104 replies to this topic

[Zimbochick]

Then you don't understand the value of the rule of law and will deserve to live under the tyranny that you seem to embrace.

So you don't have any faith in the ability of Military Intelligence to identify a legitimate threat to the safety and security of the American people?

[wedjat]

Remember back in the good ole days of Bush when you were labeled a "terrorist lover" if you weren't gung-ho about going in & getting 'er dun? My, how times have changed. I guess Ruse is a terrorist lover now & I'm the cowboy.

[VOR]

Then you don't understand the value of the rule of law and will deserve to live under the tyranny that you seem to embrace.

So you don't have any faith in the ability of Military Intelligence to identify a legitimate threat to the safety and security of the American people?

I have very little faith in the integrity of any government or military organization. Are they skilled in terms of being rat bastards who will do or say anything to achieve their goals? Certainly. Military intelligence can be manipulated to make a case for a desired action. Recent history has proven that to be the case.

As for identifying a threat to the safety and security of the American people, that is not the legal requirement needed to justify the assassination of an American citizen. There has to be proof of an imminent threat or an actual physical engagement on a battlefield.

The Obama administration isn't even pretending as though either of those requirements has been met. They identified no imminent threat and admitted that Awlaki was not armed while running across a battlefield.

[Timothy]

http://t1.gstatic.co...H4SiGZ9yF1YxBeb

[PERM BANNED]

Then you don't understand the value of the rule of law and will deserve to live under the tyranny that you seem to embrace.

So you don't have any faith in the ability of Military Intelligence to identify a legitimate threat to the safety and security of the American people?

Did intel state that this man was a direct threat? I believe it probably did, but did anyone outside of the executive branch see it. Where does the law state that the president can order the assasination of a US citizen based on intel. The same intel you're supporting in this scenario is the same intel that said Iraq had WMDs. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't ask for trials for detainees in guantanamo, preach all the (fabricated) stories of americans being spied on and abducted following the patriot act, and then support the president's action here. He didn't go through any other branch of government to approve this. The intel he had won't be released. Many people were all worked up over an accidental shooting from the wikileaks and demanded more information. Why aren't you demanding the intel on this?

I know why ( and I don't mean you personally, but the larger group of people who share your opinion) and it's because Obama is a Democrat. It's the same reason all the protests against the wars died down when he got elected. Nevermind that over 50,000 soldiers are still in Iraq. Nevermind 100,000 are in Afghanistan and we're continuing to add bases around the world. The reality is that those who were most vocal about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were anti-Bush and anti-Republican. As soon as a Democrat took the office, the left's protest ended. And guess who showed up to fill the void? The Tea Party. It's an endless cycle. But if you want to claim you're objective and not partisan, how can the opinions echoed for 7 years be reconciled with the support of an American President ordering the assasination of a US Citizen whose crime was Treason. A crime that incurs a trial and defense.

[VOR]

Nope, I don't object to this killing of an american citizen. Why? Because he's a terrorist. I don't care where he was born & raised, he's a terrorist.

Then you don't understand the value of the rule of law and will deserve to live under the tyranny that you seem to embrace.

That's not necessarily true---that we don't understand the value of the rule of law. Maybe it's you who doesn't understand and that's okay. I don't think the general public needs to know or would always understand the exact language in the law that the Department of Defense used to justify the assassination of Al Awlaki. We do know that a panel of lawyers arguing both sides of the issue, spent a lot of time researching American and international laws and debating the issue before his name was added to the 'wanted dead or alive' list. We either trust the process these legal minds used to get to that decision, or we don't. I choose to trust them, knowing that decision was not made lightly. You choose not to trust the process. That's your choice, but just because it's your choice that doesn't make your assessment anymore valid than it does mine or anyone else's opinion who happens to disagree with you.

I think a person who claims they do not care if an American citizen is killed because he is a terrorist does not understand the crucial role of the rule of law in guaranteeing that our government secures our rights. Our government doesn't grant rights to us; government only exists to secure our rights. If someone is willing to allow government to act in a manner inconsistent with the US Constitution, which is the ultimate representation of the rule of law in our nation, that person does not understand the value of the rule of law. You can disagree if you like.

