Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan
So earlier today we set the precedent of bombing American citizens if they're terroristy enough. They weren't in a war zone. There was no trial. It wasn't an accident. WTF?
Awlaki, I dunno, I guess you can make the case that he deserved it (fingers in all the recent not-successful bomb attempts, etc). But Samir Khan?
The one-time North Carolina resident, who U.S. and Yemeni officials say was killed with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike Friday morning, used his knowledge of computers to help produce a glossy, Western-style magazine called Inspire that touted the edicts of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.
(
CNN editorial)
That sounds like freedom of the press to me.
If we can only win by fighting dirty, I dunno if it's worth it to win.
If we can only win by fighting dirty, I dunno if it's worth it to win.
how do you think we won the Revolution way back when?
Guerilla tactics. The Brits were appalled - we fought "dirty" and we won. That is, historically,
how you win a war.
Surprise the enemy.
They weren't in a war zone.
The war zone is the entire planet.
I've read this Inspire - the edition printed after they used a color laser printer to attempt to blow up a UPS plane flying to Chicago. They bragged that the operation only cost $4200 and caused billions in additional security efforts. They said it could be done again. They took credit for an
earlier UPS plane explosion in Dubai.
We must kill them because capturing them is too messy.
To my mind, Obama has made the worst decision of his presidency by approving this "targeted killing".
Historicially, I believe Obama will be known as the first Black President
and the President that publicly approved assassination of an American
citizen without trial.
Such extra-legal killings are totally different than attempts to capture and imprison.
Despite who is the target and what he may/may not have done against the US,
there is such a thing as a slippery slope and Obama has stepped on it with both feet.
There will be more killings to come, and justifications will be less and less,
while pride and respect for the American system of justice will deteriorate more and more.
Imma side up with Lamplighter and Ron Paul on this one.
.....pride and respect for the American system of justice....
Bwahahahahahaha. Only by people who read about it in books, not anyone who's had to deal with it.
In the bit above about "fighting dirty", what I meant was that if we have to compromise our system of justice and politics in order to 'win the war on terrorism', then we can't really win it at all. Maybe that's a stock line.
But, to quote
Adam Serwer:
Awlaki's killing can't be viewed as a one-off situation; what we're talking about is the establishment of a precedent by which a US president can secretly order the death of an American citizen unchecked by any outside process. Rules that get established on the basis that they only apply to the "bad guys" tend to be ripe for abuse, particularly when they're secret.
[...]
Uncritically endorsing the administration's authority to kill Awlaki on the basis that he was likely guilty, or an obviously terrible human being, is short-sighted. Because what we're talking about here is not whether Awlaki in particular deserved to die. What we're talking about is trusting the president with the authority to decide, with the minor bureaucratic burden of asking "specific permission," whether an American citizen is or isn't a terrorist and then quietly rendering a lethal sanction against them.
Refresh my memory of an instance where we dialed back extreme policies -- something to stand as counterpoint to the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, drone strikes, 'enhanced interrogations.'
It seems to me that this is the root tragedy of American policy on terrorism today: you can never turn it off. Any slight shift towards a more relaxed stance on terrorism is "weakness."
Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm cynical, maybe this is all just an unwarranted vomiting of knee-jerk bleeding heart liberalism. I hope it is. But, to my eyes, our recent history is mostly an ever-lengthening list of terrifying things which American citizens are absolutely okay with having done in their names.
America had become a sworn enemy to these men. Effectively making them traitors aligned with terrorists who wish harm on every American, and in essence informally renouncing their citizenship. I highly doubt they had any intention of coming back into the fold of regular, law abiding citizens. Their citizenship on paper had become irrelevant.
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.
He denounced his citizenship. He admitted taking part in and planning acts of terror against the US... He declared was against us and lost. I hear the slippery slope argument, but in this instance - nah.
Martin McGuinness is running for Irish Presidency.
Murderer.
Gerry Adams shook President Clinton's hand.
Murderer.
I wouldn't cry if either of them were taken out. Fair means or foul.
He denounced his citizenship. He admitted taking part in and planning acts of terror against the US... He declared was against us and lost. I hear the slippery slope argument, but in this instance - nah.
