Thanks to Senator Paul's stand in the Senate, the exact scope of the President's war fighting authority with regard to U.S. citizens found by him to be unlawful enemy combatants operating in a context of a properly declared or otherwise authorized war is the lead debate of the day.
I disagree with Senator Paul's position but otherwise share his concern about the over-militarization of the USG with regard to foreign and its own peoples. Certainly, at the very least, he should be lauded for taking a principled stand on something, anything in this increasingly vapid age, where the posings of U.S. leaders count for no more than the posings of pop stars, actors, models or other pathetic mass-approval seeking personalities.
I could bore you with a long dissertation on why I believe the Senator is wrong on point, but it would be much easier for me to simply illustrate my point by the use of a "What If" scenario.
March, 2002 - Washington, D.C.
Intelligence officials with multiple agencies, including those connected to the Department of Defense, have reported to you, the President, that known Al-Qaeda members have been meeting in a small town outside of San Salvador, El Salvador with leading members of the Mara Salvatrucha ("MS-13") transnational organized criminal gang. Hard field work has allowed American operatives to listen in on much of the conversation, and these high officials now confirm to you that Al-Qaeda has promised arms, drugs and cash in return for MS-13's aid in transporting Al-Qaeda members over the U.S.-Mexico border, providing them safe houses in various U.S. cities and small arms. It is the goal of these Al-Qaeda members to conduct further massive attacks, like the ones so recently so successful in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. While your intel chiefs cannot be certain as to what these terrorists have planned, the amount of drugs and money changing hands strongly suggest it will be something big.
Over the next 12 hours, you are informed conclusively by various officials that: 1) "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. (Authorization of Use of Military Force, September 14, 2001 - Emphasis Added); 2) MS-13, which to date has been the subject of only criminal investigation and prosecution, has now been found to be in league with an organization that "planned, authorized, committed...the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001; 3) that working with local and state law enforcement officials, a list of known MS-13 members has been drawn up, which includes more than 400 U.S. citizens, an equal number of Legal Permanent Residents and some others of unknown status, present in at least 10 major U.S. cities; and 4) that it is the best judgment of your military leadership that whatever was agreed to and planned in El Salvador may happen at any time.
Acting pursuant to the Authorization and the facts above, you:
a) Decide that the list of known MS-13 members have crossed over the line from criminals or potential criminals into enemy unlawful combants and accordingly order the U.S. military to conduct an operation the next morning with the goal of killing--not arresting or seizing--but killing all persons on that list?
or
b) Mobilize immediately all law enforcement assets and begin one of the largest Federal criminal round-ups in history, on the grounds of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, drug trading and money laundering?
I disagree with Senator Paul's position but otherwise share his concern about the over-militarization of the USG with regard to foreign and its own peoples. Certainly, at the very least, he should be lauded for taking a principled stand on something, anything in this increasingly vapid age, where the posings of U.S. leaders count for no more than the posings of pop stars, actors, models or other pathetic mass-approval seeking personalities.
I could bore you with a long dissertation on why I believe the Senator is wrong on point, but it would be much easier for me to simply illustrate my point by the use of a "What If" scenario.
March, 2002 - Washington, D.C.
Intelligence officials with multiple agencies, including those connected to the Department of Defense, have reported to you, the President, that known Al-Qaeda members have been meeting in a small town outside of San Salvador, El Salvador with leading members of the Mara Salvatrucha ("MS-13") transnational organized criminal gang. Hard field work has allowed American operatives to listen in on much of the conversation, and these high officials now confirm to you that Al-Qaeda has promised arms, drugs and cash in return for MS-13's aid in transporting Al-Qaeda members over the U.S.-Mexico border, providing them safe houses in various U.S. cities and small arms. It is the goal of these Al-Qaeda members to conduct further massive attacks, like the ones so recently so successful in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. While your intel chiefs cannot be certain as to what these terrorists have planned, the amount of drugs and money changing hands strongly suggest it will be something big.