I think the people of this country need to understand the meaning of the laws under which we live. The people who make those laws are our servants. The exact language of the law is key to understanding when laws are adhered to or broken. If the American people don't know the language of the law, they have no measure by which to judge its constitutionality. The Obama administration is not giving interviews with factual information about the legal justification for the recent action. We deserve to know the specifics of how they came to the conclusion that the action was consistent with constitutional law. That comment you posted which used the language of 'administration lawyers came to believe...' was intentionally vague to cover the ass of all involved because 'came to believe' does not mean the same thing as verified the legal justification with certainty.

I don't trust any panel of weasel lawyers to determine what is lawful in this nation. We have a US Supreme Court for that. You can trust in a panel of White House lawyers if you like, but I hope you realize that those lawyers spend countless hours trying to find ways around the laws of this nation when a justification is needed to support any president's desired action. That panel of lawyers does not exist to serve the American people or to maintain the integrity of our laws.

In the end, people are free to have any opinion they like on this recent assassination. I can only hope you never find yourself labeled as an enemy of the state for whatever reason the government decides is 'good enough' to assassinate you.

[wedjat]

Then you don't understand the value of the rule of law and will deserve to live under the tyranny that you seem to embrace.

That's not necessarily true---that we don't understand the value of the rule of law. Maybe it's you who doesn't understand and that's okay. I don't think the general public needs to know or would always understand the exact language in the law that the Department of Defense used to justify the assassination of Al Awlaki. We do know that a panel of lawyers arguing both sides of the issue, spent a lot of time researching American and international laws and debating the issue before his name was added to the 'wanted dead or alive' list. We either trust the process these legal minds used to get to that decision, or we don't. I choose to trust them, knowing that decision was not made lightly. You choose not to trust the process. That's your choice, but just because it's your choice that doesn't make your assessment anymore valid than it does mine or anyone else's opinion who happens to disagree with you.

I think a person who claims they do not care if an American citizen is killed because he is a terrorist does not understand the crucial role of the rule of law in guaranteeing that our government secures our rights. Our government doesn't grant rights to us; government only exists to secure our rights. If someone is willing to allow government to act in a manner inconsistent with the US Constitution, which is the ultimate representation of the rule of law in our nation, that person does not understand the value of the rule of law. You can disagree if you like.

I think the people of this country need to understand the meaning of the laws under which we live. The people who make those laws are our servants. The exact language of the law is key to understanding when laws are adhered to or broken. If the American people don't know the language of the law, they have no measure by which to judge its constitutionality. The Obama administration is not giving interviews with factual information about the legal justification for the recent action. We deserve to know the specifics of how they came to the conclusion that the action was consistent with constitutional law. That comment you posted which used the language of 'administration lawyers came to believe...' was intentionally vague to cover the ass of all involved because 'came to believe' does not mean the same thing as verified the legal justification with certainty.

I don't trust any panel of weasel lawyers to determine what is lawful in this nation. We have a US Supreme Court for that. You can trust in a panel of White House lawyers if you like, but I hope you realize that those lawyers spend countless hours trying to find ways around the laws of this nation when a justification is needed to support any president's desired action. That panel of lawyers does not exist to serve the American people or to maintain the integrity of our laws.

In the end, people are free to have any opinion they like on this recent assassination. I can only hope you never find yourself labeled as an enemy of the state for whatever reason the government decides is 'good enough' to assassinate you.

Well if I ever turn against America & become a terrorist, I don't think I'll have too hard of feelings towards the government if they decide to assassinate me. In fact, I'd say it would be warranted.

[Austin]

Who says his citizenship was voided? you? no court fo law? That's what I don't get. The burden of proof was much stronger that Davis offed a cop. I don't deny he was worthy of death. I would have popped him myself had I seen him and couldn't take him. But rather than give credit to Obama for signing a piece of paper, how about giving credit to the people who did it. And why not ask why they didn't ask them to capture him. He was a US citizen. Can you site me an example of any other US citizen being ordered taken out by the President? And be honest, if Bush did this, you'd be screaming for his head.

If you claim to support justice and democracy, you can't support the state execution of a person without trial. You weren't given access to the intel and are solely going off the word of the media, who let's be honest, isn't a reliable source. If you don't see the conflict, I can't really help you. Just don't bitch when a GOP president takes out Michael Moore.

You are correct, Randall.

