Barack Obama ordered the assassination of two American citizens. No one is arguing that they weren’t bad, but this is a terrible precedent.
An American President now can order the assassination of American citizens.
An American President can now suspend any American’s constitutional rights at will.
Think about that.
Why did we give Timothy McVeigh a trial?
Why don’t we just kill Case Anthony? We all know she’s guilty.
Why do we even bother having trials?
Over at Huffington Post there is division on this issue. They quote Jane Harman:
“It’s tricky that he was a U.S. citizen, but he clearly stated his intention to kill Americans and the Justice Department thoroughly vetted the legal issues and this strike was within the law,”
The Justice Department vetted this? Holder vetted this?
That borders on insanity. This is the same Holder “Justice Department” who put an end to the Black Panther intimidation case. The is the same Holder “Justice Department” which intentionally sent weapons into Mexico. This is the same Justice Department that sues states for attempting to protect their borders. This is the same “Justice Department” that wants a civil trial for Khalid Sheik Muhammamed.
HuffPo is allowing no comments that question Obama’s decision to assassinate an American citizen. I suspect that even they know how wrong this was.
What is the threshold for ordering the death of American citizens?
Joe Biden likened Tea Party members to terrorists.
Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.
Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”
Golly, if they’re terrorists, then Obama can have them killed, right?
Obama himself called Americans his enemies
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’
And why not punish them with a nice Predator missile?
In fact, we are “treacherous enemies.”
Obama’s website once trumpeted this:
“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”
Terrorists. Terrorists need to be killed, even if they are Americans.
How about killing anyone who is a threat to democracy? Barack Obama once said that the Chamber of Commerce was a threat to democracy. Why not kill them?
David Plouffe said those who support Republicans are a threat to democracy
“They are becoming the central financial actors in the 2010 election,” Plouffe told reporters in Washington yesterday. “What’s happening out there is really a hijacking of our democracy.”
I guess they can be killed as well. Eric Holder would no doubt permit it.
A whole new world of opportunity has been opened up for Obama.
What now is the threshold for an American President to order the assassination of American citizens? Who can Obama have killed simply because he’s in a pissy mood?
Who’s next?
Aren’t we bombing Libya because its leader was killing his people?
OK, so if an American soldier had killed Anwar al-Awlaki in a firefight in Afghanistan would that soldier have violated the terrorist’s Constitutional rights?
I don’t know why anyone would think that but if being an American at war with America means you get a special pass after taking up arms against your own countrymen, then you’ve effectively turned The Constitution into a suicide pact. When the Union defeated Lee at Gettysburg, were Pickett’s Constitutional rights violated? Ponder that but please do NOT think I’m comparing the men on any part of that hallowed battlefield with any terrorist past, present or future.
The Obama Administration and their leftist allies have so thoroughly muddled the waters in fighting this war that it seems like they prefer to kill high value targets – terrorist leaders to be specific – rather than capturing them or else risk having to incarcerate them in the facility at Guantanamo. Beyond the possible intelligence benefit from interrogating HVTs, I’m still fine with these deaths and the manner in which they occur because these are enemies that deliberately avoid wearing uniforms. They are illegal combatants and as such get no protection under our laws.
@tfhr:
No. We are not at war in Yemen and if one argues that we are, then Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act.
Had Awlaki been killed in a firefight in Iran or Iraq, that’s entirely acceptable.
This was a targeted and specific assassination.
This is a bad precedent. As I said, who’s next? Can we fly drones anywhere around the world knocking off anyone we want?
How about Iran flying a drone over the US taking out what it considers its enemies?
If an AMERICAN joins the enemy, they are the ENEMY. It doesn’t matter where they are. If another country is protecting them, then that country is aiding the enemy. What surprises me the most is that Obama authorized the strike. It sounds like something Bush would do.
If we can’t target AMERICAN enemy, all that the enemy has to do is recruit as many Americans as they can.
You are so wrong it is almost comical.
We are at war with these people — people who are engaged in acts of war against the US. Like it or not, there was no possibility of capturing this enemy of the United States, and therefore taking his life was an appropriate exercise of the power of the commander in chief.
