Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[jimnyc]

Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him! :coffee:


The U.S. government has the right to order the killing of American citizens overseas if they are senior al-Qaeda leaders who pose an imminent terrorist threat and cannot reasonably be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday.

“Any decision to use lethal force against a United States citizen — even one intent on murdering Americans and who has become an operational leader of al-Qaeda in a foreign land — is among the gravest that government leaders can face,” Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school in Chicago. “The American people can be — and deserve to be — assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws.”

Holder’s discussion of lethal force against U.S. citizens did not mention any individual by name, but his address was clearly animated by the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior figure in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in September.

Since that operation, the Obama administration has faced calls to explain the legal framework behind its decision to target Awlaki and to release at least portions of a classified memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that contains its evidence, reasoning and conclusions.

Holder’s speech represented the administration’s most elaborate public explanation to date for targeted killings. And it followed a prolonged internal debate about how to inform the public about one of the most extraordinary decisions a government can take without explicitly acknowledging the ongoing classified drone program.

Among the most revealing parts of the speech was Holder’s discussion of some of the factors the administration reviews before deciding that an individual represents an “imminent threat.” He said the critical factors include the “relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”

He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”

The attorney general’s “flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’ is absolutely appropriate as applied to terrorist planners, but it may be unsettling to many in the international community who criticized President Bush for his principle of preemption,” said John B. Bellinger, who served as a legal adviser to the State Department in the George W. Bush administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/holder-us-can-lawfully-target-american-citizens/2012/03/05/gIQANknFtR_story.html

[ConHog]

first thing I thought when I seen this thread, was oh Lord, Rev gonna be up in arms now.

[jimnyc]

first thing I thought when I seen this thread, was oh Lord, Rev gonna be up in arms now.

I wish I had my hands on the controller of a drone. Just like playing a video game, I'd shoot the fuck out of a terrorist. I don't care if he's American, British, Iranian, Saudi Arabian.... matters little to me, if you're a terrorist, and you're plotting and/or have killed Americans or our interests, you deserve what every other terrorist gets - killed.

[revelarts]

well well,

Bush's Lawyer John Wu said it's legal to crush children's testicles to get info on in the war on terror, and Obama's Holder says it's legal to kill any terrorist ,so called, by their own standards anytime anywhere. Slippery Slope on presidential powers is fine though i guess. It's good to be the King.
They are all Lawyers Obama's a constitutional lawyer so, it's OK we can trust lawyers, to do what's right here.
A people like Jim will just kill anyone the gov't SAYS is a terrorist who MIGHT do something one day maybe. Those Pre-Criminals or Pre-Terrorist. Obama's Pre-Justice, no need for trials, no need for evidence... ever. Nat'l securty and all that, saynomore wink wink. that's the American way yes siree. Dictatorial execution powers in the hand of the president. It's legal Holder says so.

And Jim likes it.



there's a lot that i could say and post


but these 2 lines from the Declaration of Independence come to mind. In the part listing complaints about the old King you know"

"...For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences... "
<dl><dd>


this item from Brazil come top of mind too for some reason ...
</dd></dl><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWbIxFKtTmE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nWbIxFKtTmE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[jimnyc]

well well,

Bush's Lawyer John Wu said it's legal to crush children's testicles to get info on in the war on terror, and Obama's Holder says it's legal to kill any terrorist ,so called, by their own standards anytime anywhere. Slippery Slope on presidential powers is fine though i guess. It's good to be the King.
They are all Lawyers Obama's a constitutional lawyer so, it's OK we can trust lawyers, to do what's right here.
A people like Jim will just kill anyone the gov't SAYS is a terrorist who MIGHT do something one day maybe. Those Pre-Criminals or Pre-Terrorist. Obama's Pre-Justice, no need for trials, no need for evidence... ever. Nat'l securty and all that, saynomore wink wink. that's the American way yes siree. Dictatorial execution powers in the hand of the president. It's legal Holder says so.

And Jim likes it.<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"></object>

You're a full blown idiot. You foam at the mouth because you don't like our government, and you'll make any asinine statement you can to further your idiocy. NEVER have I said anything remotely to what I placed in bold. Furthermore, this discussion is about proven terrorists who perhaps might kill imminently.

Take the Xanax I prescribed and post again when the foaming subsides, and when you can't make a post without putting words in other peoples mouths. How many times does this make now that you have done this, Rev?

[jimnyc]

And try telling the "truth" about the John Yoo incident. It was another kook like you asking the idiotic question to him, he simply pointed out that no treaty existed to make it unlawful. He didn't go out of his way like Holder did in this instance, he had a fruit loop professor ask him a stupid ass question, so that down the road another kook can make it appear like Yoo is a testicle fiend.

[Intense]

Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him! :coffee:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/holder-us-can-lawfully-target-american-citizens/2012/03/05/gIQANknFtR_story.html

I understood that there were allegations against him, not proof. I understood too, that we had opportunities to arrest him and chose not to. Too much misinformation from this Administration. A day late and a dollar short.

[fj1200]

Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him! :coffee:

It's not the place of one branch of government to be legislature, judicial, and executioner. They should propose a law and get a Congressman to sponsor it, let it be hashed out and voted on, let it be reviewable, and then let the executive act.

[jimnyc]

I understood that there were allegations against him, not proof. I understood too, that we had opportunities to arrest him and chose not to. Too much misinformation from this Administration. A day late and a dollar short.

Read the lame wiki version alone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

There was MORE than enough proof to show he not only had ties to terrorism, but that he was one of the leaders of an Al Qaeda division. Even Yemen had him on their most wanted list. He was directly involved in the Fort Hood shootings that killed 13 American soldiers. There is a long and storied history between Awlaki and terrorism.

As for the arrests, first time I'm hearing about this. When? Where? Can you give us details? Either way though, doesn't excuse his terror activities and the planning/killing of Americans.

[DragonStryk72]

Rev, take a Xanax before reading this story in it's entirety, or a Valium. And then take another when you hear me say I am in 100% agreement with him! :coffee:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/holder-us-can-lawfully-target-american-citizens/2012/03/05/gIQANknFtR_story.html

Hm, I'm not strictly against, as really, a person wanting to kill hundreds of people is a person wanting to kill hundreds of people, and as our swears, we hold against all threats both foreign and domestic. However, it does need an appropriate degree of oversight on this. They need to have reasonable cause to believe he's getting ready to take lives, just like our SWAT snipers require before they take their shots.

And Jim, it's not as easy to take a life as you think. It's isn't like a video game, because if you shoot the wrong person in MW3, you just load the last checkpoint and get another shot.

[jimnyc]

Hm, I'm not strictly against, as really, a person wanting to kill hundreds of people is a person wanting to kill hundreds of people, and as our swears, we hold against all threats both foreign and domestic. However, it does need an appropriate degree of oversight on this. They need to have reasonable cause to believe he's getting ready to take lives, just like our SWAT snipers require before they take their shots.

And Jim, it's not as easy to take a life as you think. It's isn't like a video game, because if you shoot the wrong person in MW3, you just load the last checkpoint and get another shot.

I didn't mean to imply that it's easy. But if it's a terrorist on the other end, American or not, I wouldn't mind trying. Boldy put, put him in front of me and give me a high caliber weapon - I'll make sure I don't miss.

And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

[logroller]

It's not the place of one branch of government to be legislature, judicial, and executioner. They should propose a law and get a Congressman to sponsor it, let it be hashed out and voted on, let it be reviewable, and then let the executive act.

Oh, but that's so laborious-- we got war to win here. Not to mention, we can't have a bunch political/judicial activists making decisions-- there'd be anarchy. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists... pretty much sums it up. Though this one from Rev's Brazil video is pretty great "We're the government; we don't make mistakes." :laugh: classic. That's right up there with ...we're here to help.

[DragonStryk72]

I didn't mean to imply that it's easy. But if it's a terrorist on the other end, American or not, I wouldn't mind trying. Boldy put, put him in front of me and give me a high caliber weapon - I'll make sure I don't miss.

And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

The problem is what our definition of what a terrorist is because. right now, we do not have a real working definition other than "causes terror". Well, the nazis caused terror, lots of it, but they were clearly soldiers, AQ are easily labeled terrorists, but Taliban troops sort of fell into a quasi-state, along with the insurgents in Iraq.