Over the next 12 hours, you are informed conclusively by various officials that: 1) "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. (Authorization of Use of Military Force, September 14, 2001 - Emphasis Added); 2) MS-13, which to date has been the subject of only criminal investigation and prosecution, has now been found to be in league with an organization that "planned, authorized, committed...the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001; 3) that working with local and state law enforcement officials, a list of known MS-13 members has been drawn up, which includes more than 400 U.S. citizens, an equal number of Legal Permanent Residents and some others of unknown status, present in at least 10 major U.S. cities; and 4) that it is the best judgment of your military leadership that whatever was agreed to and planned in El Salvador may happen at any time.
Acting pursuant to the Authorization and the facts above, you:
a) Decide that the list of known MS-13 members have crossed over the line from criminals or potential criminals into enemy unlawful combants and accordingly order the U.S. military to conduct an operation the next morning with the goal of killing--not arresting or seizing--but killing all persons on that list?
or
b) Mobilize immediately all law enforcement assets and begin one of the largest Federal criminal round-ups in history, on the grounds of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, drug trading and money laundering?
You pose an interesting scenario Kevin. I think of it this way:
ReplyDeleteIf the American people allow their government to conduct drone kill strikes on citizens that are suspected of terrorist activity, then the American people must trust the government not to target them for political purposes.
The American people do not trust their government.
Therefor, they should not allow their government to conduct drone kill strikes on American citizens.
I know this argument is simplistic, but I think it hits the nail on the head. The issue is trust, not policy. I believe that many US citizens see their government as a more emergent threat than foreign or domestic terrorists.
Rand Paul isn't the conservative messiah, but I'll stand with him when I think he's right. He's right about the drones, IMHO. And I applaud his refusal to kiss McCain and Graham's wrinkly/RINO butts.
An interesting, and even plausible, 'What If'.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you really cannot equate military boots-on-the-ground, with minds behind them, who can and will exercise real time shoot/don't shoot decisions to save or kill, with remote-viewing Hellfire-firing pilots, who cannot hear that crying baby on the other side of the wall.
As Lady Red said, I do not trust this particular government (or ANY based on this pattern) to show any restraint if firing a Hellfire gives tham a chance to destroy enemies, whether real or perceived, in their miniature socialist minds.
But I DO trust properly-trained US military members to not destroy everything around them, without cause.
The authorization for the use of military force gave George W Bush, a decent human being, the power to do what was needed, but it should have expired upon the end of his term, because the Current Occupant is not to be trusted farther than I can spit.
I'd take option b) just on domestic realpolitic grounds. It seems less destabilizing. Even if the President were correct and every one of those 400 citizens were a traitor, I would have just blown up all the proof. The office of the President might never recover. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.
ReplyDeleteBesides, in the scenario you outline, the intelligence is presumed to be pretty good. So you have to round up 800 people. So what? I recall a great many people were rounded up in the wake of 9/11 - sometimes on evidence quite a bit flimsier than what you outline - and were held for some time. "Material witness" and the like. Abuses happened but it was an understandable reaction. Drone killing 400 citizens would be damn tough to justify ex post.
Oh, and Hellfire missiles aren't cheap, either. Eight hundred of them will cost more than the OT for the FBI and SWAT folks.
DeleteI'd choose option B as well, I too think it's a matter of trust and most of us don't trust the govt. to do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteVery good post, Jourdan, thank you. Your argument is persuasive.
Now see if you agree with me on this one...
Can someone please put a sock in Victoria Newland's mouth? Preferably unlaundered? I can't believe the state dept. can't find a less-vapid, condescending spokesperson.
Now re-reading the post it's clear Kevin isn't talking about drones.
ReplyDeleteBut still.. I think the civilian police can be quite effective at "apprehending" suspects in accordance with due process.
Ask Chris Dorner.
Kevin, if I recall the drone memo correctly - and I know you're not talking about drones - but I think the leaked memo from the White House on the process (not due process, but some process they do) makes at least two requirements:
1) Some degree of "imminence"
2) Infeasibility of capturing
I find it difficult to imagine both at once because the degree to which the US controls the territory of the continent is pretty high. I can't think of any towns in the US which are as hostile to US forces as Pakistans NW frontier, or Waziristan, or the desert oasis towns of Yemin, or Somalia. I mean folks in NYC might think of parts of the US like that, but it just ain't so.
E.g.: If someone is in the remote wilderness, where they can't be arrested overnight, are they really an imminent threat?