But let’s consider your theory that this jihadi swine had constitutional rights while in Yemen. By your logic, sending in troops to capture him would have been unacceptable for a variety of reasons — the lack of a warrant, lack of criminal charges, failure to observe extradition protocols — and he would therefore have to be released free and clear after being given access to our intelligence sources. Do you see the absurdity of your position now?
Consider this concept, too, that terrorists are the enemies of all humanity and my be dealt with as such. There is ample international law precedent for this, dating back to the very origin of international law. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/316001.php
@Smorgasbord: You have to put aside your dislike for a person and think about the law.
We did that for McVeigh and for Shahzad too.
@Rhymes With Right:
Are you saying that there was not sufficient grounds for a warrant and apprehension but sufficient grounds to kill him?
@Smorgasbord:
You see, that’s your opinion. It’s not the law. If you’d like to see that codified, it’s ok with me. Then it would be the law.
@Rhymes With Right:
Joe Biden said the Tea Party members were terrorists.
Can Obama kill them?
Who decides?
you do know that both renounced their US citizenship. Hence it was not an assassination of US citizens. They were enemies in an enemy camp.
Thank you so much, Dr John, for writing this. You are absolutely correct. What’s also scary, by reading the comment here and comments elsewhere, is the bloodlust so apparent among the American citizenry. Makes me think of Arlo Guthrie’s ‘Alice’s Restaurant Massacree’..
“And I went up there, I said, “Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL.” And I started jumpin up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL,” and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, “KILL, KILL.” And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, “You’re our boy.”
Didn’t feel too good about it.”
Are we a Republic or a mob-ruled democracy? Seems to me the progressives have done a fine job over the last century, turning so many away from our Constitution and replacing it with ‘whatever feels good for the moment’.
What a pitiful state our country is in if there are so many who will help Obama rip the Constitution to shreds.
@Stix:
Was that of any meaning legally?
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-killings-yemen-the-rule-law-5963
Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen?
.
Isn’t it ironic how the left was so terribly obsessed with granting Gitmo detainees with Constitutional “rights” and so quick to dismiss the rights of someone American-born.
If Joe Biden decides I am a terrorist because I write prose criticizing the Obama Administration, is it legal to assassinate me? Is a Jihadi propagandist considered to be eligible for assassination? By the same reasoning, Arafat should have been assassinated and many others as well. If we are back in the business of assassination, a system or standard would be appropriate rather than the Obama indiscriminate death warrant. If we are at war, do we distinguish between political leaders and soldiers. We have given the non-uniform wearing soldiers special dispensation and afforded them the Geneva Convention, why? If we are to summarily execute political enemies, why do we go out of our way to allow non-uniformed soldiers the option to throw down their weapons and walk away, but condemn their leaders to a silent death from above, without the option of walking away.
Do we have a set of guidelines or is it the scalp belt of Obama that is ultimately important? Where do we draw the line in defining political enemies? Everyone feels good and celebrates this monster’s death, but are we outlining dangerous precedents for the future. Perhaps a personal enemy may be designated a terrorist, Biden has no reservations about designating the TEA Party as terrorists and Napolitano considers vets as potential terrorists. May we assume the president can make a preemptive strike to neutralize terrorism, who will determine if the threat exists, Holder? The AG who sells military armament to Mexican Drug Cartels, the man who dropped a case that was already won against the Black Panthers, the AG who refuses to cooperate with congressional investigations.
Obama will take all the power he can. If he must first kill true enemies in a dubious manner, will he hesitate to kill indiscriminately using those same liberal parameters?
@DrJohn: “You see, that’s your opinion. It’s not the law.”
I’m sorry, but you’re misinformed, Dr. John. Treason is the only crime listed in the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies…”, which is exactly what al-Awlaki did. You may want to give the traitor a phalanx of ACLU lawyers, but I agree with the rest of the commenters here who prefer the ultimate solution.
I really do not see any kind of comparison of the Tea party and someone that was plotting in foreign country to attack US citizens. That is a straw man is I ever saw one.
What about Taliban JohnnyLindh? Captured in Afghanistan with Taliban fighters. Stayed mum while his fellow Taliban plotted a prison breakout that resulted in Mike Spann being killed. Lindh was tried in an American court, found guilty, and sentenced. To this day Lindh’s family are still trying to get him out of prison.
