"The authority to kill U.S. citizens is granted under a secret finding signed by the president after the Sept. 11 attacks that directs the CIA to covertly attack al-Qaida anywhere in the world. The authority makes no exception for Americans, so permission to strike them is understood rather than specifically described, officials said."
posted on December 5, 2002 01:27:31 AM new
Good...glad to hear it. Anyone, American citizen who supports the enemy against their own country should be shot, IMO. John Walker Lund was a traitor and should have been shot too, IMO. 20 years isn't enough. When they take up arms with the enemy who wishes to destroy their own county, they deserve what they get. They're traitors.
Your article also states: Earlier presidential authorizations of lethal covert action, in Latin America and elsewhere, have also tacitly allowed the killing of Americans fighting on the other side, former senior intelligence officials said.
posted on December 5, 2002 04:50:38 AM new
If you're going to run with al Qaeda, there is a price that must be paid. I also agree that Walker should have stood trial before a military court and if found guilty of using or in any way aiding or abetting in the use of force against US personel, then he should have been favored with a military firing squad. It would be quite fitting for him to be shot by young men his own age honorably serving and protecting "his" country.
posted on December 5, 2002 06:28:56 AM new
So? Nobody sees any possibility that the CIA will be dealing with someone they want to silence and now they have a tool they can use to just summarily execute them and just say they were Al-Qaida. What mechanism is there to keep them honest? You trust your life and others to their conscience? Your trust is touching.
This is the old James Bond license to kill.
Not that they didn't do it anyway, but with this they don't even have to be careful.
If your neighbor is publicly opposed to the coming war and turns up dead from an unexplained intruder don't look into it too hard.
posted on December 5, 2002 06:44:37 AM new
The CIA directive only applies to US citizens outside US borders. Inside US borders it is an FBI issue.
So what are the chances that "somebody" the CIA illegally wants dead will be a US citizen and be in a plausible situation during a kill and be innocent ? What US citizens does the CIA want killed that aren't involved with those at war with the US ? Do you really think that there is a list of US citizens overseas that the CIA wants eliminated ? The only people I can think of that could be on such a list would be reporters.
It's war. I accept that even in the best of circumstances there will be innocent people killed in all facets of our tactics. The US citizen that was killed with an al Qaeda operative in Yemen by one of our Preditors wasn't convicted of anything. He was either guilty or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But in the final analysis it doesn't make any difference.
posted on December 5, 2002 06:48:31 AM new
So now, we have given the CIA the right to preemtive strikes on Americans overseas without judicial process. I can certainly understand why experts on the Constitution and internationl laws of war have a problem with this dangerous ruling by George Bush.
Soon, this ruling will apply here and we will all be dodging bullets and innocent citizens will be killed. Why should citizens in countries "overseas" as it is stated" be threatened by our CIA?
posted on December 5, 2002 07:10:24 AM new
Would you be in favor of giving foreign intelligence agencies reciprocative rights to come here to kill traitors?
posted on December 5, 2002 07:18:35 AM new
If they get our permission first. We asked Yemen for permission before we put the Preditor on the al Qaeda operative. Hitting them with the Hellfire missle was also a last resort as we first tried to take them alive.
I don't think killing them is going to be the first option for the CIA. I think they want to capture as many as possible to gain information, whether they are US citizens or not. Information is much more important than a body count. I think Walker was spared a death penalty trial because he cooperated.
posted on December 5, 2002 07:45:18 AM new
I just have a niggling suspicion that this is an "out" for the administration in cases where an American overseas is killed accidently by our own military. Just suppose that the person killed is a simply working in the area or is a tourist...how simple, now, for the authorities to claim that the poor slob was "working with the terrorists" and thereby sidestep accountability... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 5, 2002 07:53:44 AM new
Reamond
Getting permission is not a part of the Bush ruling. So, if we are going to offer other intelligence agencies the same opportunity, they will likely be here to hunt and shoot those people that they consider traitors to their country - without permission.
BTW...you are doing too much thinking. George's actions are not impeded by thinking. He's a shoot first and ask questions later kind of guy....or more accurately, not think or ask questions unless it serves to cover his ass.
posted on December 5, 2002 07:55:21 AM new
So before the CIA attacks al-Qaida, they are supposed to check their passports & remove the American's.
In my opinion, once they have joined al-Qaida, they have given up all their rights
as Americans.
So? Nobody sees any possibility that the CIA will be dealing with someone they want to silence and now they have a tool they can use to just summarily execute them and just say they were Al-Qaida. What mechanism is there to keep them honest? You trust your life and others to their conscience? Your trust is touching. This is the old James Bond license to kill. Not that they didn't do it anyway, but with this they don't even have to be careful. If your neighbor is publicly opposed to the coming war and turns up dead from an unexplained intruder don't look into it too hard.
And the conspiracies begin. I'm sure the CIA is going to PLANT their next victim with al Qaeda just to have an excue to kill them.
posted on December 5, 2002 07:59:25 AM new
Getting permission is part of the procedure with friendly governments.
Unfriendly governments is a different situation. The USSR killed "enemies" here in the US and Great Britain obviously without permission during the cold war, and we did the same.