A guy defending his home in the middle of a warzone with an AK-47 isn't necessarily a terrorist, regardless of what holy book he uses. If war broke out between Texas and Mexico tomorrow, with the Mexicans as the invaders, we wouldn't dream of calling Texans terrorists for whipping out their arsenal of firepower to defend themselves with (batshit insane might stick for some of them, but it's Texas).

[revelarts]

...
And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Why do all that when you LIKE what GW OBama's claims he got going now, no oversight, no judges, no congress, no constitutional authority, just ditatoral execution powers. are you saying you might be a bit mistaken here. that it might be to much? well, That's a step in the right direction Jim.


...
Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

So you say that MAybe the prez should have a Judge or Judges look at, I'd prefer a confidentiality bound grand jury of informed citizens. That'd be one standard.
now you add..

Known terrorist implies they've already harmed or attempted to harm, there'd be a standard of evidence for "known". NOT JUST "INTENT" as holder says.
Irrefutable Proof, takes it up another BIG notch, someone would have to be able to determine that, and the general public should be able to see that proof at some point.
we know an attack is imminent, Imminent is in the eye of the BE-holder as it stand now though. But if a Fixed time could be added to thw other items you've listed Is another nocth of higher in responsible response, If there was a law that could included all of these standard I'd be FAR less concerned.


Holder is no where NEAR what you've outlined Jim
"He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
“relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”
“flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’."


KNOWN Irrefutable are not in the cards
and Imminent could be 10 days 20 days 30days 1 year 2 years oneday
plan stages could be we have the maps the routes and know the explosive OR
we heard 2 guys talking about it.
and the president is the only one who would know for sure, Know at least what HE was told.

But why stop overseas, and what is an "attack" and what is "harm". I've posted several iems where Fatherland security has tried people AS terrorist who have done things like "counterfeit money". And other things that most people wouldn't consider anywhere near terrorist acts.

And the authority assumed is not warranted by the level of threat from the handful of terrorist around the world.
But you see the power as ONLY being used against those YOU understand to be you REAL mass murders, but the powers ASSUMED here is much broader than that. For you not to be alarmed by THAT is short sight and foolish. plan and simple.

[fj1200]

And I don't mind what your first paragraph addresses. They had years of intel on the guy. They should be addressing this with the national security committees. And maybe in cases like this they should be convening special committes and going before judges for determinations. I don't know. Hell, like FJ stated, I'm not against bringing it through congress and getting various laws passed to address these things. BUT...

Suppose laws are passed that make it acceptable to kill American citizens abroad, that are known terrorists, with irrefutable proof, and we know an attack is imminent. Even with all that said, people like Rev would whine because they STILL didn't get the same due process as others.

Sometimes you just have to let rev be rev and you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway.

IMO, bringing it through Congress should be what you are FOR not just that you're not AGAINST it. We have processes and hurdles, checks and balances, etc. for a reason, there is and should be high standards in place to act as a restraint.

[jimnyc]

Why do all that when you LIKE what GW OBama's claims he got going now, no oversight, no judges, no congress, no constitutional authority, just ditatoral execution powers. are you saying you might be a bit mistaken here. that it might be to much? well, That's a step in the right direction Jim.


So you say that MAybe the prez should have a Judge or Judges look at, I'd prefer a confidentiality bound grand jury of informed citizens. That'd be one standard.
now you add..

Known terrorist implies they've already harmed or attempted to harm, there'd be a standard of evidence for "known". NOT JUST "INTENT" as holder says.
Irrefutable Proof, takes it up another BIG notch, someone would have to be able to determine that, and the general public should be able to see that proof at some point.
we know an attack is imminent, Imminent is in the eye of the BE-holder as it stand now though. But if a Fixed time could be added to thw other items you've listed Is another nocth of higher in responsible response, If there was a law that could included all of these standard I'd be FAR less concerned.


Holder is no where NEAR what you've outlined Jim
"He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
“relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”
“flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’."


KNOWN Irrefutable are not in the cards
and Imminent could be 10 days 20 days 30days 1 year 2 years oneday
plan stages could be we have the maps the routes and know the explosive OR
we heard 2 guys talking about it.
and the president is the only one who would know for sure, Know at least what HE was told.

But why stop overseas, and what is an "attack" and what is "harm". I've posted several iems where Fatherland security has tried people AS terrorist who have done things like "counterfeit money". And other things that most people wouldn't consider anywhere near terrorist acts.

And the authority assumed is not warranted by the level of threat from the handful of terrorist around the world.
But you see the power as ONLY being used against those YOU understand to be you REAL mass murders, but the powers ASSUMED here is much broader than that. For you not to be alarmed by THAT is short sight and foolish. plan and simple.

You're the one who states that no one should be brought forth to answer for crimes until they actually kill someone, and that it needs to be a certain amount of deaths before it should be prosecuted.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes you just have to let rev be rev and you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway.

IMO, bringing it through Congress should be what you are FOR not just that you're not AGAINST it. We have processes and hurdles, checks and balances, etc. for a reason, there is and should be high standards in place to act as a restraint.

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

[revelarts]

.... you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway...

I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

[revelarts]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.
:facepalm99:
War on fear, war on hype, war on lies, war on terror,... sigh...

never ending war justifies all.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
~Alexis de Tocqueville

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive.
~C. S. Lewis


We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower




How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jimnyc]

Rev, just because you think there is a threshold of a certain amount of deaths needed before Americans can even investigate people, doesn't mean others have to think alike. I'm not the one who said there should be an individual investigation for each and every suspect and have congressional hearings before we can even eavesdrop on that person.

Btw - how do you think Ron Paul's ass feels today from the major spanking he received? LOL :laugh2:

[fj1200]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

We could always be in the midst of "war" so I think it best that we follow the methods of passing law that we have available to us. We should not be using circumstances to justify actions that would be unthinkable without the circumstances.


I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

I was using "ardent" in the specific circumstance that Jim pointed out. It was a... nicer... term than I could have used. :poke:

And you might want to actually consider my position before creating one for me.

[DragonStryk72]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

I really think that they need judicial review, as opposed to congressional, since it's a joint venture between Congress and the President, having the Judiciary do the oversight is proper as per our checks and balances as a nation.

[Intense]

Read the lame wiki version alone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

There was MORE than enough proof to show he not only had ties to terrorism, but that he was one of the leaders of an Al Qaeda division. Even Yemen had him on their most wanted list. He was directly involved in the Fort Hood shootings that killed 13 American soldiers. There is a long and storied history between Awlaki and terrorism.

As for the arrests, first time I'm hearing about this. When? Where? Can you give us details? Either way though, doesn't excuse his terror activities and the planning/killing of Americans.


(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

We are agreed that He was an Enemy. My reference is to poor form and poor public relations in how it was handled. Obviously, this Clown would have been a fountain of Information. That is lost now. The issue of proper form and due process was a problem. The Article I linked to does bring up a few issues. I will see what I can find on Awlaki's travels before the assassination.

[jimnyc]

We are agreed that He was an Enemy. My reference is to poor form and poor public relations in how it was handled. Obviously, this Clown would have been a fountain of Information. That is lost now. The issue of proper form and due process was a problem. The Article I linked to does bring up a few issues. I will see what I can find on Awlaki's travels before the assassination.

Killing a terrorist hell bent on killing American and/or our interests, is not assassination. We are at war with terrorism and he was a terrorist. You don't get to plan the killing of Americans, hide in another country and the Constitution.

What if it were a battlefield, and an American came charging at our troops? We try to tackle or subdue him in the name of "due process"? We shouldn't have to scour other countries for terrorists and figure out how to "police" them so that we can bring them back to the US to answer charges. If they're in another country, trying to kill Americans, then they are enemies just like other terrorists, and deserve to meet their maker.

[fj1200]

What if it were a battlefield, and an American came charging at our troops?

SCOTUS has already ruled on that one iirc. They haven't had a chance on the other.

[jimnyc]

SCOTUS has already ruled on that one iirc. They haven't had a chance on the other.

And for those wanting to call this an assassination - would you then agree that every terrorist that has been targeted, every enemy combatant that has been targeted - they've all been assassinated?

[fj1200]

And for those wanting to call this an assassination - would you then agree that every terrorist that has been targeted, every enemy combatant that has been targeted - they've all been assassinated?

Awlaki assassinated? I suppose that might be the correct definition since he was a leader but every terrorist/combatant targeted is not assassination. The question here though is American citizens and what rights they have.

[revelarts]

We are agreed that He was an Enemy. My reference is to poor form and poor public relations in how it was handled. Obviously, this Clown would have been a fountain of Information. That is lost now. The issue of proper form and due process was a problem. The Article I linked to does bring up a few issues. I will see what I can find on Awlaki's travels before the assassination.