Classic, I'm doubting this bit about denouncing his citizenship because
the US Dept of Justice has just prepared a memo to justify his killing,
and it appears from news articles they consider him to still be a US citizen. (Can you cite a source ?)
Just saying you denounce your citizenship is not enough,
to wit:
A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. 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.
Nope, no source. He did it verbally. Perhaps he didn't do it formally. If I were him I wouldn't have either.
I agree... further down in that source it speaks to the renounciation of citizenship as being irrevocable. No Oooops allowed.
As part of my surfing this, I read something somewhere (???) that even if the person were to follow the rules, the US could decide that it's in the interest of the US to disallow the person to renounce their own citizenship. This struck me as heads I win, tails I win.
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?
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.
<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.
Actual justice should be the desired outcome, not procedure.
I agree, but I believe the best chance of achieving justice is through due process.
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.
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".
What worries me is the next person, or the one five people after.
It's a slippery slope!
[YOUTUBE]VB16G3qMw_c[/YOUTUBE]
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.
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.
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.
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
hereThey both got what they deserved.
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.
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?
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.
FYI he was on the Yemeni top-ten most wanted list and the Yemeni govt had attempted and failed to kill him via bombing.
So your next best answer is to have the Navy Seals go in under cover of night and kill him, instead of having drones do it. Just to be clear.
FYI he was on the Yemeni top-ten most wanted list and the Yemeni govt had attempted and failed to kill him via bombing.
What the Yemeni's could / could not do is irrelevent
So your next best answer is to have the Navy Seals go in under cover of night and kill him, instead of having drones do it. Just to be clear.
No... the methods make little, if any difference to the issue.
If it's to be the Navy Seals, their mission is to
capture, not kill,
with as little collateral (American or Yemeni) damage as possible.
from NY Times article: Details about Mr. Awlaki’s location surfaced about a month ago, American officials have said, but his hunters delayed the strike until he left a village and was on a road away from populated areas.
This doesn't sound like it was an impossible task.
If it's to be the Navy Seals, their mission is to capture, not kill,
with as little collateral (American or Yemeni) damage as possible.
Really? Who is to say? You know what their mission is?
This doesn't sound like it was an impossible task.
Really? Again, how would you know?
I think they really just went to capture Bin Laden.... :rolleyes:
Not.
By now, no Dwellar should doubt that I support Obama,
and disagree most of what Merc posts in his thread "Obamanation".
:lol: What the fuck does that have to do with this discussion?
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.
It must be noted that the briefing has been produced by the same bureaucracy, which bases its existence on certain assumptions about how America is to behave in the world.
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.
For clarity, am I right in assuming that by "both sides" you mean the Democrats and Republicans not pro-war/anti-war or interventionist/non- interventionist.
The things that haven't changed, I for one feel more confident in.
I would attribute those same things to the momentum of massive bureaucracies.
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".
The war is on and will stay on until we have a President willing to turn it off by admitting that we have lost Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Nobody will be willing to do that unless he can shift blame to a predecessor, since both parties are lashed to the same mast of this sinking ship, we get no policy change.
So now, under the Lamplighter administration, the Navy Seals have al-Awlaki, on a boat in the Arabian Sea, after one of his henchmen and one Navy Seal has been shot.
But you haven't said enough; it's far from over. What does the Lamplighter administration do with him now?
So now, under the Lamplighter administration,
the Navy Seals have al-Awlaki, on a boat in the Arabian Sea,
after one of his henchmen and one Navy Seal has been shot.
But you haven't said enough; it's far from over.
What does the Lamplighter administration do with him now?
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.
Impossible ? no
Inconvenient ? maybe
High crime or misdemeanor ? no
What does the Lamplighter administration do with him now?
Take him to Gitmo
Totally just kidding. I couldn't resist. :p::blush:;):eyebrow::neutral::eek::cool:
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.
Impossible ? no
Inconvenient ? maybe
High crime or misdemeanor ? no
Still you have no freaking clue.
"Find the nearest carrier"; Why? Do you know how much that costs for one dude? A Hellfire missle is so much cheaper. I thought you Liberals wanted to save money?
"Impossible, No."; And you would know this how?
"High crime or misdemeanor?"; That is not a level of assessment required.
He gave up his Rights when he joined the other side.