Under Obama’s Department of Justice findings, Lindh would be subject to extra-judicial murder. Dear progressive socialists if Awlaki can be killed by drone then the same needs to be applied to Lindh to be fair since both retain US citizenship. So ready to kill Lindh? If not than the killing of Awlaki is wrong.
It was our Vice President who designated the TEA Part as Terrorists and are we not at war with terrorism or do we play a politically correct game of semantics.
It was the head of that TSA who said American vets are potential terrorists, are we to pick and choose from among the statements of morons as to which ones we may believe and which ones to disregard. I find these statements offensive and dangerous under the present circumstances. You may have the utmost faith in the judgement of our leaders, but if there judgement was so good, why do they make such senseless and dangerous statements.
Giving the president the option to kill at his own discretion in undeclared wars without borders is a dangerous and powerful precedent.
Remember those Navy Seals that faced court martial for supposedly roughing up a known terrorist in Iraq? I didn’t lose any sleep over the assassination of a US Citizen who committed terrorist acts against the US, but Dr John is right. Now, if we were acting in coordination with the government of Yemen, that is another story.
It’s really sort of amusing to watch this hand wringing by the same guy who, back in July, was advocating the execution of US citizen George Soros via a Predator missile.
Guess Dr. J was for it before he was against it, eh?
@Skookum:
“If Joe Biden decides I am a terrorist because I write prose criticizing the Obama Administration, is it legal to assassinate me?”
If President Obama decides that you are a member of the organization responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, and that you are threatening further attacks against the United States, it is legal for him to use necessary and appropriate force against you. That is the letter and the spirit of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution. Whether a Hellfire missile would be considered necessary and appropriate is up to the government to decide. If you are chilling in the United States, it probably would not be. If you are hiding in Yemen, then yes, a Hellfire missile would be appropriate.
The Resolution does not make any exemptions for belligerents who hold US citizenship. At no time in our history have we ever declared belligerents who hold US citizenship inviolable. In fact, we have killed a great many belligerent US citizens throughout our history: several in the War on Terror under Bush; by anecdote, at least eight in World War Two; and tens of thousands in the Civil War. Washington himself fielded an army against American citizens during the Whiskey Rebellion. The commander-in-chief, executing his Article II and statutory war powers, has never concerned himself with the citizenship of a belligerent commander, and there is no reason for him to start now. When an enemy commander is located in theater, he should be attacked and killed.
You may also note that the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not give any authority to Vice President Biden, nor does it identify the Tea Party (which did not exist in 2001) as a target for the use of force. Joe Biden’s opinions of the Tea Party are irrelevant to this issue.
This sort of thing was treated as a law enforcement problem until 9/11. After that, it was treated as a military problem.
@DrJohn:
No, you moron — I’m saying it is a friggin’ war, not cops & robbers.
@DrJohn:
Wrong — war=war=war. In war you kill the enemy. Get that into your brain and quit thinking like freakin’ Cindy Sheehan.
@DrJohn:
Joe Biden is full of shit, and i merely proof that the Democrats are insincere when they talk about civility.
But I’ll give you a really easy way to decide — if the House impeaches and the Senate convicts and removes Obama for taking out terrorists, then he was werong. Otherwise it was correct. But if your hero Ron Paul gets his way, then start practicing your bows towards Mecca, because we will soon thereafter be incorporated into the global caliphate.
@John Cooper:
Don’t bother Dr. John with little things like the Constitution — he clearly only believes the amalgam of left-wing ravings, pro-jihad propaganda, and Ron Paul pronouncements that makes the poor terrorists the victims and America the bad guy. And oddly enough, that allows him to believe that by siding with America’s enemies he is the true patriot.
The latest guy is Aaron Bassler which was shot and killed by a stalking 3 man SWAT team. The team even acknowledged that they shot him seven times as soon as they found him rather than telling to freeze or anything verbally. Bassler was killed in California.
@Anna Puma:
The difference, of course, is that Lindh was in custody. Anwar al-Awlaki was not. That is a distinction that does make a difference.
I’m with Cheney on this:
In part, and in brief, here’s why: On Due Process and Targeting Citizens:
And one of his follow ups:
I believe the military use of force was justified.