Ok. So Ahmed who was born in Florida and moved to Pakistan at 6 mos and raised in a madrasah is operationally in command of a terror cell. You discover he's located in the Alaskan wilderness because he uses his sat phone. The terror cell is in DC. All he has to do is deliver one more call on his sat phone and a dirty nuke goes off.
So sure, drone his ass and dare Congress to impeach you. I think many American Presidents would do this with or without the AUMF.
In fact IIRC Dick Cheney ordered or was ready to order United 93 shot out of the sky. Obviously American citizens would have been collateral damage. No obvious way to know that one of those Saudi's wasn't born in the US! Or raised here! Fog of war! Where the hell was the authorization to do that? If it's on, it's on, and you do what you have to.
But the leaked White House memo on drones was a lot more loose on what constituted "imminent".
And the problem with military force used against citizens (and btw I think due process applies to anyone in US custody, not just citizens) is the typical late-Republic/early-Empire tactic of sanctioning (and I don't mean freezing a bank account, I mean "sanctioning" in the sense used in antiquity) one's political enemies.
No government should be trusted with this.
The process of imagining a scenario which reads squarely within the AUMF for the GWoT is a worthwhile one and I wouldn't count it as impossible, and it creates a conundrum. Obviously IANAL but the 9/11 AUMF is unlikely to be the first statute which, while perfectly legal in most applications, is unconstitutional in some others.
Um, I the word I was looking for above wasn't "sanctioned", it was "proscribed".
DeleteAnd BTW in my example, Ahmed was probably pissed when he found out that because he was technically a US citizen, he owes back taxes to the IRS.
Pajama's Media has more on the subject.
DeleteNo government should be trusted with this.
DeleteWhile, in theory, I agree with this...in practice, there is nothing you or we can do about it. Who will act to stop a run away government that has effectively emasculated both the legislature and court? We are held together in a union as a Republic, constrained by laws, only so long as the Republic's laws are respected by the politicians in power.
I'm dead serious about my concern for what may or may not happen on 20 January 2017.
Who will stop the runaway government? No one individual, but collectively, money and talent will bleed away. In fact, it's already happening. Governments do have limits on what they can do.
DeleteAs for 2017 - and this is an "out there" prediction - Diocletian is the economic end game and Chavez is the political model.
Except Obama won't run again; he'll anoint a successor. In order to make a winner of that successor, he'll have to create a movement, which he's doing.He is institutionalizing his own cult of personality. I think he'd rather run a movement than a country, anyway. I think he sees this as win-win. He'll step down in 2017 and be damn happy about it. But the next president will be an Obamite, not a Democrat.
Part of creating this movement is playing divide and conquer with the rest of the population. This includes the authentic and sincere progressive left. The sense within the beltway is that they really can govern the whole country from, well, within the beltway. And McCain and Graham are totally on board with this and don't want to be left out.
Lewy ... I can't find anything I disagree with in your 10 March 5:46 PM Post. Now that is plumb scary.
DeleteHis campaign organization is already a "movement" non-profit. He does divide both left and right, but the left seems masochistic in their affection. Several on the right do as well, not to be left out as you say...and I include Randy Paulie Boy in that assessment.[We may differ on that point ... to me he's just another con man depending upon the public myopia]
No honest and sincere progressive purportedly peace loving liberal can possibly "like" John Brennan, in the White House or as DCIA...good grief. Kerry and Hagel are stooges, like Petraeus, H. Clinton, Dempsey, et al before them. Brennan is an operator with a capital "O". And Obama loves his loyal **operators**...the meaner, more murderous, and conniving the better.
You said ... [and I edited a bit]
The sense within the beltway is that they really can govern the whole country from, well, within the beltway. And multiple Republicans are totally on board with this and don't want to be left out.
An almost perfect summarization, sad to say, of my experience within the military and as a "Fed."
a) Decide that the list of known MS-13 members have crossed over the line from criminals or potential criminals into enemy unlawful combatants and accordingly order the U.S. military to conduct an operation the next morning with the goal of killing--not arresting or seizing--but killing all persons on that list?
ReplyDelete1.) Interesting. We, through our representatives in the Senate, after a blathering on about an "Oh, look...Squirrel" issue, just confirmed This Guy as Director of the CIA. Whoeeee! Happy Days are here again! Hat tips to "Flamethrower Bob" Komer, and here! here! for "Jackhammer John" Brennan....who will soon assume the nickname.