Don't skip his "Hell Bent" trip to the pentagon where he was a guest. and somehow was not dangerous enough to be captured there either. Or that wa s before he turned evil, but wait I thought Muslims were Always evil and Hell Bent on killing ... I can't keep the propaganda strait. maybe i'm over thinking it
we are suppose to just forget about his visit to the pentagon, down the memory hole with that. keep the thinking clear here. He's an enemy of the state! he's always been and enemy of the state! We've alway been at war with the muslims we always have to kill 1st ask questions later... except the with Saudis with 9-11 terrorist connections um .. ok wait a minute.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/al-qaeda-cleric-awlaki-invited-pentagon-911/story?id=11935006#.T1jrvMwf9eQ

[Intense]

From the Court Case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf
and as next friend of Anwar Al-Aulaqi,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 10-1469 (JDB)
BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official
capacity as President of the United States;
ROBERT M. GATES, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Defense; and
LEON E. PANETTA, in his official
capacity as Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency,
Defendants.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from the United States's alleged policy of "authorizing, planning, and
carrying out targeted killings, including of U.S. citizens, outside the context of armed conflict."
See Compl. ¶ 13. Specifically, plaintiff, a Yemeni citizen, claims that the United States has
authorized the targeted killing of plaintiff’s son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, in violation of the
Constitution and international law. See id. ¶¶ 3-4, 9, 17, 21, 23.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi is a Muslim cleric with dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship, who is currently
believed to be in hiding in Yemen. See id. ¶¶ 9, 26; see also Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot.
to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mem.") [Docket Entry 15], at 1; Pl.'s Mem. in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for
Prelim. Inj. ("Pl.'s Mem.") [Docket Entry 3], Decl. of Ben Wizner ("Wizner Decl."), Ex. AA.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi was born in New Mexico in 1971, and spent much of his early life in the
United States, attending college at Colorado State University and receiving his master's degree
from San Diego State University before moving to Yemen in 2004. See Wizner Decl., Ex. AB,
Decl. of Dr. Nasser Al-Aulaqi ("Al-Aulaqi Decl.") ¶¶ 3-4. On July 16, 2010, the U.S. Treasury
-4-
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") designated Anwar Al-Aulaqi as a
Specially Designated Global Terrorist ("SDGT") in light of evidence that he was "acting for or on
behalf of al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)" and "providing financial, material or
technological support for, or other services to or in support of, acts of terrorism[.]" See Defs.'
Mem. at 6-7 (quoting Designation of ANWAR AL-AULAQI Pursuant to Executive Order 13224
and the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 594, 75 Fed. Reg. 43233 (July
16, 2010)) (hereinafter, "OFAC Designation"). In its designation, OFAC explained that Anwar
Al-Aulaqi had "taken on an increasingly operational role" in AQAP since late 2009, as he
"facilitated training camps in Yemen in support of acts of terrorism" and provided "instructions"
to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of attempting to detonate a bomb aboard a
Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day 2009. See OFAC Designation.
Media sources have also reported ties between Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Nidal Malik Hasan, the
U.S. Army Major suspected of killing 13 people in a November 2009 shooting at Fort Hood,
Texas. See, e.g., Wizner Decl., Exs. E, F, H, J, L, M, V, W. According to a January 2010 Los
Angeles Times article, unnamed "U.S. officials" have discovered that Anwar Al-Aulaqi and
Hasan exchanged as many as eighteen e-mails prior to the Fort Hood shootings. See id., Ex. E.
Recently, Anwar Al-Aulaqi has made numerous public statements calling for "jihad
against the West," praising the actions of "his students" Abdulmutallab and Hasan, and asking
others to "follow suit." See, e.g., Wizner Decl., Ex. V; Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s Opp. to Defs.' Mot. to
Dismiss ("Defs.' Reply") [Docket Entry 29], Exs. 1-2; Defs.' Mem., Ex. 1, Unclassified Decl. of
James R. Clapper, Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence ("Clapper Decl.") ¶ 16. Michael Leiter, Director of
the National Counterterrorism Center, has explained that Anwar Al-Aulaqi's "familiarity with the
-5-
West" is a "key concern[]" for the United States, see Defs.' Mem., Ex. 3, and media sources have
similarly cited Anwar Al-Aulaqi's ability to communicate with an English-speaking audience as a
source of "particular concern" to U.S. officials, see Wizner Decl., Ex. V. But despite the United
States's expressed "concern" regarding Anwar Al-Aulaqi's "familiarity with the West" and his
"role in AQAP," see Defs.' Mem., Ex. 3, the United States has not yet publicly charged Anwar
Al-Aulaqi with any crime. See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp.")
[Docket Entry 25], at 9. For his part, Anwar Al-Aulaqi has made clear that he has no intention of
making himself available for criminal prosecution in U.S. courts, remarking in a May 2010
AQAP video interview that he "will never surrender" to the United States, and that "[i]f the
Americans want me, [they can] come look for me." See Wizner Decl., Ex. V; see also Clapper
Decl. ¶ 16; Defs.' Mem. at 14 n.5 (quoting Anwar Al-Aulaqi as stating, "I have no intention of
turning myself in to [the Americans]. If they want me, let them search for me.").
Plaintiff does not deny his son's affiliation with AQAP or his designation as a SDGT.
Rather, plaintiff challenges his son's alleged unlawful inclusion on so-called "kill lists" that he
contends are maintained by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command ("JSOC"). See
Pl.'s Mem. at 5; see also Compl. ¶¶ 3, 19. In support of his claim that the United States has
placed Anwar Al-Aulaqi on "kill lists," plaintiff cites a number of media reports, which attribute
their information to anonymous U.S. military and intelligence sources. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 19;
Pl.'s Mem. at 5; Wizner Decl., Exs. F, H, L. For example, in January 2010, The Washington Post
reported that, according to unnamed military officials, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was on "a shortlist of
U.S. citizens" that JSOC was authorized to kill or capture.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

[Intense]

The Anwar Awlaki Timeline

Contents:

Early years in America
Busted for Prostitution
The 9/11 Plot
Yemen
Fort Hood
Christmas Day Bombing
U.S. response: Airstrike in Yemen
CIA Takes Over Drone Attacks
Death

http://awlaki.sethhettena.com/

[revelarts]

And for those wanting to call this an assassination - would you then agree that every terrorist that has been targeted, every enemy combatant that has been targeted - they've all been assassinated?


If they were driving down the street or the like peaceful activity, not attacking anyone else at the time. Yes Absolutely they were assassinated.

[Intense]

I guess my principle concern is how we set precedent for targeted assassination and Drone Surveillance and attacks. We will not be the only Power in the Future, with this capability. I would not expect everything to be Transparent to those that do not need to know, yet I would Expect the highest level of Checks and Balances, Good Form, Proper Procedure, and Everyone in the Loop up to speed.

[jimnyc]

Awlaki assassinated? I suppose that might be the correct definition since he was a leader but every terrorist/combatant targeted is not assassination. The question here though is American citizens and what rights they have.

Being an American citizen doesn't make it an assassination. And being a leader doesn't make it one either. Nor does due process. If this man was "assassinated", so was Bin Laden, Zawahri and other terrorists that were targeted.

[Intense]

If they were driving down the street or the like peaceful activity, not attacking anyone else at the time. Yes Absolutely they were assassinated.

I'd agree. I do think it it was Justified, we need to clean up the means though.

[jimnyc]

Don't skip his "Hell Bent" trip to the pentagon where he was a guest. and somehow was not dangerous enough to be captured there either. Or that wa s before he turned evil, but wait I thought Muslims were Always evil and Hell Bent on killing ... I can't keep the propaganda strait. maybe i'm over thinking it
we are suppose to just forget about his visit to the pentagon, down the memory hole with that. keep the thinking clear here. He's an enemy of the state! he's always been and enemy of the state! We've alway been at war with the muslims we always have to kill 1st ask questions later... except the with Saudis with 9-11 terrorist connections um .. ok wait a minute.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/al-qaeda-cleric-awlaki-invited-pentagon-911/story?id=11935006#.T1jrvMwf9eQ

Hey, it wasn't me who said we couldn't even go as far as a background check on a terrorist unless we have bonafide proof that he killed at least 10 Americans, that was you.

[jimnyc]

If they were driving down the street or the like peaceful activity, not attacking anyone else at the time. Yes Absolutely they were assassinated.

