision to use a robot to kill some people far away from your own population in a manner which puts no troops life at risk and can be justified based on your governments stated controversial position that you are at war and therefore can take war measures of self defence anywhere and anytime once you feel the future risk of the targeted person is beyond some arbitrary threshold point and therefore justifies the use of lethal force which will in most instances definitely result in the loss of innocent lives which can include children. I think there are many issues here.

1) IF I agree that the US is at war with 'Terror' ... in the world then I still think they should try to capture and try these suspected individuals... and if this is not convenient I think that the option of using unmanned robots to therefore arguably indiscriminately slaughter people is not a 'Moral' choice... is in fact an immoral choice the responsibility for which lies with the president....Bush and now even more so Obama.
2) If I don't agree there is a war... which I don't coz they’re clearly fkcing isn't... then these acts are illegal AND Immoral in so many ways to make a lawyer do a head spin and the Geneva convention burn like the devil himself had picked it up... not that I believe in that **** either
3) The military industrial complex that conspiracy fcuks talk about is unfortunately quite real...although inconveniently complex... the development of Drones over the last 60 years is a huuuuge business and as with other weapons systems its constituents and those that stand to gain from their increased use in more prominent roles heavily lobby those who would govern their use which has blurred the objectivity one would hope is central to the decisions on their use. Another moral issue.
4) The socio-political landscape in the US is one right now which is not conducive to putting troops in harm’s way when there is what seems to be a 'smarter' option available which so happens to negate any ya know actual system of justice coming into play unless of course a suspected low level possible future suicide bomber being shredded alongside his two 5 year old daughters and his mother while sitting down for dinner by a supersonic hellfire missile in his shack in North West Waziristan is... Justice in which case you'd love the movie 'Minority Report'... the issue here is of course morality again... as the decision framework involved is not purely militaristic as would be the case in full war on the battlefield where politics best not get in the way of generals lest it get its ass kicked.... political social pressure forming military strategy involving the easy peasy option of robotic flying death bots does not a good moral compass make!

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

I attach little significance to the fact that it is happening in Pakistan - the Pakistani authorities have long turned a blind eye to the Northwest Frontier Province being a safe haven for militants involved in the Afghan wars. .

That's very close to saying the british armed forces would have been ok to kill irish civilians in Donegal or Monaghan during the troubles....

Would you say the same about the cuban authorities, turning a blind eye to what goes on in Gitmo?

I wonder if any of Eric Holder's cousins, aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, children, spouse or grandchildren were killed by al Quaeda or other terrorists would he be as sanguine about ``collateral damage''

Victor

Be like Nutella wrote: »

1) IF I agree that the US is at war with 'Terror' ... not a 'Moral' choice...

2) If I don't agree there is a war... which I don't coz they’re clearly fkcing isn't... then these acts are illegal AND Immoral

So, it is down to you as to whether the war is legal or not.

Be like Nutella

It ain't down to me whether anything is legal or not but if this Global War on Terror isn't provably a War as the term is and always has been used then Holder can't make the corollary to 'armed conflict' which allows him to legalise the lethal act which changes the word from assassination (illegal under existing executive order) to targeted killing as an act of preemptive self defence under duress during a time of War which is internationally legal.

My point is simply that there are too many arbitrarily defined steps in his legal summary.

Each one supports the next part which supports the next part in a desperate attempt to mumbo jumbo us into moving away from the glaring truth about how we feel morally about the acts, acts I might add which are made in the clear light of day away from the fog of any so called WAR and without any risk to US troops. This is clearly assassinating people (as the term is and has been used) by their HUNDREDS without trial under narrow executive control using methods that make such acts easier to decide to execute, and which has caused the deaths of so many innocent people as to potentially categorize the acts as indiscriminate civilian murder and which on a number of occassions has caused the death of US citizens and in doing so treads on constitutional issues (5th AMD) so broadly and blatently as to constitutionally REQUIRE proper national legal debate on the issue as it pertains to the protection of rights AND the most disgusting part is that AG Holder then just decides to change yet another vernacular term 'Due Process' stating so surreally that Due Process DOES NOT = DUE JUDICIAL PROCESS and that in the course of war the presidents chosen oversight mechanism i.e. in this case narrowly executive IS THE DUE PROCESS and so we should shut the hell up.... basically. This **** isn't even debatable in the minds of most people. It goes a little something like this... What they're doing is wrong, is killing hundreds maybe thousands of innocent people including children and women (already similar to total 9/11 deaths by Predator MQ-1's in Waziristan alone which would certainly point towards the potential of disproportionateness) and is not DUE PROCESS...How can it be? Do I argue that military stop on a battlefield, read Miranda rights and carry out due process no I do not... that's because that's fukin war on a battlefield hence the name battlefield and the existence of an actual battle... this is black ops, run by the CIA (and justice dept which is just so weird) and has nothing to do with War or A WAR or A BATTLE or A BATTLEFIELD or even AN ARMED CONFLICT...Who the fcuk thinks screming hellfires from Drones at a funeral is armed conflict... the only thing conflicting is so much bull**** to support what they've done and are doing right now and will be doing more of in the future, unfortunately.

