Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you want this to be in the Constitution permanently, just say so. There will be no shortage of state legislatures more than happy to define planning terrorism against Americans (or their interests) as constituting treason punishable by death.

Without due process?

[Undertoad]

I'm sure the state legislatures would lean that way, and perhaps be guided to put in judicial review, but who knows?

This is something I learned from being a Libertarian. Many Ls interpret the Constitution "strictly", as would Radar or Ron Paul. This in turn means that there is no Constitutional provision for a good 40-80% of what the Federal Government does. If one demands "letter of the law" this is where one will end up.

But we interpret the C loosely for a reason. And so demanding a strict interpretation ONLY when finding that it doesn't give us range to deal with the very worst overseas terrorists is a type of hypocrisy.

The injustices dealt to people in our very midst, such as Plthijinx, are turned a blind eye to, but let's make sure al-Awlaki gets handled by the letter of the law. That seems wrong in every way. How does it come to that?

Why do we care about process over justice? My guitarist was unceremoniously thrown in jail on the false witness of his insane ex; yes, he got "due process", but the process almost led to the worst possible outcome: children left fatherless and in the care of someone dangerously mentally ill.

Actual justice should be the desired outcome, not procedure.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

<snip>
Why do we care about process over justice? My guitarist was unceremoniously thrown in jail on the false witness of his insane ex; yes, he got "due process", but the process almost led to the worst possible outcome: children left fatherless and in the care of someone dangerously mentally ill.

Actual justice should be the desired outcome, not procedure.

But UT, trials are not given to defendants who “deserve” them;
they are for everyone in order to sort the guilty from the innocent.
In that sense, your friend and his girlfriend each deserve their day in court,
as does everyone else... that is, no exceptions based on accusations.

Since the Dept of Justice memo is being kept secret, we will not know if Alwaki received justice or not...
only that he is was an American citizen deliberately killed by his own government without trial.

This decision by Obama is a watershed event.
Perhaps it is the inevitable outcome of recent laws
that give more and more power to the President.
If the original intent of the C was to have a "weak Presidency",
this decision goes beyond any such interpretation.

It's not politics... it's a matter of what kind of government rules us.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Actual justice should be the desired outcome, not procedure.

I agree, but I believe the best chance of achieving justice is through due process.

[gvidas]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The injustices dealt to people in our very midst, such as Plthijinx, are turned a blind eye to, but let's make sure al-Awlaki gets handled by the letter of the law. That seems wrong in every way. How does it come to that?

Why do we care about process over justice? My guitarist was unceremoniously thrown in jail on the false witness of his insane ex; yes, he got "due process", but the process almost led to the worst possible outcome: children left fatherless and in the care of someone dangerously mentally ill.

Actual justice should be the desired outcome, not procedure.

You're absolutely right. There are countless cases of injustice, even in situations where the due process of the law is being followed. You barely have to have a longer-term memory than the cable news cycle to come up with examples of strongly, legitimately questioned executions.

So why do we trust that, in situations outside the law, the same system and same government will be more correct, or more accurate, in deciding guilt?

Conor Friedersdorf:

As far back as the 1996 bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, a bungled FBI investigation and a news media indulging its worst impulses turned heroic security guard Richard Jewell into a prime suspect. During the espionage case against Wen Ho Lee, the nuclear scientist found himself held in extremely harsh conditions, including a long stint in solitary confinement. As the judge overseeing his case would later say in a formal apology to the defendant, "During December 1999, the then-United States Attorney, who has since resigned, and his Assistants presented me, during the three-day hearing between Christmas and New Year's Day, with information that was so extreme it convinced me that releasing you, even under the most stringent of conditions, would be a danger to the safety of this nation." As it turned out, that information was inaccurate, as evidence uncovered later proved. And Lee ultimately won $1.6 million in a civil suit against the federal government and several news organizations complicit in its wrongful behavior.

Remember the anthrax attacks on government buildings, media outlets, and the U.S. mail system? "As the pressure to find a culprit mounted, the FBI, abetted by the media, found one," David Freed wrote in a May 2010 Atlantic feature story. "This is the story of how federal authorities blew the biggest anti-terror investigation of the past decade--and nearly destroyed an innocent man." His piece is about the persecution of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill. It's necessary to say so because Army defense researcher Bruce Ivins, who the FBI later fingered as the guilty man, might not have been the culprit either.

