My larger point is that this administration is a direct continuation of past administrations and using Obama, the man, as a proxy for this administration is a really misleading way to think about how we end up with the policies we have.

The fact that this administration is embracing these policies at this time has relatively little to do with Obama the man (he’s an asset sure, but not an incredibly crucial one) and much more to do with the way that policy has been drifting over a very long period. 

What happened after 9/11 was the result of policy that had immediately come before. Before we were worried about Russia at the helm of world energy supplies, now it’s non-compliant middle-eastern governments we’re worried about. You replace Communism with Islamic Populism and continue protecting your strategic interests (and no, I don’t think this is okay because I called them “strategic interests”).

When I talk about political expediency, the bile has reached the top of my throat. It’s a completely disgusting and fully insufficient justification for anything. 

Also, I didn’t vote for Barack Obama in 2012 and I damned sure don’t admire him. I don’t have any more respect for him than I do for the previous president. He’s a beautiful figurehead in the sense that everything about him is nearly flawlessly designed to suit the task. It’s a beautiful and terrible thing to behold.

Maybe in the light of that information you can see how I might believe that a world in which choosing to end drone strikes or the drug war are considered such ridiculous options as to be strawmen, might not be a world worth living in. 

At least in the case of a conversation between two ordinary human beings.

No one is suggesting this.  What people are suggesting is transparency and oversight.  People are arguing for changing the rules that allow for the targeting of funerals and first responders.  Are you suggesting that it wouldn’t be “politically expedient” for the President to announce an end to using terrorist tactics like that?

Your arguments have already been used in opposing Truman’s ending segregation in the military and Lincoln’s fight for the 13th Amendment, as neither position was “politically expedient.”

Suggesting that it’s “magical thinking” that the President can make changes in policies which are unpopular with the majority of Americans like marijuana prohibition and our occupation of Afghanistan (instead of doubling down on them); suggesting that it’s not the President who controls his Justice Department or the DEA or foreign policy; these suggestions indicate that either you haven’t really investigated the history of the office of the President and/or that we have very different perceptions of objective reality.  

Your “beautiful figurehead” comment also indicates that your arguments are more based in faith and reflexive admiration than history and reality.

It wasn’t terribly politically difficult for the president to go to war in Libya, in spite of his lawyers.

An executive order ending drone strikes is completely and totally impossible, not constitutionally, but politically.

It’s purely magical thinking to believe that we live in a world where people hide, from the entire political community that they are the center of, the fact that they are actually morally opposed to US policies like drone and drug wars, until they become president whereupon they wield their theoretically immense power to restructure the moral position of the nation within the world.

That’s an opinion, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more useful for predicting the future than your fact.

I believe you are assuming that he has far LESS power than he actually has.  He went to war in Libya against the advice of his lawyers, for God’s sake.

When it comes to drug and foreign policy, he, in fact, has much, much more power than he does in economics and healthcare.  He could easily issue executive orders to change the war on drugs and the drone program so that fewer innocent people are harmed.

This is not on opinion, but an objective fact.

You said…

“If you answered No to either of those questions, you’re probably safe.”

If you meant, “safe from being targeted,” you should have said so.

You would still be incorrect, not that it matters at all.  First responders are targeted. It doesn’t matter if they are not taking part in hostilities.  Funerals are targeted.  It doesn’t matter if some mourners are not taking part in hostilities.

When you’re in the proximity of a target, even if it’s for the purpose of opposing the target…

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/middleeast/with-brennan-pick-a-light-on-drone-strikes-hazards.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

…it doesn’t matter if you’re “safe from being targeted.”  You are not safe.

As you correctly point out, combatant is a status, not a criminal charge (and I nowhere said it was a criminal charge). However, it’s a status that impacts legal rights. It’s not unusual in law (whether law of war, criminal, civil, what have you) that when there is a question as to someone’s legal status there is some kind of fact-finding process to determine status (whether you call it a tribunal, hearing, trial, etc. is of no particular moment). One could draw an analogy to a sanity hearing. While it is not a criminal charge to be crazy, it certainly impacts legal rights. Sometimes, someone’s status is obvious. But not always. The way you presented your argument made it seem as though whether or not somone is a combatant is clear cut and obvious. I am only saying that this is not always the case, and gave Article 5 and CSRTs as examples of how this is addressed.

Furthermore,  there is no “combatant” status in non-internationl armed conflicts (see, for example, the ICRC’s study of customary IHL). Thus the language you use is inexact. And while you are correct as to the key holding of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I mentioned that case for its finding that the war on terror is such a conflict, a determination that the court had to make before it could reach its key holding. I nowhere said nor did I mean to imply that the key holding of Hamdan was relevant to this issue, I merely cited the case for the proposition that the war on terror is not an “International Armed Conflict” for purposes of the law of war.

So, in other words, civilians not taking part in the hostilities, people who are taking part in the hostilities but whom are protected by their specific role(ie, chaplains or other religious figures, medical personnel) and combatants who are out of the fight(ie, sick, wounded, or otherwise disabled and unable therefore to take part in the hostilities.)

Do you? “Combatant” is not a criminal charge, it’s a status conveyed by one’s actions. You tick the appropriate metaphorical boxes, you’re a combatant. You don’t, and you’re not.

“Or put another way, if I call you a combatant, does that make it so?”

