Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

[classicman]

From what I recall, the boy was collateral. He was not the intended target, but still.

[infinite monkey]

He stayed still so he got shot?

(joshin')

[classicman]

I thought there was another thread about this, but I couldn't find it...

The Obama administration believes that executive branch reviews of evidence against suspected al-Qaeda leaders before they are targeted for killing meet the constitution’s “due process” requirement and that American citizenship alone doesn’t protect individuals from being killed, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Monday.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Broadly outlining the guidelines the Obama administration has used to conduct lethal drone stikes overseas, Holder said the U.S. government could legally target a senior operational al Qaeda leader who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans if the individual (1) posed an imminent threat of violence; (2) could not feasibly be captured; and (3) if the operation was conducted in line with war principles.

Such a use of lethal force against that type of individual, Holder said, wouldn’t violate the executive order banning assassinations or criminal statues because such an act would be in “self defense.” In remarks delivered at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago, Holder also said that targeted killings are not “assassinations,” adding that the “use of that loaded term is misplaced” because assassinations are “unlawful killings” while targeted strikes are conducted lawfully.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has so far refused to release a copy of a legal memorandum justifying the targeted killing of the U.S. born Anwar al-Awlaki, who allegedly inspired several attacks or attempted attacks on the U.S.

Is that really how it works? I never would have expected that to meet the definition of "due process"


Link

[Lamplighter]

Others express dissatisfaction with Obama on economics, etc.,
but this is the place I felt he made the worst mistake of his Presidency.

Once again, it's Alito's "Universal President"
If the President says it's lawful, it's lawful.

I say it's awful !

[Griff]

Agreed. Of course, Newt would cut Alito out of the picture.

[glatt]

I voted for Obama, but I don't support this.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Is that really how it works? I never would have expected that to meet the definition of "due process"

It works like that until somebody stops them.

[classicman]

Aren't they the they that should stop them?

[Happy Monkey]

Yes. But they aren't.

Another "they" would be the Supreme Court. Hopefully some case will make it to them, and hopefully they will go the right way.

Another "they" would be Congress. I don't hold out much hope for that. And even if they did, there is now a fair bit of precedent for the President ignoring Congress on "national security".

The last "they" is "us". But the only candidate running who would oppose this decision is Ron Paul.

[classicman]

Agreed, my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[Lamplighter]

I reject Merc's stand on this issue (above), and still see no way for this to be justified.
I voted in the election of renunciation of Goldwater's "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice".

I have no idea why Obama elected to sign the Bill that authorized this.
I certainly did not expect him to let it become law.

But just as Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales, and his attorneys
in the Dept of Justice were reprimanded over the issue of torture,
and their rulings were reversed, I hope during some future Presidency
the same thing will happen on this legality too.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I have no idea why Obama elected to sign the Bill that authorized this.
I certainly did not expect him to let it become law.

It makes sense from his standpoint. It could potentially be a first step down a very dangerous slippery slope (doubt it) but it makes sense.

Anwar al-Awlaki actively recruited for anti-American terrorist causes and denounced his American citizenship. He was a direct threat to the United States. Obama's foreign policy is extremely tough on terrorism and if he had a chance to take someone like al-Awlaki, he will not make the same decision that came back to haunt Clinton and Bush (not killing Bin Laden). The backlash from that would be hundreds time greater than signing this bill.

I am uncomfortable with the definition but I am also uncomfortable with al-Awlaki being protected assuming there was no other realistic alternative besides a drone strike.

[Lamplighter]

Yes, we've sort of been through those arguments, above.

But think of Adolf Eichmann as a model for an alternative route.
Shouldn't there be a song: "If Israel can do it, we can do it better"

[piercehawkeye45]

Well you did wonder why Obama would sign the bill into law and I gave you a possible reason...

Also, Obama's decisions are not at Israel's level. Israel actually practices assassinations under false flag operations. We haven't done that for decades (that we know of).

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Well you did wonder why Obama would sign the bill into law and I gave you a possible reason...

Also, Obama's decisions are not at Israel's level. Israel actually practices assassinations under false flag operations. We haven't done that for decades (that we know of).

OK, I wasn't clear when I said I didn't have any idea... being rhetorical.

In your post, how are US decisions not at Israel's level ?
I'm not trying to quibble... just not getting your meaning.

With respect to "false flag" etc., to me it does not matter
what tool, kind of operation, with or without deception.

That is, whether by drone, poison dart, hired assassin, etc.,
it is still the assassination of an American citizen without trial
and only on the word on the President.

How does that make the US a better country than others ?