Replies

"Then you must take one of two positions. Either the CIA/Military guys who fired the missile, as well as all in the chain of command that ordered it, should be charged with murder in the Sudan incident where an American jihadist was blown to bits while not pointing a gun at anybody or rights as an American citizen are geographically dependent. Which is it?"

Personally, I have no issue with what took place in Sudan. I'd have no problem with US soldiers, per rules of engagement, killing a threatening American citizen on the field of battle. Where Scalia draws the distinction, and what I believe is reasonable, is when said American is within custody and no longer an immediate threat. For instance, if John Walker Lindh pointed a gun at a US Marine on the field of battle, that Marine has every right to defend himself with deadly force. To expect anything less is absurd. However, once he's in custody, and his citizenship has been determined to be distinctly American, it makes a certain amount of sense that he should have rights above and beyond those of other national origins. Depending on the circumstances, that person may have relinquished their citizenship, and all rights that come with it.

Now, that's not to say the military should be forced to drop what they're doing or put themselves in extra danger to accomodate US citizens while within a warzone. However, at the convenience of the US military, and while it is safe for military peronnel to do so, I do think US citizens captured abroad should be transported to the nearest facility capable of more properly dealing with them. That doesn't mean I don't believe in treason, and it doesn't mean I don't believe that those who shoot our soldiers on the battlefield should be able to walk away. In fact, I would hold that there's a very special place in Hell for such people. The military already does a lot of detainee processing and data gathering so that it isn't left holding tons of people it has no interest in holding. As such, I don't see it as overly difficult or imposing to have the military work slightly harder to preserve the spirit of the idea that US citizens are, in our eyes, better than citizens of other countries.

My point with all this is that I do think US citizens' rights should be upheld to the greatest extent possible without risking soldiers' lives, and that I do think there should exist a higher burden of proof for wrongdoing for US citizens than for citizens of other countries.

As it relates to Sudan, the individual was not in US custody, and their citizenship could not be absolutely determined under the circumstances. Attempting to do so would risk lives and be an unnecessarily high burden on the military. In my opinion, so long as it was not a US citizen who was intentionally and primarily targetted (in other words, just a US citizen riding alone in a car down an empty road) there is no legal issue with launching the strike. The citizenship of those surrounding legitimate military targets should not block legitimate military action.

As it relates to Hamdi and Lindh, if they were shooting at US troops, US troops should shoot back and shoot to kill. They're not there to read the USC sections relating to citizenship to potential citizen combatants; they're there to render the enemy unable to kill and to protect one another. Lindh or Hamdi can yell about their citizenship all they want, but if they continue to threaten US troops on the battlefield, they need to be taken prisoner or killed as per the rules of engagement and the UCMJ. Once they've been removed from the field of battle and they no longer pose a threat, then deal with the fact that they're citizens. How their detention and trial is to go should be a matter for Congress to codify into law. Thus far, we've had Lindh's high-powered defense team strike a deal with civilian prosecutors, and Hamdi stike a deal with the government to keep him out of US courts. That seems like a pretty half-arsed system to me.

In Padilla's case, a US citizen was captured on US soil. In no case should the US military have anything to do with it, unless the lawful authority in the immediate area has been actually overthrown.