Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

[classicman]

As Marcy Wheeler noted, “What was leaked to Savage is MORE classified than anything Bradley Manning is alleged to have leaked.” But as I added last night, given that these anonymous DOJ officials appear to have been on a mission to justify the President’s assassination order as legal and just, it’s probably inadvisable to hold your breath waiting for the criminal leak investigation to begin.

This highlights a vital point: the Obama administration’s chronic, self-serving and dangerous game-playing with classified information. The New York Times‘ Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, had a good column yesterday on the administration’s obsessive secrecy when it comes to assassinations, drones and the killing of U.S. citizens. With regard to the administration’s refusal even to account for the legal principles it has embraced governing whom the President can order killed, the Public Editor writes: “it should be intolerable that the question goes unanswered.” But far worse, Brisbane notes that the administration manipulates and exploits its secrecy powers by leaking snippets to the media which glorify President Obama while concealing everything else:

After the drone strike, The Times and others lit up with accounts of the event, and unnamed government officials poured forth with comments. There was no mistaking the administration’s eagerness to put its antiterrorism success on display. . . . The administration invokes secrecy to shield the details while simultaneously deploying a campaign of leaks to build public support. For The Times, and its peers, this dynamic is beyond awkward: it gives the appearance that the government is manipulating them.

The reason that behavior “gives the appearance that the government is manipulating” the media is because that is the reality.
If a government employee leaks classified information that exposes wrongdoing on the part of the President or his aides or otherwise embarrasses them, he is prosecuted without mercy; at the same time, the President and his aides constantly leak bits of classified information (which remain classified) in order to benefit the President politically. Thus, when it suits them, they dole out snippets of information about how the Tough, Strong President killed the Bad Guy with brutal efficiency and bravery — and how his lawyers said it was permissible — but all the details necessary to assess the accuracy of those claims and any information which contradicts them remain suppressed, and if anyone exposes them, they face lengthy prison terms.

Link

[Lamplighter]

Well classic, at least I learned a new word/phrase from your link:
"uncritical hagiography"... now I have to find a way to use it.

To parody one of the final commandments on the barn:
"All secrets are equal, but some secrets are more equal than others."
Both parties are playing the Ace of Spades.

I have the feeling certain unspoken agreements were reached after the Nixon and Clinton legal battles...
that impeachments will end and whatever happened in the previous administrations will be passed over.
But each administration following will use those same illegalities with impunity.

This is my fear for the future from this al-Alwaki decision.
"No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."

[Undertoad]

Find the nearest carrier at sea and bring al-Awlaki back to the US
so he can face trial as an American citizen;
and if convicted, and whatever penalty is ascribed by US laws.

So far:

- You've violated the sovereignty of Yemen. Pakistan was more annoyed by the bin Laden infiltration than drone strikes. This in turn endangers the Yemeni government's interest in cooperating, which in turn makes it more difficult to track AQAP, one of the more serious al Queda organizations.

- You've killed a valuable Navy Seal highly trained service member, as well as a Yemeni resident of unknown origin. I know you didn't intend to do that, but this was a particularly difficult mission and armed resistance was expected. (The decision to use paratroopers was criticized by all media, as Alwaki was in the hills, and extraction could not happen via Saudi Arabia.)

Now the legal problems mount:

- Most of the evidence will be the responsibility of military and intelligence personnel and systems. Most of it will be unavailable to the court. Much of it will be inadmissible in a standard court of law.

- Security surrounding the housing and trial is $200 million to start. This may not even be possible, as NYC felt was the case in the attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The city simply could not afford to have the trial there.

- There is a possibility that the legal system that prosecuted O.J. Simpson will let an extremely dangerous Islamist terrorist free inside the borders of the USA.

[gvidas]

It's easy to say he "deserved it" or "it was the cost-effective solution." But -- and this is what I find deeply unsettling -- the laws which permitted killing him make no distinction between al-Awlaki in Yemen and, say, Joe Blow in York, PA.

This isn't a "slippery slope" argument; we're already at the bottom of the hill. The only way in which al-Awlaki was actually unique, in a legal sense, is that the President explicitly authorized killing him.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

"No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."

Damm! Is that in our Constitution?!??! I must have missed it.....

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So far:

- You've violated the sovereignty of Yemen. <snip>

As I said as my "second thought" in a previous post.

- You've killed a valuable Navy Seal highly trained service member,
as well as a Yemeni resident of unknown origin. <snip>

Instead, the drone strike killed a second American citizen, as "collateral damage".
Unfortunately, neither of us is privy to the tactical military issues involved in this situation.

Now the legal problems mount:
<snip>

Sorry, but I interpret each of your three issues as political, not legal.
Therefore, they can be overcome if there is the political will to do so.

