Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("This is my personal journal and day book. Subjects include civilization and technology, strategy, climate, energy policy, space access, and other issues that interest me.") exhibits one of the qualities of good citizens; asking good and just questions about what our government does in their name.Money quote(s):
"the justification for the missile attacks on two American citizens in Yemen is that this was an act of war against those who have publicly declared themselves to be enemies of the United States. They considered themselves at war with us, and we with them. This is war.
We can accept this, but questions remain.
First, this wasn’t an act of war against someone engaged in actions against the United States. At the time they were travelling from one town to another, and whether they were armed or not is not relevant. It was a missile strike without warning on specific and named individuals, and one presumes there is a list of others who merit the same deadly attention, all of them persons who are at war with the United States. Let us assume all those persons on that list deserve to be there; that they have in fact engaged in war against the United States, and hitting them with missiles, or a sniper’s bullet, is no more than they deserve.
Questions still remain.
The first question is, how do you get on that list? It surely isn’t automatic. Just because the press reports that you have publicly declared yourself an enemy of the United States doesn’t necessarily make it true. Newspapers have been known to get such things wrong. But assuming that we have good intelligence reports, how do you get on the list? Is this a power that lies with the President alone, or must he have the acquiescence of someone else? Who? We are well beyond the law or the constitution here. We have to presume that this is a war power and resides in the President and that he can delegate that power.
To whom is he responsible, and how must he convey this command?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
Good questions, all of them.
The U.S. is, at long last, at least somewhat at war with those who've been waging war with us for decades. That war is not, as sometimes happens, limited to distinct and discrete geographical theaters of war or campaigns or areas of operations but is, instead, waged globally and multi-dimensionally.
Still, for all that, to deliberately select and eliminate, whether by drone-launched missile or poison blow-dart, a particular person (regardless of their citizenship or nationality) begs the question of targeteering.
"Another question: if either of these American citizens had returned to the United States and come to Kennedy International where they presented their US passports at the entry booth, could they have been arrested? On what charge? Were there outstanding warrants? In the case of Samir Khan it is not clear what he could be charged with. He ran a blog, an Internet magazine – I do not know of any other involvement other than that he associated with Al Awaki who associated on line with Major Hassan. Perhaps either or both could be charged with conspiracy and with levying war against the US, but I don’t think that has been done. So: we establish that they could be killed out of hand while travelling from one place to another, neither carrying arms or engaged in any act of war, while in a foreign country: but could they have been shot down by a US Marshall while still in the part of the airport that is not yet in the United States? On international territory? Or after they stepped into the United States?
They can be killed but not arrested: it would take convening a grand jury or a warrant from a magistrate before they could be arrested at Kennedy?
I do not here seek to make life difficult for our military; but I do seek to ask questions. If American citizens can be put on a proscription list and those on that list can be killed on sight by launching high explosives as them, is it proper to ask the procedures required to get on that list?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
We do not, at present (nor since 1865 or thereabouts) routinely have U.S. military or law enforcement personnel execute "shoot on sight" orders against American citizens within our own borders.
(Historians of the Indian Wars may care to dispute the definitions implicit in that statement.)
So the idea that had either Triple-A or Mr. Khan appeared at an international air terminal (or other port of entry) they would be engaged with lethal force strikes us (and should) as quite alien. But as it is necessary to consider the eventual consequences of what Dr. Pournelle terms (with historical accuracy) as a "proscription list." It is further necessary to understand how such a thing functions.
"Perhaps the questions are frivolous? Perhaps as one reader says “It’s war and all’s fair in love and war.” Of course that statement is not true. And I do not seek to condemn Mr. Obama for ordering the strike. I do question whether we have sufficiently thought this through. Surely before American citizens can be put on a proscription list there must be some conditions: an act of war, a determination by the President, and surely there needs to be a declaration of war. We assume that the War on Terror establishes a state of war (although I believe Mr. Obama rejected that during the campaign; perhaps he has changed his mind, as he has changed his mind regarding Guantanamo, and trials of the inmates of Guantanamo by military tribunals (note that here there is to be a trial: the President does not seem to assert the right simply to order the execution of those held in Guantanamo without those military tribunals). Would it be good to write down the procedures for establishing the proscription list?
Well, enough. Had Mr. Clinton acted positively when Delta had Bin Laden in their sights, it might be that 911 would not have happened. Mr. Obama did not shirk the responsibility. We give him credit for that. But I do think it is worth discussing how we regularize the procedure for getting on the proscription list, and specify how one might appeal to get off it – perhaps by coming home to the United States and engaging a lawyer?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)
10/3