Under the Bush administration, powers were granted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create assassination target lists subject to executive approval. Obama was the first president to issue an open order for the assassination an American citizen. Awlaki never renounced his citizenship, so anyone who claims he gave up his constitutional rights is mistaken. Furthermore, his citizenship was never revoked by the US government. He was never accused or tried for treason. There is no evidence that he was murdered to prevent an imminent threat to American lives, either. His murder was unconstitutional.

It's funny to me how people who were ranting and raving about the unconstitutionality of foreign lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants of any nationality being detained at Guantanamo are not saying much about the unconstitutional act of President Obama ordering the assassination of an American citizen. It's one of those situations where some people are willing to overlook or even attempt to justify criminality because the person committing the act shares their political agenda in some aspect. I hate just about every seated politician in our government, so I don't have to pretend this was a legal, moral or practical act.

American Ruse and Randall, I am a far-left liberal and I agree with you regarding presidential/governmental authority to kill/assassinate American citizens. I don't trust the courts, or the military, or high-level "intel" to always get it right. Imperfect systems by imperfect humans. Death is final. I am a huge Obama supporter however I totally agree with you all that he has continued on with the many dangerous policies and powers given to a President by the George Bush. It is the FEAR instilled in people by the terrorists which motivate them to embrace ever-increasing "exceptions" to our rule of law. We must remember that Obama will not always be President, and who knows what kind of person may occupy that office one day and when a President will decided that a certain American citizen living in this country is a "terrorist" and just kill that person. Seems extreme, but it's not. Experiencing first-hand the level of politics involved in the death penalty, it is my very strong opinion that giving the state/government/President the power to decide personally, without a trial, to kill and American citizen is a very dangerous power.

[VOR]

Who says his citizenship was voided? you? no court fo law? That's what I don't get. The burden of proof was much stronger that Davis offed a cop. I don't deny he was worthy of death. I would have popped him myself had I seen him and couldn't take him. But rather than give credit to Obama for signing a piece of paper, how about giving credit to the people who did it. And why not ask why they didn't ask them to capture him. He was a US citizen. Can you site me an example of any other US citizen being ordered taken out by the President? And be honest, if Bush did this, you'd be screaming for his head.

If you claim to support justice and democracy, you can't support the state execution of a person without trial. You weren't given access to the intel and are solely going off the word of the media, who let's be honest, isn't a reliable source. If you don't see the conflict, I can't really help you. Just don't bitch when a GOP president takes out Michael Moore.

You are correct, Randall.

Under the Bush administration, powers were granted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create assassination target lists subject to executive approval. Obama was the first president to issue an open order for the assassination an American citizen. Awlaki never renounced his citizenship, so anyone who claims he gave up his constitutional rights is mistaken. Furthermore, his citizenship was never revoked by the US government. He was never accused or tried for treason. There is no evidence that he was murdered to prevent an imminent threat to American lives, either. His murder was unconstitutional.

It's funny to me how people who were ranting and raving about the unconstitutionality of foreign lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants of any nationality being detained at Guantanamo are not saying much about the unconstitutional act of President Obama ordering the assassination of an American citizen. It's one of those situations where some people are willing to overlook or even attempt to justify criminality because the person committing the act shares their political agenda in some aspect. I hate just about every seated politician in our government, so I don't have to pretend this was a legal, moral or practical act.

American Ruse and Randall, I am a far-left liberal and I agree with you regarding presidential/governmental authority to kill/assassinate American citizens. I don't trust the courts, or the military, or high-level "intel" to always get it right. Imperfect systems by imperfect humans. Death is final. I am a huge Obama supporter however I totally agree with you all that he has continued on with the many dangerous policies and powers given to a President by the George Bush. It is the FEAR instilled in people by the terrorists which motivate them to embrace ever-increasing "exceptions" to our rule of law. We must remember that Obama will not always be President, and who knows what kind of person may occupy that office one day and when a President will decided that a certain American citizen living in this country is a "terrorist" and just kill that person. Seems extreme, but it's not. Experiencing first-hand the level of politics involved in the death penalty, it is my very strong opinion that giving the state/government/President the power to decide personally, without a trial, to kill and American citizen is a very dangerous power.

I agree with you about the use of fear by our government. We have a greater statistical chance of being killed by our own government than we do of being killed by a terrorist. Fortunately for government, people either don't know or don't care about that fact.