An assassination also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that they were doing at the time of their killing. A dictionary can be your friend sometimes.

[Intense]

Being an American citizen doesn't make it an assassination. And being a leader doesn't make it one either. Nor does due process. If this man was "assassinated", so was Bin Laden, Zawahri and other terrorists that were targeted.

I agree. Maybe in the same way a Cop might choose to either Arrest or
Shoot to Kill an Armed Robber, based on circumstance, or arbitrarily.

Sometimes during a crime or after the fact, shit happens. A Sworn Enemy of the State, is still a sworn enemy of the State, whether involved with a plot or not, whether awake or asleep.

My question would be... Where and When can Drones Legally and Officially act with impunity? Under what terms? Does the same hold for the competition?

[jimnyc]

I agree. Maybe in the same way a Cop might choose to either Arrest or
Shoot to Kill an Armed Robber, based on circumstance, or arbitrarily.

Sometimes during a crime or after the fact, shit happens. A Sworn Enemy of the State, is still a sworn enemy of the State, whether involved with a plot or not, whether awake or asleep.

My question would be... Where and When can Drones Legally and Officially act with impunity? Under what terms? Does the same hold for the competition?

Good questions, and most definitely need clarification. This "war on terrorism" is still very young, as are the drones, and the "game plan" from both the US and terrorists changes daily.

And of course it should be the same for the "competition". If an American is targeting their citizens in terror attacks, they should be able to target him/her for death. Someone should have done that to this piece of garbage and saved us this debate.

[revelarts]

An assassination also has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that they were doing at the time of their killing. A dictionary can be your friend sometimes.

yes it can
as·sas·si·nate  [uh-sas-uh-neyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

1. to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack

My reference was in contrast to someone killed in Battle. Like in a real war. Or even a killed in a stand off like a bank criminal.

Assassinate is the right word.
When a car bomb kills a mob guy it's an assassination.
own it Jim

[jimnyc]

yes it can
as·sas·si·nate  [uh-sas-uh-neyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

1. to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack

My reference was in contrast to someone killed in Battle. Like in a real war. Or even a killed in a stand off like a bank criminal.

Assassinate is the right word.
When a car bomb kills a mob guy it's an assassination.
own it Jim

Well, then we are guilty of assassinating MANY, MANY terrorists in the past 10 years. The horror of it all.

Nonetheless, it was you yourself who stated we aren't even allowed to shoot at the enemy on the battlefield unless they shoot at us first. Wacky.

[Intense]

Good questions, and most definitely need clarification. This "war on terrorism" is still very young, as are the drones, and the "game plan" from both the US and terrorists changes daily.

And of course it should be the same for the "competition". If an American is targeting their citizens in terror attacks, they should be able to target him/her for death. Someone should have done that to this piece of garbage and saved us this debate.

My concern would by more directed at China or Russia.

[revelarts]

Hey, it wasn't me who said we couldn't even go as far as a background check on a terrorist unless we have bonafide proof that he killed at least 10 Americans, that was you.

the Pentagon couldn't get a background check LOL!:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

Being an American citizen doesn't make it an assassination. And being a leader doesn't make it one either. Nor does due process. If this man was "assassinated", so was Bin Laden, Zawahri and other terrorists that were targeted.

Not sure what dictionary you're using but I would probably put it in the assassinate category based on below. I don't know about Zawahiri but bin Laden a capture was attempted so not assassinated. Awlaki was also not committing a crime at the time of attack.


as·sas·si·nate  [uh-sas-uh-neyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

1. to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack


Good questions, and most definitely need clarification. This "war on terrorism" is still very young, as are the drones, and the "game plan" from both the US and terrorists changes daily.

And of course it should be the same for the "competition". If an American is targeting their citizens in terror attacks, they should be able to target him/her for death. Someone should have done that to this piece of garbage and saved us this debate.

The WOT is not that young that we need to be making decisions like this completely by one branch of government. Congress has been a fail on this IMO and judicial has not even had a chance to comment outside of the Awlaki suit brought by his father though the courts have made a few decisions on some WOT policies and they are not always siding with the Executive. That last part should cause some concern for the administrations position.

[DragonStryk72]

And for those wanting to call this an assassination - would you then agree that every terrorist that has been targeted, every enemy combatant that has been targeted - they've all been assassinated?

Um yes, whether or not it was the right thing to do, it's still assassination. Any time where you have a person or drone killing a person who is not directly attacking you, and you take him out from the shadows, or some other covert way, that's an assassination. So yeah, it's an assassination, not a "targeted killing", which is basically the definition of assassinating someone when you get down to it.

Now assassination gets a bad rap, really, because it of course brings to mind assassins, a career we see as being a purely illicit one. However, assassinating a target can be a way to prevent the greater loss of life, both to our allies, innocent bystanders, and to enemies. In an assassination, it's most usually one person taking a shot at one exact person, as opposed to a breach assault, where you have moments of chaos where any number can be killed on both sides. This is where so many get killed or wounded by friendly fire, because in those moments of the breach there are sounds coming from every direction, and all involved have a sense of imminent danger that can override reason with instinct.

[jimnyc]

Not sure what dictionary you're using but I would probably put it in the assassinate category based on below. I don't know about Zawahiri but bin Laden a capture was attempted so not assassinated. Awlaki was also not committing a crime at the time of attack.

The WOT is not that young that we need to be making decisions like this completely by one branch of government. Congress has been a fail on this IMO and judicial has not even had a chance to comment outside of the Awlaki suit brought by his father though the courts have made a few decisions on some WOT policies and they are not always siding with the Executive. That last part should cause some concern for the administrations position.

By #2 in the definition, any drug dealer who conspires and plans to kill the competition, would therefore be performing an assassination.

And, like stated earlier, then EVERY major terrorist we have targeted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere - all assassinations. Bitch about one then bitch about all - being an American doesn't make it any more/less of an "assassination".

[jimnyc]

Um yes, whether or not it was the right thing to do, it's still assassination. Any time where you have a person or drone killing a person who is not directly attacking you, and you take him out from the shadows, or some other covert way, that's an assassination. So yeah, it's an assassination, not a "targeted killing", which is basically the definition of assassinating someone when you get down to it.

Now assassination gets a bad rap, really, because it of course brings to mind assassins, a career we see as being a purely illicit one. However, assassinating a target can be a way to prevent the greater loss of life, both to our allies, innocent bystanders, and to enemies. In an assassination, it's most usually one person taking a shot at one exact person, as opposed to a breach assault, where you have moments of chaos where any number can be killed on both sides. This is where so many get killed or wounded by friendly fire, because in those moments of the breach there are sounds coming from every direction, and all involved have a sense of imminent danger that can override reason with instinct.

I guess I can agree with this. But rather than just saying we killed a terrorist, MANY are declaring Awlaki an assassination, unlike other killings in the exact same department, to somehow "strengthen" their argument - like "Oh no, the US is assassinating it's own citizens!". Nope, we simply took out a stinking terrorist hell bent on killing Americans and has already been a leader of Al Qaeda orchestrating attacks.

[fj1200]

By #2 in the definition, any drug dealer who conspires and plans to kill the competition, would therefore be performing an assassination.

And, like stated earlier, then EVERY major terrorist we have targeted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere - all assassinations. Bitch about one then bitch about all - being an American doesn't make it any more/less of an "assassination".

Except the "especially political or public figure" part. My definition would include state-sponsored but why quibble over a definition? Whatever you prefer to call it the issue is Awlaki is/was an American citizen.

[jimnyc]

Except the "especially political or public figure" part. My definition would include state-sponsored but why quibble over a definition? Whatever you prefer to call it the issue is Awlaki is/was an American citizen.

Right, it says "especially", which would infer it's not solely related to those 2, but widely used in that manner.

A citizen that chose to join a terrorist group and work to kill Americans and was further working to kill more Americans. He wanted to be a terrorist, so he was treated like one. And I do hope you're right, that this matter gets settle before the courts/congress/judicial, as quite frankly, I don't see too awful much support going to terrorists on foreign soil who are planning attacks, citizen or not.

[fj1200]

Right, it says "especially", which would infer it's not solely related to those 2, but widely used in that manner.

A citizen that chose to join a terrorist group and work to kill Americans and was further working to kill more Americans. He wanted to be a terrorist, so he was treated like one. And I do hope you're right, that this matter gets settle before the courts/congress/judicial, as quite frankly, I don't see too awful much support going to terrorists on foreign soil who are planning attacks, citizen or not.