Here I am defending Obama, who'd-a-thunk-it?:p:
So now, under the Lamplighter administration, the Navy Seals have al-Awlaki, on a boat in the Arabian Sea, after one of his henchmen and one Navy Seal has been shot.
But you haven't said enough; it's far from over. What does the Lamplighter administration do with him now?
Merc solution: Turn him into chum. Go fishing.
Still you have no freaking clue.
"Find the nearest carrier"; Why? Do you know how much that costs for one dude?
A Hellfire missle is so much cheaper. I thought you Liberals wanted to save money?
[COLOR="Green"]To put him on a ship (the Navy doesn't put aircraft on boats)
Besides, I wouldn't trust him to stay put in the saddle of a Hellfire[/COLOR]
"Impossible, No."; And you would know this how?
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]I trust that paratroops are competent[/COLOR]
"High crime or misdemeanor?"; That is not a level of assessment required.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]It is for impeachment[/COLOR]
He gave up his Rights when he joined the other side.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]
American citizens can not give up their rights - talk with Classic again[/COLOR]
Here I am defending Obama, who'd-a-thunk-it?:p:
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]
I knew there was good lurking in there somewhere ;)[/COLOR]
Posted by Lampster:
"Find the nearest carrier"; Why? Do you know how much that costs for one dude?
A Hellfire missle is so much cheaper. I thought you Liberals wanted to save money?
To put him on a ship (the Navy doesn't put aircraft on boats)
Besides, I wouldn't trust him to stay put in the saddle of a Hellfire
Never said anything about boats, only the cost. Still not a good plan.
"Impossible, No."; And you would know this how?
I trust that paratroops are competent
"Paratroops" are not Navy Seals. I was a paratrooper, although I was not a Navy Seal.... That is another story.
"High crime or misdemeanor?"; That is not a level of assessment required.
It is for impeachment
That has nothing to do with killing an enemy combatant.
He gave up his Rights when he joined the other side.
American citizens can not give up their rights - talk with Classic again
Most certainly they can. They day they rob a bank and point a gun at a cop and that cop kills them, they gave up their right.
Here I am defending Obama, who'd-a-thunk-it?
I knew there was good lurking in there somewhere
President Zero Obama should be stopped via all legal means and we should ensure he is a one term president. :D
American citizens can not give up their rights
wait what? I thought we covered this somewhere.... no?
Posted by Lampster:
Never said anything about boats, only the cost. Still not a good plan.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]It was UT's plan to use "boats"[/COLOR]
"Paratroops" are not Navy Seals. I was a paratrooper, although I was not a Navy Seal.... That is another story.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]I know, and I deliberately used "paratroops" with you in mind.[/COLOR] ;)
That has nothing to do with killing an enemy combatant.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Again, it has to do with extra-legal killing an American citizen[/COLOR]
Most certainly they can. They day they rob a bank and point a gun at a cop and that cop kills them, they gave up their right.
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Sorry Merc, you need to read the earlier posts in this thread.
[/COLOR]
President Zero Obama should be stopped via all legal means and we should ensure he is a one term president. :D
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]There you go again.[/COLOR]
Again, it has to do with extra-legal killing an American citizen. Sorry Merc, you need to read the earlier posts in this thread.
I have read them. The arguments have failed to convince me that you are correct. Apparently President Zero and his panel of legal experts agree with me.
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.
LinkWell 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."
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 [strike]Navy Seal[/strike] 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.
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.
"No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."
Damm! Is that in our Constitution?!??! I must have missed it..... :rolleyes:
So far:
- You've violated the sovereignty of Yemen. <snip>
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]As I said as my "second thought" in a previous post.[/COLOR]
- You've killed a valuable [strike]Navy Seal[/strike] highly trained service member,
as well as a Yemeni resident of unknown origin. <snip>
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]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. [/COLOR]
Now the legal problems mount:
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]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.
[/COLOR]
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.
UT is strong on law and order, especially security.
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?
UT, thank you... that is a very informative, well-written and understandable post.
That post changes NOTHING.
This post changes NOTHING.
FTFY.
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.
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.
I'm not a citizen either.
I don't think that alone should remove the requirement for due process.