2.)The limitation of killing only is not part of an all encompassing eradication program, such as MACV's Phoenix. It would not be in another go round either. ALL the "arts" are utilized, captures and intelligence gathering occurs when possible, and then the fuckers are killed, and the affair cleaned. See item #1 graphic & text above. Oh, wait...you do realize that ole John B was running Benghazi, right? Oh, my...and some thought Hillary had anything to say, or maybe Tweedle Dee Dempsey, ... so sad it's funny.
3.) You must use the military, mainly the Army and Marines, to round up enemy combatants inside the USA...the various local police are too disorganized and in some places, too corrupt. President Eisenhower didn't call up local cops in Little rock in 1957, he sent in federal active duty military and took down the locals en mass. 10 years later, LBJ sent the 82nd Airborne to Detroit.
4.) Mara Salvatrucha ("MS-13") is ALREADY an enemy combatant operating inside the United States. One of several actually. We DO need to stop all this PC civil rights for gangsters bullshit...they are international, combatant, and our enemy. Period. Round them up, interrogate them, lie to them about clemency, then kill every last one of the sons of bitches....and leave their tattoo ridden corpses lying in the city streets if I had my way. Hell, put bounties on the heads of those not caught initially and post the reward posters everywhere ... $500 for tatted 13'r D or A.
5.) Huge Risk: in our evolving autocracy will this force be used against a non-combatant opposition. It certainly can be.
I am almost hysterically amused by the number of people that "think" the government, with emasculated legislature and court system ... as is the case today ... can be prevented from doing anything it wants to do. The current incumbency likes drones because they eliminate an enemy and clean the scene simultaneously....and although drones weren't part of the scenario posed, they could be...and WILL be. Think of how much "neater" Ruby Ridge would have been, eh?
I do doubt myself lately,....and think I may be losing my mind. Like too many people, who didn't care about Benghazi, I, who cared too much, am reaching that point where I won't care at all about anything.
Clarification of the term Phụng Hoàng:
DeleteThe covert arm of the CIA, MACV-SOG, and various Saigon based intelligence services maintained an active list of VC cadre marked for assassination. The Phoenix Program called for "neutralizing" 1800 VCs a month. About one third of VC targeted for arrest had been summarily killed. Security committees were established in provincial interrogation centers to determine fate of VC suspects, outside of judicial controls.
Sound familiar?
Another viewpoint of mine, legal or not (who cares...the court is now in full Castrato mode)... I'm as right as the opinion that a penalty for non-performance is a tax credit for performance, thus a tax per se. Oh, wait ...has the federal court yet sent a warrant over to Justice to shut down the current NLRB yet? Of course not.
DeleteMy position: An American citizen who participates with a foreign organization, sovereign or merely mobbed up, is an enemy combatant. Just being a citizen means jack shit, what counts is what you do and who you are. Under that criteria I'd give citizenship to many illegals now and take it away from many who fail to live up to the title. We need to get over this PC nonsense of providing civil protections to those who've already given them up and would take them away from you in a heartbeat.
Citizenship requires more of you or me or anyone than merely geographic birth locale or naturalization. You actively support the ideals encompassed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which reflects the liberalism of enlightenment philosophers like John Locke. Marxists who usurp the term "liberal" as a beard fool no one who knows the difference. Problem today is too few know the difference. Too many are willing to tolerate international cabals, sovereign or gangster, as having "rights" they would not accord anyone else.
They're coming to take me away, ha ha.... :D
Ari, it's that 5.) Huge Risk: which gets me.
DeleteRight now I don't get the sense that anyone in power has any conception of the "national interest" which is recognizable to true Americans.
So why should I trust those in power to protect the "national interest", if they recognize no interest other than their own? Their power will eventually be used against me.
Correction: "Flamethrower Bob" is incorrect for Komer, his nickname was "Blowtorch Bob."
DeleteThat'll teach me to go by memory alone. Dang.
Lewy...re: #5.)...that is why I called it "huge." I think we've nearly crossed the border between a Republic and a Dictaorship...and may be "nearly" is too optimistic.
Delete