Anwar al-Awlkai

Department of Pre-Crime, Part 4: The NDAA Congress Is Not About to Legislate Targeted Killing

In three earlier posts, I have discussed the problem with turning the FISA Court into the Drone and/or Targeted Killing Court: As I noted, the existing FISA Court no longer fulfills the already problematic role it was set up to have, ensuring that the government have particularized probable cause before it wiretap someone. On the contrary, the FISA Court now serves as a veil of secrecy behind which the government can invent new legal theories with little check.

In addition, before the FISA Court started rubberstamping Drone Strikes and/or Targeted Killings of Americans, presumably it would need an actual law to guide it. (Though Carrie Cordero, who is opposed to the Drone and/or Targeted Killing FISA Court idea because it might actually restrain the Executive, seems to envision the Court just using the standards the Executive has itself invented.) And there’s a problem with that.

The same Congress that hasn’t been successful passing legislation on detention in the 2012 NDAA is certainly not up to the task of drafting a law describing when targeted killing is okay.

As a reminder, here’s what happened with the NDAA sections on military detention. The effort started with an attempt to restate whom we are at war with, so as to mandate that those we’re at war with be subject to law of war detention. The language attempting to restate whom we’re at war with ended up saying:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Compare that language with what the actual AUMF says:

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.

Part of the difference arises from the shift to focusing exclusively on persons (you can’t detain a nation, after all, though Palestine might disagree).

Part of the difference comes from the effort — clause 2 above — to extend the AUMF to those associated forces. This was meant to cover groups like AQAP and al-Shabaab, but as we’ll see, it’s one source of the problem with the law.

But part of the problem is that the NDAA language smartly took out the “he determines” and “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism” language. The former has long been a giant loophole, allowing the President to define in secret whom we’re at war against. And I increasingly suspect the Administration has been using the latter language to expand the concept of imminent threat.

In other words, in an effort to parrot back its understanding of whom we’re at war against, Congress both introduced some new fuzzy language — associated forces — and took out existing loopholes — the “he determines” and “prevent any future acts.”

Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @boulderdrop Well, as I said, I don't feel comfortable in Cabelas, and I'm an affluent white. I think it's a cultural issue first & foremost
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 Yup. Sort of like, "why would you carry all your food in freeze dried form when it's here for the taking?"
46mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @TimothyS: Here's where you can find my FDL book salon with @JamesRisen and PAY ANY PRICE today at 5pm EST: http://t.co/9R98Kaa3qW
53mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 But there's a kind of hyper-competence hunters have that even avid backpackers don't coincide with. So that's source, I think
54mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 I'm pretty comfortable in typical white male midwestern culture: I don't have kids, drink beer, played rugby, watch football
56mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 Mostly I think they were in their element and everything about us made it clear we weren't. No unfriendliness tho (it was WI)
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 I know fair amount of women who were raised and trained into hunting culture, not even the rich kind. But I grew up in burbs.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 Even my spouse and (non-hunting) dog. Plus we wanted to see Pats game even after big Packers win. Fish outta water.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @jlassen Yup. I've lived in both and I agree. Relatively lots more $$ invested on toys with big motors here, I think.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 Not that people were mean, just that they seemed to be thinking abt us incompetent city folk.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @BrentHalonen1 No. I'm really intimidated by the stores. Reminds me of staying in a WI hunting lodge once and feeling REALLY unwelcome.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @jlassen Started in Nebraska. HUGE outdoorsman stores with an emphasis on expensive hunting toys. And other expensive boats and stuff.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
November 2014
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30