If your prez thinks I'm a terrorist, there has to be some kind of trial, even in my absence, where an attorney or someone can argue my case on my behalf.
smh
All was trying to say is that we have to have action! The system is completely broken and we are only driving faster toward the cliff. {even though I agree with some of it}... So far we have nothing.
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.
Perhaps the issue is that it's not really a foreign
country... ?
It says foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States, or armed forces of any foreign country...
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.
Maybe he did realize he was at risk, but nevertheless I've not seen anything
to show that he met
the requirements of renouncing US citizenship.
Sullied or not, stating an "intention to relinquish" is like pledging in a fund-raiser,
it only matters when the check is cashed.
I think Bruce is saying that he "cashed the check" when he joined "foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States"
That's why the US has Courts...
Killing first and asking questions afterward has serious consequences.
Maybe he did realize he was at risk...
Oh Good GOD! you have always seemed to me to be more intelligent than this statement makes you sound.
They apparently got his son today in another strike ...
They apparently got his son today in another strike ...
Maybe I saw the article you're referring to here.
I had to read it several times to sort out the business about the "son".
But I came to the conclusion that part was just reporting the Sept events,
and the "son" was Anwar al-Awlaki and it was his death they were describing.
There was also a description of drone attacks on the building where the two men,
Awlaki and Khan had been for a meeting, and the the drone attack on
two cars.
But I have to say I did have trouble understanding the wording in this article.
no no no...
SANAA, Yemen (AP) – The United States has raised the tempo in its war against al-Qaeda in Yemen, killing nine of the terror group's militants in the second, high-profile airstrike in as many weeks. The dead in the late Friday night strike included the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, the prominent American-Yemeni militant killed in a Sept. 30 strike.
Tribal elders in the area where Friday's strikes took place said the dead included Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, the 21-year-old son of Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim preacher and savvy Internet operator who became a powerful al-Qaeda recruiting tool in the West and who was on a U.S. capture-or-kill list. The elder al-Awlaki and another propagandist, Pakistani-American Samir Khan, were killed in the Sept. 30 strike.
Pretty good article
hereOK, you got it right...
ETA: I read the article in your link.
It is much more explicit and clear.
Good choice...
Isn't that now 3 American citizens killed by US drone attacks.
Tribal elders in the area where Friday's strikes took place said the dead included
Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, the 21-year-old son of Anwar al-Awlaki,
a Muslim preacher and savvy Internet operator who became a powerful al-Qaeda
recruiting tool in the West and who was on a U.S. capture-or-kill list.
The elder al-Awlaki and anotherpropagandist, Pakistani-American Samir Khan,
were killed in the Sept. 30 strike.
Yes, and the media would rather focus on Cain "the pain" instead of this.
interesting?
Good rid-en's to all of them.
I had no problem with killing this guy, or the 21 year old son following in his footsteps.
But now I'm seeing that the 21 year old son was actually only 16 years old.
WTF? We're now killing American citizen children? Sure, odds are that this kid would grow up to be a terrorist since we killed his dad. Just ask Inigo Montoya about that.
But we killed the evil dad, and then
two weeks later remotely killed the child and a bunch of others enjoying a BBQ. What was this kid's crime? Did he renounce his citizenship too? I have a hard time believing he had committed the same crimes as his father.
Edit: Alright.
I see that Ibrahim al-Banna was also killed in that strike on the son, and he was considered by the Defense Ministry in Yemen to be one of the “most dangerous operatives” in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Maybe the boy was collateral damage.
From what I recall, the boy was collateral. He was not the intended target, but still.
He stayed still so he got shot? ;)
(joshin')
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"
LinkOthers 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 !
Agreed. Of course, Newt would cut Alito out of the picture.
I voted for Obama, but I don't support this.
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.
Aren't they the they that should stop them?
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.
Agreed, my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
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.
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.
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"
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).
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 ?
How does that make the US a better country than others ?
If you are looking at this as a black and white issue where there is a line and anything that crosses that line is equally unethical, then yes, the US wouldn't be any better. But, in my opinion, that is absolutely horrible internal/foreign policy. Rules are a necessity for a stable society but it should also be recognized that always sticking to the rules sometimes produces dangerous and illogical decisions.