Sure. That is primary in my mind but your drug dealer could be assassinating the leader of a rival gang. I'm pretty sure I've heard that used on the tough streets of CSI. :laugh:

I have no love lost for Awlaki and he likely should have been taken out, it just needs to be done legally. I think an Article I court could do quite nicely here.

[jimnyc]

Sure. That is primary in my mind but your drug dealer could be assassinating the leader of a rival gang. I'm pretty sure I've heard that used on the tough streets of CSI. :laugh:

I have no love lost for Awlaki and he likely should have been taken out, it just needs to be done legally. I think an Article I court could do quite nicely here.

Then we are in agreement. I think they should go forward and have this exact issue addressed, so there can be no argument next time. Until then, I'm not going to lose much sleep.

And I think it was NCIS, or NCIS:LA, I'm not a big fan of CSI. :)

[logroller]

Except the "especially political or public figure" part. My definition would include state-sponsored but why quibble over a definition? Whatever you prefer to call it the issue is Awlaki is/was an American citizen.

The court's reasoning for dismissal of Awlaki (whatever his name is) was interesting and made sense.

His father brought the suit, supposedly in his son's interest- but the court found that his son's actions didn't resemble the father's declaration of acting in his son's best interest. Quite the opposite in fact, and that he not only failed to avail himself of legal protection, but deriding US law and indicated he, as a Muslim, shall never be held to the standards of US law. So he can't reject wholly the laws of the US and coextensively expect their protection-- so in effect, he waived any right to declaratory relief under the US Constitution.

[fj1200]

... so in effect, he waived any right to declaratory relief under the US Constitution.

I don't recall the judge seeing it that way.

[logroller]

Ha
I don't recall the judge seeing it that way.
Under article iii, yea-- that's why they dismissed it. Alwaki showed no interest in seeking constitutional relief. Did you read it; they mentioned it multiple times.

[Wind Song]

How is it we think we have the right to "take out" other countries duly elected heads of state?

[Gaffer]

How is it we think we have the right to "take out" other countries duly elected heads of state?

Since when was Awlaki a head of state?

[jimnyc]

How is it we think we have the right to "take out" other countries duly elected heads of state?

I believe you're mistaken as to who Alwaki is - he's an American citizen, but also was an Al Qaeda terrorist. This thread has little to nothing to do with killing legit heads of state.

[jimnyc]

The court's reasoning for dismissal of Awlaki (whatever his name is) was interesting and made sense.

His father brought the suit, supposedly in his son's interest- but the court found that his son's actions didn't resemble the father's declaration of acting in his son's best interest. Quite the opposite in fact, and that he not only failed to avail himself of legal protection, but deriding US law and indicated he, as a Muslim, shall never be held to the standards of US law. So he can't reject wholly the laws of the US and coextensively expect their protection-- so in effect, he waived any right to declaratory relief under the US Constitution.

Interesting. I hadn't read this yet. I'm going to look, but do you know where I can find the text of the decision?

[Wind Song]

I believe you're mistaken as to who Alwaki is - he's an American citizen, but also was an Al Qaeda terrorist. This thread has little to nothing to do with killing legit heads of state.
My mistake.

[jimnyc]

One piece I just found on a dumb site, not the whole text though, but worth posting for discussion:


"Can a U.S. citizen – himself or through another – use the U.S. judicial system to vindicate his constitutional rights while simultaneously evading U.S. law enforcement authorities, calling for 'jihad against the West,' and engaging in operational planning for an organization that has already carried out numerous terrorist attacks against the United States?," Bates asked.

I can't wait until the courts truly address this issue. And even after they do, and if they give the OK on such instances as this with Alwaki, I'll bet 100-1 odds that "some people" will STILL bitch and STILL claim it to be unconstitutional.

[jimnyc]

My mistake.

I made one of those once. :)

[Wind Song]

I made one of those once. :)
I'm embarassed to admit why I made the mistake. I can't keep those arabic names straight. I thought you guys were talking about taking out the head of Afghanistan that we basically appointed.

[jimnyc]

More on the judge's decision. Notice where it states "the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:" - If those questions offer insight to what the courts would want, the evidence would be abundantly against Awlaki.


Since late 2009, al-Awlaki "has taken on an increasingly operational role in AQAP," said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in a statement filed in the court case in August. Awlaki, Clapper said, has recruited terrorists and planned and facilitated attacks in the United States and abroad. IPT News has reported many of Anwar al-Awlaki's terrorist connections, linking him to the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bomb plot, and the failed Times Square attack. "He has involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism—fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents," the U.S. government explained in designating him.

As important as the issues presented in this case are, Bates' opinion suggests he is unwilling to expand judicial access to an individual who has expressed no such interest. "Whatever the reason for Anwar al-Awlaki's failure to seek legal redress for his alleged inclusion on the CIA and JSOC 'kill lists' – a mistrust of or disdain for the American judicial system, a desire to become a martyr, or a mere lack of interest in pursuing a case thousands of miles away from his current location," the court refused to expand access to al-Awlaki.

In addition to dismissing on grounds that Nasser al-Awlaki lacked standing to bring the suit, the court explained that the case was ultimately outside of the purview of federal courts. In a major victory for the executive branch's role in setting counter-terrorism policy, the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:

the precise nature and extent of Anwar al-Awlaki's affiliation with AQAP;

whether AQAP and al-Qaida are so closely linked that the defendants' targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen would come within the United States' current armed conflict with al Qaida;

whether (assuming plaintiff's proffered legal standard applies) Anwar al-Awlaki's alleged terrorist activity renders him a 'concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety."

These considerations, the court acknowledged, are simply not within the purview of federal courts. "It is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." Although the procedures remain classified, a Pentagon document titled "Joint Targeting Cycle and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology," shed some light on the procedures for targeted identified terrorists.

Clearly, Bates expressed discomfort with the decision. "This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicial unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120812272/us/homeland-security/judge-dismisses-al-awlaki-suit.html

[logroller]

How is it we think we have the right to "take out" other countries duly elected heads of state?
It's not so much a right as it is a power.

[Intense]

More on the judge's decision. Notice where it states "the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:" - If those questions offer insight to what the courts would want, the evidence would be abundantly against Awlaki.



http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120812272/us/homeland-security/judge-dismisses-al-awlaki-suit.html

Agreed, the arguments are overwhelmingly compelling, and would have supported the action, had they been brought to light at the time.

[revelarts]

For some reason, reading you guys making excuses for the Gov't to assassinate Americans (or torture, or jail without trials or Spy without warrants) reminds me of this cartoon.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LyPFQKpRnd0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LyPFQKpRnd0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

but makes sense of it any way you want , I'm not on the same planet as many of you. carry on.

[jimnyc]

The fact that this discussion reminds you of cartoons is very telling, and can explain a few things.

[DragonStryk72]

I guess I can agree with this. But rather than just saying we killed a terrorist, MANY are declaring Awlaki an assassination, unlike other killings in the exact same department, to somehow "strengthen" their argument - like "Oh no, the US is assassinating it's own citizens!". Nope, we simply took out a stinking terrorist hell bent on killing Americans and has already been a leader of Al Qaeda orchestrating attacks.

yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.

[jimnyc]

yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.

I can agree with all you're saying. :beer:

BUT, I still will add, that MANY other terrorists fall into the almost identical category. And I find it odd that none of them were ever discussed as assassinations.

[logroller]

yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.
I wouldn't say it's wrong...problematic maybe, but not wrong. I think taking him out of a position he can do harm to America is absolutely right!

Fact is he acted lawfully; if he had broke any treaties or other relevant law he could be impeached by congress-- that's the check!

As for balance, The CIC is responsible for administering to foreign threats for good reason, because if you needed some committee to approve every military action the military would be rendered expediant as Congress.


something is usually considered tobe good if it performs it's function well-- the military/ CIA did what they are entrusted to do IMO. Gather information on, subvert and eliminate threats to national security--they did, successfully!

[DragonStryk72]

I wouldn't say it's wrong...problematic maybe, but not wrong. I think taking him out of a position he can do harm to America is absolutely right!

Fact is he acted lawfully; if he had broke any treaties or other relevant law he could be impeached by congress-- that's the check!

As for balance, The CIC is responsible for administering to foreign threats for good reason, because if you needed some committee to approve every military action the military would be rendered expediant as Congress.


something is usually considered tobe good if it performs it's function well-- the military/ CIA did what they are entrusted to do IMO. Gather information on, subvert and eliminate threats to national security--they did, successfully!