blueythebear

Victor wrote: »

There are exceptions (a) soldiers in combat (b) police killing violent people out of necessity (c) police or other security forces killing criminals in an attempt to stop or arrest them (d) killing of escaping prisoners (e) householders or others killing in self defence.

That's not what we're talking about here. Those types of cases are not so premeditated and often are "heat of the moment" affairs. In these types of drone attacks, the USA in a premeditated manner, decide that so and so is a threat and must be killed. THat in and of itself might be fair enough if we presume that their intelligence is good and can confirm that this person is the threat they believe them to be. However, given the ineptitude of the USA intelligence agencies in the past and the American Governments complete lack of understanding of the situation on the ground in other countries, can they be certain that the individual that they target is a legitimate target?

Let's presume that the intelligence is good and that such and such a person is a legitimate target and a decision is made to assassinate them. How do they do it? By dropping a bomb on a civilian location. They get their target but also inflict some "collateral damage". The USA attitude appears to be that the ends justifies the means. I have no doubt they have guys number crunching in the US Army on these types of missions giving estimates of innocent victims. If the number of innocent civilians killed is less than a certain number, then the mission is justified.

Reminds of a scene in the documentary "Restrepo" set in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. The USA bombed a village to kill some Al Quaeda types and afterwards, the Sergeant comes down to the village as there had been innocent adults and children killed in the bombing. Sergeant turns around to the villagers and says that it was your own fault because you were hiding terrorists in your village. Of course the villagers were facing threats from the Al Quaeda guys so they couldn't prevent them from operating out of their village. Rock and hard place!

More a moral issue than a legal issue as while these types of tactics are probably morally wrong, the USA can essentially act with impunity. The only law that would operate against these types of operations/missions involves a Treaty that the USA signed themselves out of in 2002 although I believe the Obama administration is more favourable towards the ICC.

Victor

Be like Nutella wrote: »

It ain't down to me whether anything is legal or not

But that is what you have said in your previous post.

but if this Global War on Terror isn't provably a War as the term is and always has been

Ah, you are just uniformed or making things up now. It had been The War Against Terror until they realised what the acronym was (TWAT).

There is a real war in Afghanistan and it extends across the border into Pakistan.

Be like Nutella

“There is a real war in Afghanistan and it extends across the border into Pakistan.”

The War in Afghanistan is a war against the insurgent Taliban who were kicked out of power by the US who claimed they were harbouring AQ after 9/11 hence the bombing, and then invasion, and then nation building 'efforts'.

This war in Afghanistan is absolutely not the main stated driver for the drone program of targeted killing in Pakistani tribal areas and legally it can't be as there have been many Al Qaeda members targeted and killed who presented no credible, material or imminent future risk ‘specific’ to US forces in actual armed conflict over the border in Afghanistan.

Before bull**** artist AG Eric Holder there was shameful bull**** artist AG ‘Koh’ who argued that:

"But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

The obvious problem here, which suits Koh, but not a shredded bunch of 4 year old Pakistani kids so much is THAT DRONES ARE NEW, DRONE USE IS/WAS NEW AND WAS SECRET AND THEREFORE THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS WERE/ARE NOT THERE TO GOVERN THE USE OF DRONES AS KILLING WEAPONS...IT'S SO ****ING OBVIOUS IT HURTS YOUR EYES. THE EXISTING LAWS HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH **** BECAUSE NOBODY ENVISAGED ANYONE BEING SO BRUTAL AND IMMORAL.