OK, I'm following your line of thought. Things can be gray, and someone will have to decide which options to take.
Now for the "but"...
Would the US ideals (innocent until proven guilty) be lost if the President
were still required to go before a judge (i.e., Supreme Court) to make the case of guilt and
that there is no other way... that is, more or less, a trial in absentia ?
At least that way, there would be a check/balance over the decision of a single person,
who otherwise could become our equivalent of a Stalin or (whoever you want to name here)
But so far, I still maintain that capture and trial in the US is the right/best way to go.
.
But so far, I still maintain that capture and trial in the US is the right/best way to go.
As I said earlier, I agree completely that trial is better if there is a realistic way of doing capturing Al-Awlaki. If there is not, I'm not sure if this situation applies, then you have to make the decision to take him out, without due process, or let him go, possibly harming other American citizens later.
I don't have all the information, but this could be a situation where Obama had a temporary chance to take Al-Awlaki out. In that case, going before a judge and all of that is basically the same as letting him go.
Holder only defended the wartime authority to kill a U.S. citizen who presents "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" and for whom "capture is not feasible," and only when operations are "conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." In these circumstances, he claimed, high-level executive deliberation, guided by judicial precedent and subject to congressional oversight, is all the process that is due.
Is Holder right? It is hard to say for sure because the due process clause has never before been thought relevant to wartime presidential targeting decisions. The system described above goes far beyond any process given to any target in any war in American history. Awlaki was not given a formal notice and opportunity to defend himself in court, but war does not permit such formal practices. One predicate for the killing was that Awlaki was in hiding -- beyond legal process or the reasonable possibility of capture -- and plotting and directing attacks on the United States. The U.S. government made clear that if Awlaki "were to surrender or otherwise present himself to the proper authorities in a peaceful and appropriate manner, legal principles with which the United States has traditionally and uniformly complied would prohibit using lethal force or other violence against him in such circumstances." And as Judge Bates noted, while Awlaki's placement on a targeting list was publicly disclosed in January 2010, Awlaki publicly disclaimed any intention of challenging his status or turning himself in.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/19/fire_when_ready?page=0,0Would you like to expand your thoughts in regards to this posting ?
As I read the link, I get more and more the impression the whole issue
is far too cloudy and uncertain to justify Holder's position and Obama signing the law.
But then, I'm still interested in your thoughts...
The U.S. government made clear that if Awlaki "were to surrender or otherwise present himself
to the proper authorities in a peaceful and appropriate manner, the United States
would immediately send a drone to visit him.
Would you like to expand your thoughts in regards to this posting ?
As I read the link, I get more and more the impression the whole issue
is far too cloudy and uncertain to justify Holder's position and Obama signing the law.
But then, I'm still interested in your thoughts...
My thoughts are pretty much the same as stated previously.
While the 'War on Terror' can act as an umbrella for many power moves from the president to TSA, there are some aspects of it that I believe are good for national security. By stating we at war with Al Qaeda and similar extreme organizations it gives the administration more power and ability to make quick and direct decisions.
As long as there is discipline among the executive branch I am not opposed to the president ordering a drone strike against someone like al-Awlaki. But this means that this only applies to very extreme situations where there is strong evidence that the person is directly promoting violence against US citizens, does not represent US interests in any possible way (defecting citizenship or working in interests of other state or non-state players), and evading capture in a location where there is no realistic way of getting this person. In those extremely rare cases I do not believe due process should apply.
The US Constitution should not protect US citizens at the expense of others if they do everything in their power to harm the country.
As long as there is discipline among the executive branch...
And what about future administrations who may not be quite as disciplined?
My thoughts are pretty much the same as stated previously.
<snip>By stating we at war with Al Qaeda and similar extreme organizations
it gives the administration more power and ability to make quick and direct decisions.
As long as there is discipline among the executive branch I am not opposed
to the president ordering a drone strike against someone like al-Awlaki. <snip>
The US Constitution should not protect US citizens at the expense of others
if they do everything in their power to harm the country.
Yes, I understand your views from our previous postings,
and I guess I was asking about your views of the arguments presented in this particular link.
Our differences are quite basic, and can be seen in the sentences above.