Except that congress is already involved in this, and this is a matter of evidentiary support, which falls within the Judiciary. An American terrorist constitutes a domestic threat, not a foreign one. I'm not talking about getting committee approval, but having the Judiciary looking over the evidence used to determine the need to take him out in the action is not undue, since it would work the same as when SWAT has one of their snipers take someone out, having it examined by Internal Affairs to be certain whether it was a lawful shooting, and taking appropriate action.

As to Jim's point about terminology: Well, yeah, because like I said, we use assassin as a pejorative. It's used to make it seem illicit automatically, just like when we use "enemy combatant" I'm like, "yeah, troops and soldiers." Our laws are actually pretty clearly when it comes right down to it, and so now the popular thing for our leaders to do to get around them is to sling some bull about the terms. It would be like me saying that I never got a blowjob from a girl, just an "oral relaxant".

To Wind Song: No one is talking about taking out the duly elected heads of state, but instead taking out AQ cell leaders, who are planning to kill our people and others.

[logroller]

Interesting. I hadn't read this yet. I'm going to look, but do you know where I can find the text of the decision?
Sorry just noticed your request
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

[logroller]

Except that congress is already involved in this, and this is a matter of evidentiary support, which falls within the Judiciary. An American terrorist constitutes a domestic threat, not a foreign one.

Isn't it the relative location that determines a foreign vs domestic threat, and not one's national origin?

if I tried to blow up Country B's embassy located in Country A-- I am a domestic threat within Country A, and at the same time a foreign threat to Country B. (Assuming mutual and peaceful diplomatic interests)
If I did so from Country C, I'm a foreign threat to both; regardless of my national origin.



I'm not talking about getting committee approval, but having the Judiciary looking over the evidence used to determine the need to take him out in the action is not undue, since it would work the same as when SWAT has one of their snipers take someone out, having it examined by Internal Affairs to be certain whether it was a lawful shooting, and taking appropriate action.
In your example its still reviewed under executive purview, not judicial.

As to Jim's point about terminology: Well, yeah, because like I said, we use assassin as a pejorative. It's used to make it seem illicit automatically, just like when we use "enemy combatant" I'm like, "yeah, troops and soldiers." Our laws are actually pretty clearly when it comes right down to it, and so now the popular thing for our leaders to do to get around them is to sling some bull about the terms. It would be like me saying that I never got a blowjob from a girl, just an "oral relaxant".


Often 'political' is a pejorative too. I totally agree that things are intentionally vilified; and sometimes just the opposite, its played down; as in "it's not torture-- its non-traditional interrogation" :rolleyes:

[SassyLady]

Isn't it the relative location that determines a foreign vs domestic threat, and not one's national origin?

if I tried to blow up Country B's embassy located in Country A-- I am a domestic threat within Country A, and at the same time a foreign threat to Country B. (Assuming mutual and peaceful diplomatic interests)
If I did so from Country C, I'm a foreign threat to both; regardless of my national origin.



In your example its still reviewed under executive purview, not judicial.


Often 'political' is a pejorative too. I totally agree that things are intentionally vilified; and sometimes just the opposite, its played down; as in "it's not torture-- its non-traditional interrogation" :rolleyes:

Help, I'm lost. I must be tired because I'm totally confused about what country I'm in right now! I'm not a threat to anyone.

:laugh:

[logroller]

Help, I'm lost. I must be tired because I'm totally confused about what country I'm in right now! I'm not a threat to anyone.

:laugh:
I hope its confusing enough to keep me off the radar. :whistling2:

[revelarts]

yes, and we did it by assassinating him. It's just a term for methodology, in that it was covert, and specifically intentioned to make it a surprise attack on him with the sole goal of killing him.

My only issue here is that the same people who have started using it are also the people who are the oversight on it, and that is wrong, regardless of how we feel about the assassinations themselves, proper checks and balances need to be observed so that everything is above board.
yep. the blatant claim of execution powers out of nothing, is wrong.
But If the situation was approached with your basic outline in mind from the begining. the whole business possibly could be worked out in a way that was somewhat close to legally sound. However we're still left with the due process problem. Which is Congressional territory, and they've flubbed the job already.




I wouldn't say it's wrong...problematic maybe, but not wrong. I think taking him out of a position he can do harm to America is absolutely right!
I would say there's a wrong way to do a right thing. and Executions of Americans by executive fiat is WRONG.



Fact is he acted lawfully; if he had broke any treaties or other relevant law he could be impeached by congress-- that's the check!
If congress had a backbone and some didn't think like many on this board that the ends justifies the means, unintended consequences be d-mned. Sure Maybe that's a check, It should be one. The fact is he does not have the authority. so he's broken the law , Again. Plus The Judicial has authority over death penalties.
And since when is assassinating Americans "lawful"?



As for balance, The CIC is responsible for administering to foreign threats for good reason, because if you needed some committee to approve every military action the military would be rendered expediant as Congress.

something is usually considered tobe good if it performs it's function well-- the military/ CIA did what they are entrusted to do IMO. Gather information on, subvert and eliminate threats to national security--they did, successfully!
Terrorism is not a State threat. It's like Gangs or Pirates. And there's still no legal or lawful framework for Preemptive strikes, on Foreign states, let alone Gangs, pirates or terrorist.


Except that congress is already involved in this, and this is a matter of evidentiary support, which falls within the Judiciary. An American terrorist constitutes a domestic threat, not a foreign one. I'm not talking about getting committee approval, but having the Judiciary looking over the evidence used to determine the need to take him out in the action is not undue, since it would work the same as when SWAT has one of their snipers take someone out, having it examined by Internal Affairs to be certain whether it was a lawful shooting, and taking appropriate action.

As to Jim's point about terminology: Well, yeah, because like I said, we use assassin as a pejorative. It's used to make it seem illicit automatically, just like when we use "enemy combatant" I'm like, "yeah, troops and soldiers." Our laws are actually pretty clearly when it comes right down to it, and so now the popular thing for our leaders to do to get around them is to sling some bull about the terms. It would be like me saying that I never got a blowjob from a girl, just an "oral relaxant".

...
yep, at the least.

[fj1200]

Ha
Under article iii, yea-- that's why they dismissed it. Alwaki showed no interest in seeking constitutional relief. Did you read it; they mentioned it multiple times.

Sorry just noticed your request
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

Not in awhile. Thanks for the link.


More on the judge's decision. Notice where it states "the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:" - If those questions offer insight to what the courts would want, the evidence would be abundantly against Awlaki.


In addition to dismissing on grounds that Nasser al-Awlaki lacked standing to bring the suit, the court explained that the case was ultimately outside of the purview of federal courts. In a major victory for the executive branch's role in setting counter-terrorism policy, the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:



the precise nature and extent of Anwar al-Awlaki's affiliation with AQAP;
whether AQAP and al-Qaida are so closely linked that the defendants' targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen would come within the United States' current armed conflict with al Qaida;
whether (assuming plaintiff's proffered legal standard applies) Anwar al-Awlaki's alleged terrorist activity renders him a 'concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety."


These considerations, the court acknowledged, are simply not within the purview of federal courts. "It is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." Although the procedures remain classified, a Pentagon document titled "Joint Targeting Cycle and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology," shed some light on the procedures for targeted identified terrorists.

Clearly, Bates expressed discomfort with the decision. "This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicial unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120812272/us/homeland-security/judge-dismisses-al-awlaki-suit.html

I don't think anyone is really questioning the evidence against Awlaki, more the process in which we deprive a citizen of their rights and protections.

I think the first two point ARE within the courts purview because it relates to evidence; is he affiliated with AQAP? Are they linked? The answer likely being yes and easily provable. The third is he an imminent threat? Is that the question? Do we "convict" on what he might do or do we convict on the basis of what he did do? I think it's pretty clear on what he did do so he can be "convicted" based on the evidence. I definitely don't want to be giving power to one branch of government based on what he might do.

I think the author overstates that it was a "major victory" in setting policy because that isn't the question. The executive can set the policy but they can't act as all three branches in carrying it out.

[logroller]

I don't think anyone is really questioning the evidence against Awlaki, more the process in which we deprive a citizen of their rights and protections.

I think the first two point ARE within the courts purview because it relates to evidence; is he affiliated with AQAP? Are they linked? The answer likely being yes and easily provable. The third is he an imminent threat? Is that the question? Do we "convict" on what he might do or do we convict on the basis of what he did do? I think it's pretty clear on what he did do so he can be "convicted" based on the evidence. I definitely don't want to be giving power to one branch of government based on what he might do.