The previous problems with, e.g., a trial in NYC, were from potentially illegal actions
leading up to the imprisonment in Quantanamo (sp?) and/or use of torture
or other improper actions on the part of the GWB's CIA.

The OJ Simpson trial probably represents just the opposite
of what you fear in the way of a impartial jury trial.
Maybe the Oklahoma bomber could be another example.

I guess I just have more confidence in open government trials
than what the future portends in this never-ending "war on terror",
and whatever future extra-legal actions might be approved by the government.
Remember, the GWB's Attorney General wrote opinions approving whatever the CIA wanted.
These opinions were later found to be wanting (illegal) and revoked.

Classic's article linked above has a pretty good discussion
of potential problems for Americans when it comes to secrecy
of extra-legal government actions.

[Spexxvet]

UT, I'm confused by your position on this. Usually, I interpret your posts as having a definite "don't trust The Establishment" tone. But in this case, you're willing to make an irrevocable decision based on allegations, to circumvent due process. I don't get it.

[BigV]

UT is strong on law and order, especially security.

[Undertoad]

I was a hard-core libertarian.

A lot of computer people and engineers are hard-core libertarians. Everyone always wonders why. I have a pet theory about this. Computer people and engineers always work within a closed and utterly logical SYSTEM, and all of the components in the system must be present and logical to work.

They then apply that thinking to GOVERNMENT, and notice that the SYSTEM is terribly broken. They notice that we have a Constitution that forms the basis of our entire government, and yet many of the things government does seem to be very obviously against the Constitution.

As engineer types, we understand that if the rules are not followed, the system will ALWAYS FAIL. And so, faced with the problem of government, we set out to build a perfect functioning system.

Remember Radar; he demanded ironclad adherence to the Constitution, and moreover, believed that he could offer a perfect interpretation every time. This is the start to any working closed system: you define it with specifications that cannot be broken.

I believed this at one time, too, but I came to find the problems with it. The most obvious problem is that humans are highly illogical and chaotic. This means it's impossible to create a logically sound set of rules for every situation. You just do the best that you can do and then leave enforcement and a judicial system to fill in the blanks.

Another problem is that humans will find the holes in the system and exploit them to our destruction. This was a 9/12 concept: we have a major problem if our rules are going to be used against us. We have to apply the Constitution, but the Constitution did not anticipate the world we are now in. We now have to wage non-war in countries we would never go to war with, by the 1789 definition of "war".

We must stop calling people "citizens" if they are going to use that moniker as an umbrella of protection in order to kill as many citizens as possible.

As far as not trusting the establishment, well, that is what allows the establishment a loose interpretation of the law. I believe that in a free country there cannot be a libertarian crisis in the corner where we are watching. People think the Patriot Act is a libertarian crisis, or that waterboarding is proof of our degeneracy. I believe that the fact that we argue endlessly about these points is our protection against them being a widespread problem. In the meantime, we have huge problems we're ignoring.

Think about this: waterboarding of three subjects resulted in street protest. Hundreds of thousands of dry anal rapes in prisons is a subject for hack stand-up comedy. Which is worse, which is more likely torture, and which is more harmful to rule of law and a civil society?

[Lamplighter]

UT, thank you... that is a very informative, well-written and understandable post.

[TheMercenary]

That post changes NOTHING.

[classicman]

smh

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

This post changes NOTHING.

FTFY.

[Lamplighter]

I'm pleased to report the NY Times Editorial Board has been
following this thread on the Cellar, and agrees with me on this issue.

Editorial
Justifying the Killing of an American
Published: October 11, 2011

The Obama administration apparently spent months considering
the legal implications of targeting Anwar al-Awlaki,
the American citizen who was killed in Yemen last month
after being accused of being a terrorist organizer.

It prepared a detailed and cautious memorandum to justify the decision—
a refreshing change from the reckless legal thinking of the Bush administration,
which rationalized torture, claimed unlimited presidential powers and
drove the country’s fight against terrorists off the rails.

But the memo, as reported by Charlie Savage in The Times,
is an insufficient foundation for a momentous decision
by the government to kill one of its own citizens,
no matter how dangerous a threat he was believed to be.
For one thing, the administration has refused to make it public
or even acknowledge its existence.
It was described to Mr. Savage by anonymous officials,
and the administration will not openly discuss even its most basic guidelines
for choosing assassination targets.

The decision to kill Mr. Awlaki was made entirely within the executive branch.
The memo was not shared with Congress, nor did any independent judge or panel of judges pass judgment.
The administration set aside Mr. Awlaki’s rights to due process.
<snip>

.
Sec. Panetta needs to pay attention too.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Anwar al-Awlaki was not a citizen. He had publicly stated his intention to relinquish his citizenship, and entered "foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States".
His movements leave no doubt in my mind he knew full well we would take him out at the first opportunity. Probably because he lived in the real world, unsullied with high faulting delusions.

Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.