First, I believe it was a fundamental mistake to declare "war"
on a nebulous group (Al Qaeda) because it leads to exactly
what you stated: "similar extreme organizations".
The consequences are a never-ending "war"
... who is going to sign a document of surrender to bring this "war" to a close ?
Second, more and more it is being interpreted to have given unprecedented powers to the President.
... who or what is going to assure "discipline among the executive branch" ?
Third, I believe we base our entire form of government on that aspect of the Constitution
just the opposite of the idea that it "should not protect US citizens..."
The Constitution is the primary protection of the minority,
and the individual, from the emotional wiles of the majority.
... if not the Constitution then who/what will provide that protection ?
OK, so much for my back and forth.
... I am interested in how you view the content of the article in your link... if you care to expand on it.
I apologize for the late response. I have been busy.
First, I believe it was a fundamental mistake to declare "war"
on a nebulous group (Al Qaeda) because it leads to exactly
what you stated: "similar extreme organizations".
The consequences are a never-ending "war"
... who is going to sign a document of surrender to bring this "war" to a close ?
Yes, that argument shows just how complicated and subjective the issue is. On one hand, it would be more transparent and objective if the scope of the 'war on terror' was the destruction and dismantling of certain terrorist groups (Al Qaeda). On the other hand, terror and resistance groups are very fluid and counter-terrorism also needs to be fluid to appropriately respond to threats. For example, if we declare war on GroupA and five years later, GroupB is a big threat while GroupA fell out of importance, would we need to get a new declaration of war on GroupB? I would personally prefer the fluid option.
Then there is another question of the government powers associated with the declaration of war but I really don't feel like getting into this right now because it is a tangent.
Second, more and more it is being interpreted to have given unprecedented powers to the President.
... who or what is going to assure "discipline among the executive branch" ?
Even though the executive branch has been given unprecedented powers, the president is still on a leash. The article talked about this and admitted that it is a potential problem. The way I interpreted the current way of doing things is that president can make decisions without congressional and judicial approval but congress and the supreme courts can take away that power at any time.
To me, if we assume congress and the supreme court are incompetent, the most effective check right now is the media. If the president goes down a slippery slope it should be reported, putting pressure on congress to repeal the presidential powers.
Third, I believe we base our entire form of government on that aspect of the Constitution
just the opposite of the idea that it "should not protect US citizens..."
The Constitution is the primary protection of the minority,
and the individual, from the emotional wiles of the majority.
... if not the Constitution then who/what will provide that protection ?
I agree with this but I don't think it be so absolute. Yes, the Constitution protects minorities as it should. If a citizen has an unpopular opinion (neo-Nazi or communist), the Constitution does a great job at protecting that citizen. That protection allows non-mainstream views to spread and be discussed, which I feel is important for any free society.
Yet, I believe there are limits of how far that protection goes. I do not believe the Constitution should protect citizens in every situation. If there is a very extreme case where a citizen, al-Awlaki for example, is directly promoting violence against US citizens, does not represent US interests in any possible way (defecting citizenship or working in interests of other state or non-state players), and evading capture in a location where there is no realistic way of getting this person, I don't see the reason why the Constitution should protect them in the same why I don't believe the Constitution should protect an American citizen that joined Nazi Germany in WWII.
OK, so much for my back and forth.
... I am interested in how you view the content of the article in your link... if you care to expand on it.
Honestly, not really. I feel this is an issue that has no right answer. On one side, it is important that all executive powers are checked in one way or another. This prevents the president from going down a slippery slope and attacking citizens that should be protected by the Constitution. On the other side, to be effective, counter-terrorism needs to be fluid and efficient, and getting congressional and judicial approval greatly slows down this process and can allow people actively plotting against the US to survive and escape possible death.
I personally believe that counter-terrorism should be fluid and efficient, at the sacrifice of congressional and judicial review for every decision, but I also believe that the president needs to be kept on a leash. There should be a thorough investigation after every attack, even more so on American citizens, that forces the executive branch to justify every decision. That way they can make quick decisions in the name of national security but it also forces them to make sure they can justify their decision. If they can't justify it, their powers should be taken away.
Is this realistic? I have no idea.
Although I support Obama in so many ways, I've said before I believe
Obama's decision to kill of Anwar al-Awlaki and others was the worst mistake of his Presidency
... maybe even an impeachable offense.