The conflict we are in does not lend itself to the formal rules of open armed engagements. This is a war, it is not a baseball game.
posted on December 5, 2002 08:19:36 AM new
Reamond
Bush is declaring that any CIA agent can shoot anyone, anywhere without permission if that agent "thinks" that he has a terrorist in target. That should be called murder - not war.
posted on December 5, 2002 09:52:58 AM new
I don't think it has to do with friendly fire. I think it has more to do with the influx of Arabs that have gained US citizenship in name only.
I think for reasons of logistics, the CIA wants pre-approval for killing the traitors.
If the CIA about to fire a Hellfire missle at a group of al Qaeda and one of the indiviuals in the car is identified as a US citizen, should the CIA let them get away while they discuss the situation with the state dept, NSA, etc. ?
There have been several US citizens trained in al Qaeda camps and have come into contact with OBL. We can't let these terrorists get away while we try to consider every possible situation leading to the presence of the US citizen(s). It must be assumed that the person is a traitor or an acceptable innocent casuality.
posted on December 5, 2002 10:28:18 AM new
I have seen nothing to suggest that the CIA has sent hunter/killer teams into action to hunt down Americans.
What I beleive is they have been given permission to continue to use the Preditor AUV's & Hellfire missles to attack buildings & vehicles. If Americans that are cooperating with Al-Qaida are in these buildings or vehicles too bad.
Thay shouldn't have been there in the first place.
posted on December 5, 2002 12:01:10 PM new
The problems that I have with this bit of legislation are:
1) It was done in secret. Why? Why not advertise the fact and promote the idea if it is a good one? By hiding it, it reeks of foul play.
2) Americans suspected of aiding and abetting the Enemy should be tried by Due Process, not the CIA. The CIA now has the authority to murder at large with the full sanction of the US Government. Should a question ever arise, all they'll have to say: She was aiding the Enemy.
3) Contrary to REAMOND's post above, the CIA has been given jurisdiction EVERYWHERE, not just outside the USA. Read that article again. That means that the CIA can now legally operate within the United States of America and kill whichever citizen it feels it needs to without Due Process for the victims. Isn't that nice?
No, those who actively side with the enemy deserve what they get. But the power to punish should NEVER be handed down to what has often been a rouge agency and it should NEVER be allowed to replace Due Process!
If it doesn't stop here, where will it stop?
Are you willing to give up your rights to a trial by your peers? Another Constitutional Right thrown into the Trash Can? Is this how Conservatives LOVE their Country? Is this how Conservatives LOVE the US Constitution?
posted on December 5, 2002 12:57:36 PM new I don't see US citizens overseas as threatened by the CIA unless they are involved with terrorists.
Common stupid statement of this century.
Tourist goes into a shop in Egypt to buy knick-knacks. Shop is run by Al-Qeda sympathizers. CIA moves in and whacks everybody. I suppose this is seen as "justified" as the tourist was apparently supporting Al-Qeda, even if he didn't or couldn't have known it.
I see dumb people.....
This was the problem with the initial attitude of the Jews in Nazi Germany..."Only the Jews who are a problem have to worry....ALL 6 MILLION OF THEM!"
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Dec 5, 2002 12:59 PM ]
posted on December 5, 2002 01:14:34 PM new
In first article cited:
"That is the most vulnerable aspect of the theory," said Scott Silliman, director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security. "Could you put a Hellfire missile into a car in Washington, D.C., under the same theory? The answer is yes, you could."
If you are going to say it is the FBI not the CIA working within our borders - They have already shown the willingness at Ruby Ridge to shoot unarmed people not charged with any crime. They do not seem to have suffered any harm from that course of action even if they did not have a presidential finding that they could do so.
[ edited by gravid on Dec 5, 2002 01:21 PM ]
posted on December 5, 2002 05:15:49 PM new
All I can say is, "wow." This board is really an eye opener. I have to agree with Helen on all points. The potential for "vengence" shootings, accidental shootings, etc. could be tremendous. I guess what I'm saying is the verdict would be "Guilty" unless proven "Innocent." But, wait, the person would already be dead so it would be too late to prove innocence. What one CIA agent sees as aiding and abetting the enemy may not be what another sees at all. Kind of leaves it open to that particular CIA agent's interpretation, don't you think? I do agree that 20 years is not near enough for Lund and I suspect there may have been some political shenanigans going on there. I think treason is what he should have been tried for and life, or the firing squad, is what he should have gotten if found guilty by a military trial. As far as I see it, he is just as guilty of the killings on 9/11 as those who flew the planes into the towers. But, to have the right to just shoot someone without due process is frightening. Do we leave our Constitutional rights at the doorstep when we travel overseas? If so, I think I'll stay home. That is, until it's not even safe to stay at home anymore.
Thanks all for some eye opening comments found all over the Round Table. Soon, I'll be too smart for my own good.
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Dec 5, 2002 05:16 PM ]
posted on December 5, 2002 05:17:41 PM new
And the next step will be to make it alright for them to shoot American citizens on our own soil... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
This is some good reading and worth printing out and taking to work for the bullitien board. It will give you some background to some of our comments on here as well.
posted on December 5, 2002 06:58:06 PM new
Thanks, Borillar! Should keep me reading for a while. I usually have my lively discussions with my long-time email buddy in England. Now, there's a place full of contradictions (England, that is)! Glad there's a place here to go.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Dec 6, 2002 03:59 AM ]