[Austin]

^^^^ How quickly people forget about McCarthy and the fear he inspired. That was nothing compared to the power to make a decision to kill someone simply because whoever is President "thinks" that person is an "enemy"......also, people think it could never, ever happen to "them." But it can. For example, innocent people are convicted of murders. A healthy respect and caution regarding governmental power is a good thing. I like government but believe it is important to be very cautious with the power we grant to human beings who run government. Checks and balances....always.

[freedom78]

An interesting piece that raises a lot of the issues we've been discussing.

***********************************************************************************************************
Secret US memo made legal case to kill Anwar al-Awlaki
Document provided justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations

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.

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

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.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.

But the document that laid out the administration’s justification — a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 — was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it.

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

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.

The administration did not respond to requests for comment on this article.

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. Several news reports before June 2010 quoted anonymous counterterrorism officials as saying that Mr. Awlaki had been placed on a kill-or-capture list around the time of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009. Mr. Awlaki was accused of helping to recruit the attacker for that operation.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks.

Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located.

Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.

It then considered possible obstacles and rejected each in turn.

Among them was an executive order that bans assassinations. That order, the lawyers found, blocked unlawful killings of political leaders outside of war, but not the killing of a lawful target in an armed conflict.

A federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, the lawyers wrote, did not apply either, because it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war.

War crime?
But that raised another pressing question: would it comply with the laws of war if the drone operator who fired the missile was a Central Intelligence Agency official, who, unlike a soldier, wore no uniform? The memorandum concluded that such a case would not be a war crime, although the operator might be in theoretical jeopardy of being prosecuted in a Yemeni court for violating Yemen’s domestic laws against murder, a highly unlikely possibility.

Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”

The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.

It also cited several other Supreme Court precedents, like a 2007 case involving a high-speed chase and a 1985 case involving the shooting of a fleeing suspect, finding that it was constitutional for the police to take actions that put a suspect in serious risk of death in order to curtail an imminent risk to innocent people.

The document’s authors argued that “imminent” risks could include those by an enemy leader who is in the business of attacking the United States whenever possible, even if he is not in the midst of launching an attack at the precise moment he is located.

Continued

[freedom78]

That article was worth reading, Freedom. Did it influence your thinking in anyway?

Not a great deal. It's very common for an administration to get a legal opinion prior to doing anything, especially if there's no clear cut precedence for it's legality. For example, John Yoo used to issue memos for the Bush (W) admin about why everything they did was totally legit. His belief was that the Commander-in-Chief powers of the Presidency would give the President authority to skirt most laws and civil liberties in times of war (and, since the "War on Terror" is so broadly defined, without specificity and with no obvious mechanism to determine its end, this means that powers taken during this period would last indefinitely). It also falls under what I call the "inherited toys" scenario, in which Presidents rarely give up powers of the office acquired by their predecessors (so it's no surprise that Gitmo remains open, that the wiretapping program hasn't been completely shut down, etc.)

I think they basically made many of the points, in the article, that I had made previously, and without reading the memo itself, it's tough to say exactly how these things were addressed. A lot of it depends on what "feasible" to capture him means, as well as the idea that "imminent" threats cannot be differentiated in an individual who is attempting at all times to harm the US. I disagree with both of these. Feasibility depends on a number of things: can we get to him, can the Yemenis get to him, will the Yemenis cooperate with our efforts, have we made efforts to get to him that have failed, is he perceived as being constantly on the move or is he relatively situated in one spot, etc. I agree that he can be killed if it isn't feasible to capture him; I would just like to know the definition of feasible used by the government in this. Furthermore, the idea of a perpetual "imminent" threat is absurd. If he's a planner, rather than someone carrying out attacks, then he himself doesn't pose the imminent threat. While he certainly contributes to the threat and is a criminal for doing so, that isn't the same. Imminence itself is a characteristic that is lacking in his acts. It's like comparing Osama bin Laden (or KSM) to the 9/11 hijackers. Had we caught those two planners an hour before the attacks of 9/11 then MAYBE the attacks are thwarted...but if they themselves know of its imminence and say nothing, then catching them makes no difference to that event. On the other hand, had all 9/11 hijackers been arrested that day, it's not as if Osama and KSM had a backup plane they were going to fly to NYC, right? I'm not saying the importance of one actor (planner vs. actual attacker) is more or less than the other --- indeed, they're both important and part of a cooperative operation --- simply that there is no "imminent" that can be applied to planners in the same way it can be applied to those who carry out planned violence. By the definition used in the article, Alwaki could have been sleeping, having sex, or taking a dump, and he'd still have been an "imminent" threat, which I can't buy.