Well, here's one judge challenging the idea that the Executive branch has such authority...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us/politics/judge-challenges-white-house-claims-on-authority-in-drone-killings.html?_r=0
NY Times
SCOTT SHANE
July 19, 2013
Judge Challenges White House Claims on Authority in Drone Killings
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday sharply and repeatedly challenged
the Obama administration’s claim that courts have no power over
targeted drone killings of American citizens overseas.
Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court here was hearing
the government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by relatives
of three Americans killed in two drone strikes in Yemen in 2011:
Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who had joined Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula;
Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who had no involvement in terrorism;
and Samir Khan, a 30-year-old North Carolina man who had become a propagandist for the same Qaeda branch.
And if you don't think an Attorney General can give a really stupid reply to a judge, this guy gave two in one breath...
“Are you saying that a U.S. citizen targeted by the United States
in a foreign country has no constitutional rights?” she asked Brian Hauck, a deputy assistant attorney general.
“How broadly are you asserting the right of the United States to target an American citizen? Where is the limit to this?”
[QUOTE]Mr. Hauck acknowledged that Americans targeted overseas do have rights,
but he said they could not be enforced in court [COLOR="DarkRed"]either before or after the Americans were killed.
Judges, he suggested, have neither the expertise nor the tools necessary to assess
the danger posed by terrorists, the feasibility of capturing them or when and how they should be killed.
“Courts don’t have the apparatus to analyze” such issues,
so they must be left to the executive branch, with oversight by Congress, Mr. Hauck said.[/COLOR]
Judge Collyer did not buy it. “No, no, no,” she said.
“The executive is not an effective check on the executive.”
She bridled at the notion that judges were incapable of properly
assessing complex national security issues, declaring,
“You’d be surprised at the amount of understanding other parts of the government think judges have.”
She provided her own answer: “The limit is the courthouse door.”
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Let's hope that nutter never rises above deputy assistant. I see how he got there though, being a yes man with complete disregard for civil rights.
Wow. Let's hope that nutter never rises above deputy assistant. I see how he got there though, being a yes man with complete disregard for civil rights.
He also completely ignored the fact that we do have a FISA court that does hear such matters.
I'd like to think that if the FISA court is required for various classified requests affecting US citizens, that someone would consult them on a killing.
And that doesn't speak to 'collateral damage'. In a war zone, there are procedures in place to compensate the family of victims, from "you're shit out of luck" to "here's $500". People in a war zone at least know that they are in a war zone. With drones we're claiming the right to go anywhere, anytime and kill a target and anyone who happens to be nearby with no respect for culpability.
If Uncle Vlad was in the Russian mob and happened to be attending his nieces wedding, and the FBI broke in and mowed down a few dozen wedding guests, there would be outrage. The question would be, "Did everyone know, including the children, that their lives were forfeit by being in the same room as him?"
He was not a US citizen.
Plowed ground...
No, mildly tilled ground, you left out a couple of things.
1.Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2.Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3.Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4.Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6.Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7.Conviction for an act of treason.
He also completely ignored the fact that we do have a FISA court that does hear such matters.
<snip>
I guess I overlooked a third really stupid thing about Mr Hauck.
He is saying all this to the judge, who also serves on the FISA court !
ibid
At one point, when Mr. Hauck referred to the Constitution, Judge Collyer, 67,
who was appointed by President George W. Bush and also serves on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
interrupted to note that the Constitution prescribed three branches of government,
and that she represented one of them.
No, mildly tilled ground, you left out a couple of things.
<snip>
Despite all the Dwellars conjectures about renouncing citizenship in this thread,
in this particular case, the Defendants DO consider all three decedents as US citizens.
If they did not, they would have certainly called them something else...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NASSER AL-AULAQI, as personal
representative of the estate of ANWAR
AL-AULAQI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
LEON E. PANETTA, et al., in their
individual capacities, Defendants.
No. 1:12-cv-01192 (RMC) Case 1:12-cv-01192-RMC Document 18
Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 58
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
On Page 31 of this Motion: the Defendants state:
A. Plaintiffs fail to allege the violation of a clearly established right.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The three decedents in this case are U.S. citizens allegedly killed abroad during armed conflict.[/COLOR]
Given the unique and extraordinary context of these allegations, the extent to which particular
Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights apply to decedents simply is not clearly established.