What's notable about the cases I've just mentioned -- and there are more like them -- is that the wrongly accused defendants were put through hell despite enjoying the safeguards of a traditional domestic law enforcement investigation. No wonder that government mistakes against folks afforded fewer rights have been even more common. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration assured Americans that the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay were "the worst of the worst." As it turned out, "Many detainees locked up at Guantanamo were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces unable to distinguish enemies from noncombatants."

I don't really care either way about al-Awlaki. What worries me is the next person, or the one five people after. Who the media picks up as a horrible threat to society just after we drone them, whose story is never really told. Who is assassinated ('targeted for killing', 'bombed', 'present at a drone strike', whatever) for being a terrorist, on the grounds that we decided he was a terrorist.

Yeah, as UT noted, our justice system barely works when we use it. It's working less, the less we fund it. But it doesn't work at all when we we skip it.

[Undertoad]

One of the reasons I voted for Obama was that I felt it was vitally important for the other half of the country to see what would happen when a Democrat was reading the daily security briefing.

Now that both sides have been having their shot at the WoT, we all notice that some things have changed and some things haven't changed.

The things that haven't changed, I for one feel more confident in.

I believe that the War on Terror is still "on", even as it doesn't feel like it to us every day.

I also believe that the reason it doesn't feel like it to us every day is that the War on Terror is still "on".

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by gvidas

What worries me is the next person, or the one five people after.

It's a slippery slope!

[Pico and ME]

Clinton did his share of bombing terrorists too, didn't he?. This effort on Obama's part will be forgotten soon enough as well, come voting time.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

This effort on Obama's part will be forgotten soon enough as well, come voting time.

yup - The left will never vote for the opposing candidate. The hard right will do likewise. It's all about those in the middle. Some agree and some don't. I don't think this will have a huge effect either way.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[classicman]

I was going off of section (5)

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

from here

[TheMercenary]

They both got what they deserved.

[Lamplighter]

By now, no Dwellar should doubt that I support Obama,
and disagree most of what Merc posts in his thread "Obamanation".

But despite issues of what Awlaki and/or Khan did or did not deserve,
there is the issue of Obama approving this extra-legal killing an American citizen.
I, personally, am appalled and see this as a potentially "impeachable offense"...
or at least an historical mega-blot on Obama's presidency.

This 2-page article is the most detailed I have come across on the Dept of Justice's "secret memo":

Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
NY Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: October 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum
that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki,
the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen,
found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive,
according to people who have read the document.
<snip>
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite
an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder,
protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war,
according to people familiar with the analysis.
The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case
and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing
of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
<snip>
The memorandum, which was written more than a year before Mr. Awlaki was killed,
does not independently analyze the quality of the evidence against him.
<snip>
The deliberations to craft the memo included meetings in the White House Situation Room
involving top lawyers for the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and intelligence agencies.
It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman,
who were both lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel at the time,
and was signed by Mr. Barron.
The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum.
<snip>

This NY Times article goes on to discuss (briefly) some of the arguments and rationales,
as put forth by those involved in creating the memo.

[Undertoad]

If you were POTUS, what would you have done about Mr. Awlaki instead?

Before turning to paste, amongst other things, he:

= Was "spiritual advisor" to two of the 9/11 hijackers and the "20th hijacker"

= Advised the Fort Hood shooter

= Is considered a "perpetrator" of the Christmas Day Detroit "underwear bomber" attempt

= Made death threats to a Seattle cartoonist

= Inspired the woman who stabbed British politician Stephen Creswell Timms

= Is considered plotter of the UPS cargo planes attempt

That's a pretty impressive resume, what do you do?

[Lamplighter]

UT, this truly is not an issue of what Awlaki did or did not do, or whether he deserved what he got.
As I said before, trials are not for those who "deserve" them, but are to determine guilt or innocence.

If I were POTUS I hope I would think first about the implications of extra-legal killings on the future of the US government.

Second I'd worry less about embarrassing the Yemini government, and very last would be about a political strategy to get re-elected.
Obviously, satisfying a public wish for "revenge" is not in the US's long term best interest.

To posit there was "no other way" is foolish and unbelievable.
The DOJ was giving "advice" to the President, Obama did not have to follow it.
He could have pulled a "Steve Jobs" and told the CIA to go back
to their caves and find, not a better way, but the best legal way.
Apparently they were able to do this with Osama.