I think the author overstates that it was a "major victory" in setting policy because that isn't the question. The executive can set the policy but they can't act as all three branches in carrying it out.

Was it the process which failed to protect his rights, or him? He rejected, wholly, the process by which his rights are protected under the Constitution. He wasn't killed merely for might do alone..he did orchestrate terror attacks, he did call for a Jihad on America-- so he was killed for what he might, and would, do again.
I understand what you're saying I think-- you're suggesting we should have granted him a trial in absentia, in stark contrast to his own interests and wishes. It seems to me he expressed his rightful intention to never be brought to justice while alive-- we granted his request. "I think that's what Awlaki wanted"

[fj1200]

Was it the process which failed to protect his rights, or him? He rejected, wholly, the process by which his rights are protected under the Constitution. He wasn't killed merely for might do alone..he did orchestrate terror attacks, he did call for a Jihad on America-- so he was killed for what he might, and would, do again.
I understand what you're saying I think-- you're suggesting we should have granted him a trial in absentia, in stark contrast to his own interests and wishes. It seems to me he expressed his rightful intention to never be brought to justice while alive-- we granted his request. "I think that's what Awlaki wanted"

To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished. The process surely didn't protect his rights, the Constitution is pretty clear IMO on how your rights are processed. They even have a special section for treason so it's not unreasonable that we can grant protections even to the most vile. He could have been prosecuted for what he did do and taken out for punishment and for what he might do. Again, Congress is at fail here because to this point they have not addressed this scenario which I believe is in their power. I actually think the Executive should be aggressive in carrying out their national security role but they have to be checked by the other two branches. I'm stunned that this is even a point of argument.

[logroller]

To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished.

IF law is to be considered just by perception alone, than i guess so.

Certainly prudence plays a part in the consideration; but from a purely subjective standpoint-- if you deny the enforcement of a law, you can't very well be afforded its protection-- Two-way street.

[fj1200]

IF law is to be considered just by perception alone, than i guess so.

fyi, I added to my post. :)

[logroller]

fyi, I added to my post. :)

ditto:laugh:

[logroller]

To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished. The process surely didn't protect his rights, the Constitution is pretty clear IMO on how your rights are processed. They even have a special section for treason so it's not unreasonable that we can grant protections even to the most vile. He could have been prosecuted for what he did do and taken out for punishment and for what he might do. Again, Congress is at fail here because to this point they have not addressed this scenario which I believe is in their power. I actually think the Executive should be aggressive in carrying out their national security role but they have to be checked by the other two branches. I'm stunned that this is even a point of argument.

I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.

[fj1200]

ditto:laugh:

Too-shay. :slap:


I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.

Constitutionally prescribed autonomy which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.

[logroller]

Too-shay. :slap:



Constitutionally prescribed autonomy which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.
No arguments on most of this.
Except I think the judiciary is the forum, pending Awlaki himself having expressed a willingness for the courts to redress his grievance. He did not; and I think it stands to reason he was aware of his right to do so. He chose not to, for whatever reasons; but regardless, I don't believe any procedural change (save Sharia law) would have compelled Awlaki to submit to the authority of the US Government. Thus, any changes based on the specifics of the case at hand are moot.

[revelarts]

Too-shay. :slap:



Constitutionally prescribed autonomy --exactly-- which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. --if that's constitutional-- The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.
as an aside gripe that will probably get little traction.
STANDING in this case and others is another issue that seems to leave "the people" hung out to dry. But in this case If we used the same/similar standards used by the last and current Presidents then every American would have "standing".
Terrorist MIGHT kill us, they have threatened us and written about killing us. Foreign Countries ARE GETTING weapons that MIGHT kill us. They MIGHT attack us. Well the President MIGHT put you or me in jail without a trail. The President MIGHT decide any American is a Terrorist therefore We all have standing and have the right to take the president to court. Because he's taking steps that THREATEN every Americans freedoms. PRE-EMPTIVE standing. Every year the president claims more and more authority and we can site cases where he has attacked and killed innocent Americans, Al-Walaki's Son to name 1. Where he's jailed without trial and used undue treatment if not torture against American citizens, Bradly Manning to name 1. Where terror laws have been used against Americans who are clearly NOT terrorist , I've posted pages of examples before. Our safety is threatened by an out of control Executive branch. We've got to get Him BEFORE he gets us. he's already on our shores.

[logroller]

Every year the president claims more and more authority and we can site cases where he has attacked and killed innocent Americans, Al-Walaki's Son to name 1. Where he's jailed without trial and used undue treatment if not torture against American citizens, Bradly Manning to name 1.

Al-walaki's son was "innocent"...:rolleyes: I suppose you have proof that they intentionally targeted his son; and he wasn't just collateral damage of known al Quada operations. I realize it upsets you; but his father had absolutely no intention of ever being taken alive and standing trial for his repeated and ongoing involvement in jihad on the West; seeking asylum in the arms of, and further inspiring jihad and hate in, his tribal brothers and sisters; which common sense dictates that his son was undoubtedly a part.

Bradly Manning, if i'm not mistaken, was a US soldier-- I don't believe he has the same rights as a citizen-- he waived them when he signed up.

[DragonStryk72]

Isn't it the relative location that determines a foreign vs domestic threat, and not one's national origin?

We have referred to them as domestic terrorists in every case of this, and so that means they are, according to admin, domestic and not foreign.

if I tried to blow up Country B's embassy located in Country A-- I am a domestic threat within Country A, and at the same time a foreign threat to Country B. (Assuming mutual and peaceful diplomatic interests)
If I did so from Country C, I'm a foreign threat to both; regardless of my national origin.



In your example its still reviewed under executive purview, not judicial.

But an agency outside of the police force does the oversight, which is my point. Both Congress and the President are involved in the decision to do this. Making it so that both the heads of the Executive and Legislative branches are in charge, thus Judicial is appropriate here. It would be like allowing Wal-Mart to investigate any crimes and such within their company, without any outside review. See the point of abuse there?

Often 'political' is a pejorative too. I totally agree that things are intentionally vilified; and sometimes just the opposite, its played down; as in "it's not torture-- its non-traditional interrogation" :rolleyes:

Right, or "stress positions", which is torture, possibly more mild torture, but it's fucking torture. I generally follow a simple guideline: If I am having to search for a more friendly term for what I'm doing, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Now, the Domestic AQ leaders clearly fall within Treason during a time of war, so they've got an automatic death penalty hanging even if we took them alive, so this is more about making certain that we're doing due diligence here.

[revelarts]

Al-walaki's son was "innocent"...:rolleyes: I suppose you have proof that they intentionally targeted his son; and he wasn't just collateral damage of known al Quada operations. I realize it upsets you; but his father had absolutely no intention of ever being taken alive and standing trial for his repeated and ongoing involvement in jihad on the West; seeking asylum in the arms of, and further inspiring jihad and hate in, his tribal brothers and sisters; which common sense dictates that his son was undoubtedly a part.

Bradly Manning, if i'm not mistaken, was a US soldier-- I don't believe he has the same rights as a citizen-- he waived them when he signed up.

love the way you guys dodge my points sometimes.

PRE-EMPTIVE STANDING -cough-

But You've Assumed Alwaki's Son Guilty, and that by association, maybe his grandma is AlQuea too. But i thought we assumed American's Innocent Until proven Guilty, at least that what I've been told.

And Soldiers loose all of there rights when they sign up? C'mon log you know better. So why are theire courts in the military log? for show? So they could just Shoot Manning in Jail and that'd be lawfully? um no , you don't give up all your rights, Your under military law but most constitutional rights are retained especially off the battle field and Speedy trail is One which is especially upheld and important in the military because there is no bail to speak of. And no Cruel and unusual punishment is a Right Taken for granted even for foreign POWs much less our own soldiers.

[DragonStryk72]

love the way you guys dodge my points sometimes.

PRE-EMPTIVE STANDING -cough-

But You've Assumed Alwaki's Son Guilty, and that by association, maybe his grandma is AlQuea too. But i thought we assumed American's Innocent Until proven Guilty, at least that what I've been told.

And Soldiers loose all of there rights when they sign up? C'mon log you know better. So why are theire courts in the military log? for show? So they could just Shoot Manning in Jail and that'd be lawfully? um no , you don't give up all your rights, Your under military law but most constitutional rights are retained especially off the battle field and Speedy trail is One which is especially upheld and important in the military because there is no bail to speak of. And no Cruel and unusual punishment is a Right Taken for granted even for foreign POWs much less our own soldiers.