<snip>
You are right.
I personally don't think he should be considered a citizen. And he remained a citizen only because it was the best way to combat the US.
It may be that he didn't have his citizenry revoked, through legislation or whatever means it would take to pursue, for some esoteric foreign affairs reason we don't understand.
It may even be a case where the intelligence on the guy said he had to be killed quickly, and let's sort out the legal wiggle room later if there's a big fuss.
No, no snipping.
Context is “a potentially recurring scenario that has similar legal and factual components.” Arar, 585 F.3d at 572. See also Mirmehdi, 689 F.3d at 981. The context here is unique for a number of reasons: it is an alleged (1) military and intelligence action; (2) abroad; (3) during the course of ongoing armed conflict; (4) targeting a U.S. citizen declared a leader of an armed terrorist group (and Al-Banna, a non-citizen enemy).
Thus, an analysis of the extraterritorial question presented requires this Court to determine whether, and to what extent, to judicially enforce the particular Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections that may apply to a U.S. citizen allegedly targeted and killed—or inadvertently killed—by a purported missile strike abroad on members of an organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force.
There are no cases holding such conduct illegal, let alone illegal “beyond debate.” Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083. To the extent the Supreme Court has discussed the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens abroad, it has generally done so in the context of custody, detention, or trials—not in the active battlefield. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (plurality) (detention); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (plurality) (trials).
They allowed the plaintiffs claim of citizenship to stand because the defense of this alleged action is there is no precedent as described on pages 29, 30, and 31, and they certainly don't want to set one now because it will happen again.
It was when the justice department justified the hits to the executive, that the ground was tilled.
No, no snipping.
They allowed the plaintiffs claim of citizenship to stand because the defense
of this alleged action is there is no precedent as described on pages 29, 30, and 31,
and they certainly don't want to set one now because it will happen again.
It was when the justice department justified the hits to the executive, that the ground was tilled.
Sorry xoB, I did not mean to snip out anything significant.
Some Dwellar arguments in this thread have proposed that citizenship was given up by the time they were killed.
My point, even reiterated within your quote above,
is that for this case against four Federal employees being defended
by the US government establishes that the three Decedents are/were US citizens..
.. for whatever technical discussions, it doesn't matter.
The US government is saying their US citizenship still exists, even today.
That's strategy, legal maneuvering bullshit. If they only say things that are true, what the fuck are they doing in court?
I don't care what position they're taking, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, clearly lost his citizenship on a couple of counts.
I'll pass your thoughts along to Mr. Hauck... :rolleyes:
You have repeatedly inferred my opinion, on several subjects, is unimportant. I'm sure your shepherd appreciates your cooperation.
That's strategy, legal maneuvering bullshit. If they only say things that are true, what the fuck are they doing in court?
I don't care what position they're taking, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, clearly lost his citizenship on a couple of counts.
It's not just about the lack of citizenship but the fact that Anwar al-Awlaki was planning attacks on the United States, joined a terrorist organization, and was hiding in a location where it was nearly impossible to capture him alive.
I can understand the case for making the conditions for which the droning of a (prior) American citizen more clear, but as far as I am aware, the options were either to drone Al-Awlaki or let him live. All the other options were not realistic. Also, if al-Awaki was not planning attacks on US soil or lived in place where it would be possible to capture him, we would not have droned him. This was an extreme circumstance and not nearly the slippery slope that people make it out to be.
In the defendants motion, the government is trying to prevent a slippery slope.
You have repeatedly inferred my opinion, on several subjects, is unimportant.
I'm sure your shepherd appreciates your cooperation.
Wow ! Where did that come from ?
xoB, I don't believe I've ever intended to disrespect your opinions,
here in this thread, or elsewhere.
I may disagree with you in places, just as you disagree with me.
But if I've offended, especially in my attempts at humor, I apologize.
WTF... an apology... no monetary compensation? What about pain and suffering? At least dry cleaning to get the tear stains out of my suede restraints, ya cheap prick.
The English language is so plastic. We now have a new meaning to the phrase: Droned Out.