More than 290 US Predator Drone Strikes in Pakistan since June 2004 killed maybe a few hundred Taliban, approx 50 Al Qaeda people and somewhere in the region of 2000 others including children and women and innocent bystanders.

· Firing Hellfire missiles remotely at visibly unarmed non-belligerent terrorist targets from a position of absolute safety involving absolutely no risk to US lives
· within an extensively observed group that visibly includes civilians, women and in many cases children
· therefore the decision for the remote release of a weapon in this case 'guarantees'… NOT ‘RISKS and writes down' the deaths of innocents
· and by the sheer number of executed attacks of this kind carried out since 2004, ‘290’ … which have been meticulously and publicly documented and have killed between 2 and 3 thousand people, can therefore be described as 'disproportionate'
· Clearly be categorised as extra-judicial killing. (i.e. Not reflective of American 5th AMD protections of due process which has always been considered to mean DUE JUDICIAL PROCESS)
· Including conscious indiscriminate killing of civilians (collateral write downs)
· In an area not reasonably considered a battlefield (where persistent military conflict occurs between parties) in that the firing of a Hellfire missile travelling at supersonic speed from an unseen unstoppable high altitude robotic unmanned flying platform, cannot be described as ‘armed conflict’, especially when the supposed 'belligerents' are observed in many cases to be visibly unarmed clearly in a passive state of 'non-conflict'.
· by course of a decision and command structure and mechanism clearly designed to be non-transparent
· which has not withstood national legal debate and criticism even though those in command claim have said publicly that these attacks reflect the VALUES of Americans.




Ok so you got China and they got terrorist problems, mainly regional separatists and this separatist guy is hiding out in say a Cartel controlled region in northern Mexico and you gotta get this guy coz your People's Congress in Beijing has passed the law authorizing you to use any force necessary to get the job done because of the attacks on Shanghai and Beijing during the Olympics so **** international legality just send in the Yilong drones and take him out right coz you’ve got the congressional mandate and are at least domestically legally justified?

How blatantly illogical and weakly justified it rightly seems, and is, when you change up the perspectives and imagine the international reactions in hypothetical parallel scenarios.

Now tell it again, except this time change

'China' for 'America'
'Regional separatists' for Al Qaeda
'The National People's Congress in Beijing' for Congress in Washington
‘Shanghi and Beijing’ for New York and Washington
'The Olympics' for 2001
'Cartel controlled region in northern Mexico' for 'A virtually lawless tribal controlled region of Pakistan'
'Yilong' for Predator Drones

Ok so you got America and they got terrorist problems, mainly Al Qaeda and this AQ guy is hiding out in say a virtually lawless tribal controlled region of Pakistan and you gotta get this guy coz your congress in Washington has passed the law authorizing you to use any force necessary to get the job done because of the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001 so **** international legality just send in the Predator Drones and take him out right coz you’ve got the congressional mandate and are at least domestically legally justified?

and that’s what they've done for 7+ years...


If China did anything that even sounded like 'executing hundreds of Yilong Drone Strikes’ in Mexico, which is very close to America, just coz they thought a terrorist leader was hiding out there and they needed to head off some terrorist attack this guy or guys like him could plan in the future because of their political mandate based on the back of national outrage and anger because of a massive terrorist attack during the Olympics and they couldn't count on a corrupt Mexican government to either do it themselves or officially allow access because of possible political ramifications and social repercussions… well there's no point thinking about it coz it couldn't happen and wouldn't happen!!

(and by the way Pakistan borders China)

Is this not a reasonable parallel?

Tom Young

OP: Summarise what legal point you want to discuss here in one short paragraph, or a set of concise questions on concepts you are trying to tease out or else this thread will be closed for being prolix.

Tom

Be like Nutella

Anybody interested in International Human Rights Law or Humanitarian Law would find this legal analysis of these extrajudicial targeted killings fascinating.
Philip Alston was the UN Special Rapporteur on Extraducial killings, Targeted Killing and Summary Executions for 6 years and currently teaches IHRL at NYU. He sent me the PDF here,

http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/institutes/ilp/targetedkilling/papers/AlstonCIABeyondBorders.pdf

Be like Nutella

A Petition if anyone wants to sign it

https://www.change.org/petitions/international-community-united-nations-and-united-states-congress-make-targeted-killing-internationally-accountable