Well, I’m not taking direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict, so No. It absolutely doesn’t, and since you’re trying to convey that you made at least a cursory reading of the laws of war, you should already know that. Call me a purple-handled teapot for all I care, it’s going to have exactly as much legal weight and change exactly as much.

“Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention (the one dealing with POWs) specifically contemplates a trial to determine someones status in an armed conflict (that is, whether they are entitled to be treated as a POW). That in turn depends on whether or not they are a lawful combatant.”

You don’t actually understand how this set of laws works at all.

Yeah, that’s the article that specifically mentions a tribunal(not trial – those are two different things, though I’ll grant you they’re similar, it’s an easy mistake to make), once. They don’t contemplate at all, they just say “This is what you do if you’re unsure” and that’s that.

Of course, what it’s actually about when you take the time to read the damned thing is about treatment of POWs ONCE THEY’RE ALREADY CAPTURED.

It has literally fucking nothing to do with what we’re talking about, unless you’ve got this mad idea to invent hellfire missiles that capture people instead of detonating. Refer me to it all you damned well like, it’s completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

“Furthermore, the definition of “combatant” is probably not as explicit as you believe. For an International Armed Conflicrt (see common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions) the definition is pretty much spelled out.”

According to the Asser Institute – The Center for International and European law – and the RULAC project(who take great pains to accurately explain the relevant laws) both point out that Article 3 does. Therefore it must be assumed that the definition laid out elsewhere in the document must hold by necessity, otherwise there is no standard upon which Article 3 can work.

On top of that – Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was regarding the legality and constitutionality of military tribunals and war crimes tribunals, specifically finding that the president in that case did not have the authority to set up the war crimes tribunals in question and that to do so was illegal according to the Geneva conventions and military justice. I’m impressed you know of it, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply in this instance.

“Furthermore, colloquial use of the word to describe any participant in an armed conflict has muddied the waters quite a bit.”

On this, we agree totally.

The things you’re talking about, The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, are much, much larger than a president and the policies that surface during one’s administration are the result of the slow drift of white papers over decades, not years.

You assume he has far more power than he actually has, for the folks actually at the controls, writing these whitepapers and choosing which dispensaries to raid it’s the new boss, same as the old boss. 

If you think that George Bush, the man, was actually spearheading the changes that took place during that administration, then I really have no idea what you’re talking about, don’t think that the same doesn’t apply equally to Obama. He’s a figurehead, and a beautiful one at that.

Fifth Amendment – 
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And no, the exception for land or naval forces or Militia does not apply since the person is not a member of our land or naval forces or Militia

Huh? Do you know how law works? Just because the law of war has an explicit definition of combatant does not cure the need to have a fact finding process to determine if the facts fit the law in a particular case. That is the point of a trial. For example, the law is explicit about the definition of murder, but someone is only an accused murderer until there is a trial to prove or disprove it.

Or put another way, if I call you a combatant, does that make it so? If I was a high ranking member of the administration and called you combatant, wouldn’t you want some kind of process to determine if I was right?

Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention (the one dealing with POWs) specifically contemplates a trial to determine someones status in an armed conflict (that is, whether they are entitled to be treated as a POW). That in turn depends on whether or not they are a lawful combatant.

I could also refer you to “Combatant Status Review Tribunals,” created at Gitmo to determine whether or not someone was an “enemy combatant.” The CSRTs were widely criticized, but their very existance indicates that even the Bush administraiton admitted there could be legitimate questions as to who is and is not a combatant.

Furthermore, the definition of “combatant” is probably not as explicit as you believe. For an International Armed Conflicrt (see common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions) the definition is pretty much spelled out. But for a Non International Armed Conflict (which is what the “War on Terror” is, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) there is no agreed upon defintion of “combatant.” Furthermore, colloquial use of the word to describe any participant in an armed conflict has muddied the waters quite a bit.

Well, you hit the nail on the head. They can be *tried*. The constitution specifically contemplates a trial for those accused of treason (Article 3, Section 3). It also says that Congress (not the President) has the power to fix the punishment for treason.

Obviously, on an actual battlefield it is reasonable to kill an enemy, regardless of citizenship. But the Obama administration is claiming a pretty wide definition of “battlefield,” twisting the definition of “imminent” and basically saying that nobody can review the decision making process of whether capture was feasible.

What makes me furious is the gall of the US Government (and individual USians) to criticize others in (much smaller) human rights issues. 

Remember the issue between Twitter and the French Government? Flocks of USians posting smug comments about the US superiority regarding civil righs/freedoms (“We are more free than the rest of you”) and shouting “slippery slope”. 

It looks like a schoolyard bully telling the victim and the bystanders he’s a white knight.

That’s why they invented the term unlawful combatant to avoid treating their prisoners (Guantanamo et al) as POWs. Probably because the Geneva Conventions forbids torturing.

The usual US hypocrisy.

Obama campaigned on the promise of a law-abiding, transparent administration.  This is well documented.
He was elected, in large part, because of his explicit opposition to the foreign policies of the Bush Administration.  This is well documented.

There is no political excuse for him to be supporting programs designed to kill people without trials while targeting first responders and funerals.

Similarly, he was elected while explicitly promising to protect whistleblowers, but has prosecuted them more than all Presidents combined.  He was elected while explicitly promising to leave medical marijuana alone, but has raided more dispensaries than Bush.

He was able to become President while promising, explicitly, not to behave in the way he has behaved.

So I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Which means that if the press made a scene it, you could expect repercussions.

This is a big step in the wrong direction.