So, make every effort to capture him and be willing to kill if the effort to capture fails...but don't tell me he's an imminent threat and that it isn't feasible to take him alive, just so we can drone strike him and be done with it.

[VOR]

That article was worth reading, Freedom. Did it influence your thinking in anyway?

Not a great deal. It's very common for an administration to get a legal opinion prior to doing anything, especially if there's no clear cut precedence for it's legality. For example, John Yoo used to issue memos for the Bush (W) admin about why everything they did was totally legit. His belief was that the Commander-in-Chief powers of the Presidency would give the President authority to skirt most laws and civil liberties in times of war (and, since the "War on Terror" is so broadly defined, without specificity and with no obvious mechanism to determine its end, this means that powers taken during this period would last indefinitely). It also falls under what I call the "inherited toys" scenario, in which Presidents rarely give up powers of the office acquired by their predecessors (so it's no surprise that Gitmo remains open, that the wiretapping program hasn't been completely shut down, etc.)

I think they basically made many of the points, in the article, that I had made previously, and without reading the memo itself, it's tough to say exactly how these things were addressed. A lot of it depends on what "feasible" to capture him means, as well as the idea that "imminent" threats cannot be differentiated in an individual who is attempting at all times to harm the US. I disagree with both of these. Feasibility depends on a number of things: can we get to him, can the Yemenis get to him, will the Yemenis cooperate with our efforts, have we made efforts to get to him that have failed, is he perceived as being constantly on the move or is he relatively situated in one spot, etc. I agree that he can be killed if it isn't feasible to capture him; I would just like to know the definition of feasible used by the government in this. Furthermore, the idea of a perpetual "imminent" threat is absurd. If he's a planner, rather than someone carrying out attacks, then he himself doesn't pose the imminent threat. While he certainly contributes to the threat and is a criminal for doing so, that isn't the same. Imminence itself is a characteristic that is lacking in his acts. It's like comparing Osama bin Laden (or KSM) to the 9/11 hijackers. Had we caught those two planners an hour before the attacks of 9/11 then MAYBE the attacks are thwarted...but if they themselves know of its imminence and say nothing, then catching them makes no difference to that event. On the other hand, had all 9/11 hijackers been arrested that day, it's not as if Osama and KSM had a backup plane they were going to fly to NYC, right? I'm not saying the importance of one actor (planner vs. actual attacker) is more or less than the other --- indeed, they're both important and part of a cooperative operation --- simply that there is no "imminent" that can be applied to planners in the same way it can be applied to those who carry out planned violence. By the definition used in the article, Alwaki could have been sleeping, having sex, or taking a dump, and he'd still have been an "imminent" threat, which I can't buy.

So, make every effort to capture him and be willing to kill if the effort to capture fails...but don't tell me he's an imminent threat and that it isn't feasible to take him alive, just so we can drone strike him and be done with it.

Thanks for posting that article, freedom78.

We are in agreement about the less than noble motivations of White House lawyers - past and present.

I do recall President Obama taking an entirely different stance on the abuse of executive power involving torture and wiretapping under the Bush administration back in April of 2009 (http://www.usatoday....rogations_N.htm):

"President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics."

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," he (Obama) said.

The hypocrisy is blatant and sickening. I expect nothing less.

The release of partial, second-hand information is unacceptable. The full memorandum with all of the legal arguments should be released to the public. These arguments are nothing more than legal opinions. I must say that I was shocked by the ridiculous nature of some of the arguments.

How was it not feasible to capture Awlaki when the Yemeni government was fully cooperating with the US by providing his exact location?

How did Awlaki present an imminent threat to American lives?

Neither of those questions has been answered satisfactorily.

Additionally, even within the limited details of the legal opinions one can see the contradiction and flawed logic in determining whether or not this was approached as a military issue or a law enforcement issue. You can't have it both ways and choose whichever way you like to suit your agenda. This is of significant importance because the approach determines the legal parameters of government action. Let's see - the US government would have captured him and brought him to trial (law enforcement approach), but despite Yemen's cooperation we decided to assassinate him (military approach). High comedy.