However, in this instance, we already had proof that Awlaki had orchestrated attacks (Some of it his own statements to the effect), and was planning more as he went along. We had to take his threats seriously as he has already shown that he will kill people, even people who are innocent to go after this aims. Now, this doesn't entirely remove due process, but at that point he has declared himself to be an enemy soldier, and that means, as far as the military's concerned, he's an okay target to put bullets into. Should we be making sure that the evidence we have is good and sound as the manner of due process? Of course, I'm not saying otherwise, but you can't just let someone keep on killing people either, and a breach could have cost even more lives in the process.

[revelarts]

However, in this instance, we already had proof that Awlaki had orchestrated attacks (Some of it his own statements to the effect), and was planning more as he went along. We had to take his threats seriously as he has already shown that he will kill people, even people who are innocent to go after this aims. Now, this doesn't entirely remove due process, but at that point he has declared himself to be an enemy soldier, and that means, as far as the military's concerned, he's an okay target to put bullets into. Should we be making sure that the evidence we have is good and sound as the manner of due process? Of course, I'm not saying otherwise, but you can't just let someone keep on killing people either, and a breach could have cost even more lives in the process.

You must have must scanned my reply, i was talking about the son. But Agreed Due process can't get lost in the shuffle even when on the surface it seem plain that a person is guilty.

[fj1200]

Except I think the judiciary is the forum, pending Awlaki himself having expressed a willingness for the courts to redress his grievance. He did not; and I think it stands to reason he was aware of his right to do so. He chose not to, for whatever reasons...

You have to choose the courts review your case? Did the Unabomber choose to come in for redress? Did Eric Rudolph? You're not entitled to Due Process only if you "express willingness," you're entitled regardless. They should have determined the proper forum to try him, complete with review if necessary, in absentia if necessary even. If they could craft a memo to give themselves legal cover then I'm sure they could have devised a way to try him by military tribunal.

[DragonStryk72]

You must have must scanned my reply, i was talking about the son. But Agreed Due process can't get lost in the shuffle even when on the surface it seem plain that a person is guilty.

I hate to say it this way, Rev, but sometimes collateral damage happens in war, which is why so many people try to move their families and loved ones clear of it. Yes, we should be making certain Due process is done, but mostly with the war overseas, it's going to be getting done post mortem, as opposed to while they're still alive.

[jimnyc]

Sure, Awlaki's son, innocent, wrong place at the wrong time - just happened to be cruising the town with known terrorists when a missile landed in their laps. Don't hang around with Al Qaeda and the likes and you'll have a better chance of avoiding incoming missiles.

[logroller]

Right, or "stress positions", which is torture, possibly more mild torture, but it's fucking torture. I generally follow a simple guideline: If I am having to search for a more friendly term for what I'm doing, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

Now, the Domestic AQ leaders clearly fall within Treason during a time of war, so they've got an automatic death penalty hanging even if we took them alive, so this is more about making certain that we're doing due diligence here.

Damn you and your internal quote response.:laugh:

Internal affairs is outside of the police force? :rolleyes: That'd be like saying the Justice Dept, led by Eric Holder, is outside the executive branch.
To address the Judicial role, specifically as I see it being involved in this case-- I would say if the law enacted by Congress, ( the kill terrorist law, whatever) granted some unfettered power to the CIC,-- then the law is absolutely reviewable for being unconstitutionally vague; that's the tort, that the law failed, not how the executive branch failed to consult the Judicial Branch.
The idea that the Judicial branch should assist in, or dictate how a law is carried into execution is blatantly in violation of the separation of powers.

[logroller]

You have to choose the courts review your case? Did the Unabomber choose to come in for redress? Did Eric Rudolph? You're not entitled to Due Process only if you "express willingness," you're entitled regardless. They should have determined the proper forum to try him, complete with review if necessary, in absentia if necessary even. If they could craft a memo to give themselves legal cover then I'm sure they could have devised a way to try him by military tribunal.
Technically, it wasn't the unabomber who sought redress, but the People. Do you think the war on terror consists of Obama throwing darts at a perp lineup? I'm sure there's a process; it's just not made public; because like many investigations confidential information is used that, if made public, would compromise both the investigation at hand, but a myriad of coextensive investigations as well. He had the right to confront his accuser, a trial by jury, to have the evidence presented to himself and his counsel-- but a trial in absentia would fail to fulfill these rights; and furthermore, it would compromise the ongoing investigations the President has been instructed by law to carry out-- its lose/lose.-- but the fix is simple, bring the man in for trial. But what costs should We incur to see this happen? Should we risk dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives to satisfy the rights of a man who expressed nothing but disdain for the US of A, including his rightful Constitutional protection? It seems to me the process well-afforded him what he was due. You could make a better case for cruel and unusual punishment than a violation of due process.

[fj1200]

Technically, it wasn't the unabomber who sought redress, but the People. Do you think the war on terror consists of Obama throwing darts at a perp lineup? I'm sure there's a process; it's just not made public; because like many investigations confidential information is used that, if made public, would compromise both the investigation at hand, but a myriad of coextensive investigations as well. He had the right to confront his accuser, a trial by jury, to have the evidence presented to himself and his counsel-- but a trial in absentia would fail to fulfill these rights; and furthermore, it would compromise the ongoing investigations the President has been instructed by law to carry out-- its lose/lose.-- but the fix is simple, bring the man in for trial. But what costs should We incur to see this happen? Should we risk dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives to satisfy the rights of a man who expressed nothing but disdain for the US of A, including his rightful Constitutional protection? It seems to me the process well-afforded him what he was due. You could make a better case for cruel and unusual punishment than a violation of due process.

The people are seeking redress against Awlaki as well. Perp lineup? Conviction by memo not made public? I think a military tribunal can satisfy classified information. How would absentia fail to fulfill? Are you arguing against what I said or what you presume?

The process did not grant him what he was due. If they can expend all of that time and energy they can certainly craft another method of handling the Awlakis of the world without tossing out the Constitution.

[logroller]

The people are seeking redress against Awlaki as well. Perp lineup? Conviction by memo not made public? I think a military tribunal can satisfy classified information. How would absentia fail to fulfill? Are you arguing against what I said or what you presume?

The process did not grant him what he was due. If they can expend all of that time and energy they can certainly craft another method of handling the Awlakis of the world without tossing out the Constitution.
Its quasi-judicial, but I concede this would satisfy both sides of the argument.

[DragonStryk72]

Damn you and your internal quote response.:laugh:

Internal affairs is outside of the police force? :rolleyes: That'd be like saying the Justice Dept, led by Eric Holder, is outside the executive branch.
To address the Judicial role, specifically as I see it being involved in this case-- I would say if the law enacted by Congress, ( the kill terrorist law, whatever) granted some unfettered power to the CIC,-- then the law is absolutely reviewable for being unconstitutionally vague; that's the tort, that the law failed, not how the executive branch failed to consult the Judicial Branch.
The idea that the Judicial branch should assist in, or dictate how a law is carried into execution is blatantly in violation of the separation of powers.

Really, so it's not judges who pass the death penalty in every single other court in our country? Instead, clearly we should trust the same two branches that are doing and envisioned it, and clearly having anyone outside that would just be crazy? Sorry, but that's not checked or balanced. There needs to be an outside review, and again, I say review, just like cop shootings are reviewed after the fact, but we do not trust investigations to the very people who carried out the shootings.

[logroller]

Really, so it's not judges who pass the death penalty in every single other court in our country? Instead, clearly we should trust the same two branches that are doing and envisioned it, and clearly having anyone outside that would just be crazy? Sorry, but that's not checked or balanced. There needs to be an outside review, and again, I say review, just like cop shootings are reviewed after the fact, but we do not trust investigations to the very people who carried out the shootings.

In our country, sure. Was Alwaki in our country? No, he was in Yemen; and Yemen had already convicted him, in absentia, of inciting violence against foreigners iirc.

[fj1200]

Its quasi-judicial, but I concede this would satisfy both sides of the argument.

And Consitutional, and appealable to the judiciary.


In our country, sure. Was Alwaki in our country? No, he was in Yemen; and Yemen had already convicted him, in absentia, of inciting violence against foreigners iirc.

Why didn't Yemen take him out then? I can imagine that they brook no dissent.