@tfhr: Based on your reference to a Soldier possibly killing an American citizen/(s) on the battlefields of Afghanistan, it would seem that a Soldier probably wouldn’t conclusively know the citizenship of a terrorist firing on him. However, his right and obligation to eliminate the threat to him and his fellow Soldiers precedes any requirement to determine the citizenship of someone firing on him or is men.
Now imagine a predator drone @ 15,000 ft over Yemen controlled by an operator in a trailer in the desert somewhere in the Southwest US. We observe SUV/(s) depart a camp where the occupants are involved in desert things (as in NOT a live firefight in Afghanistan) and we loose a Hellfire missile on the strong hunch that we will hit an Al Qaeda operative. As a Marine of 30+ years, this sounds like an assassination effort for whomever is in the targeted vehicle. This doesn’t seem like a very close connection with the treaties we are signers of. And what of the operators? What anguish do they feel wondering if they had a Legal hit or if the vehicle was populated with women and children (yes I understand, just little almost terrorists).
At some point the clear and present danger clause has to weigh in our calculations. I guess this amoral administration not only picks economic winners (demrats) and losers (all not of the anointed political party/cronies) but they pick which real birthright citizens win or lose their life without due process. There has to be a point when the professional military passes on the drone missions to CIA sponsored operations which are solely under the purview of this WH.
Thank you for your input and I hope you have success in the drone operator hiring process. I know I want to see the known terrorists dead; however, at what price of our morality due we force our Soldiers to fight in this manner?
@Rhymes With Right:
Well, that’s all we need then, isn’t it?
But hold on a sec. What war?
The End of the Global War on Terror
@Rhymes With Right:
Actually, it is the Constitution you choose to ignore.
@Aye:
I guess it is just that Dr. John likes the terrorists and their goals, while he has an objection to those of Soros.
@Rhymes With Right: Who’ wrong? It would be nice to know which post you are responding to?
@Aye:
To which you said
So you were against it before you were for it?
@Wm T Sherman:
Mainly because our government leaders failed to understand what the true nature of the problem was prior to 9/11. Now we do.
SIC SEMPER JIHADIS!
@Stix: So say yee! And I certainly hope we are obtaining DNA samples to ensure all victims were of the XY chromosome variety and hopefully the desired targets?
@drjohn:
Not really, John — I just choose to read and apply ALL OF IT, not take a selective reading of one portion like you.
@Aye: said
The post was in no small part tongue in cheek and you are free to ignore that.
But even then I wrote:
Indeed.
@Rhymes With Right:
Now we’ve descended to HuffPo status.
@Stix: I must be slow tonight. Could you try that one again for greater clarity.
@drjohn:
Actually, I’d be impressed if your thinking rose to the level of HuffPo — or even to that of the KOSsacks or DUmmies.
Well, I’m glad that traitor is dead, but I can’t help but think of “Now, if Bush had done this…” Something tells me HuffPo would’ve allowed comments in that case.
@John Cooper:
And how is treason handled?
And for what purpose?
And what of this little part you omitted?
>
@Rhymes With Right:
Anyone who mistakes me for a left winger is brain dead.
@drjohn:
Why did he omit the part about the manner of proving treason in court? Because it is not relevant to the argument. After all, it is presumed that those who are involved in “levying War against the United States” may in fact meet with death at the hands of the United States in the course of doing so — and that a trial would be necessary only if they were captured. But implicit in the very notion of “levying War against the United States” is that said traitor (by definition an American citizen) may in fact meet his death at the hands of American military forces without being apprehended — or there even being an attempt to take him into custody. After all, that is the very nature of war — fighting and killing those who make war on the nation.
@Rhymes With Right: Again, since everything is so blue and white, I certainly hope you have the greatest of success in obtaining employment with the Drone-On Team to personally unleash the fires of hell (Hellfire missiles that is) on whomever this dear leader deems to be duh enemy. As a unit commander, I would have great difficulty ordering my Marines to fire from such great heights at targets they are unable to positively verify are the correct unarmed Arabic type person in turban and bland desert garb. In most all previous such encounters, both my Marines and I would have been digging deep for a lawyers to keep holder at bay.
@drjohn:
In light of the fact you are borrowing their arguments, such confusion is merely a sign of critical analysis. But the reality is that I don’t think you are a liberal — I figure you are a Paulistinian, which means I’m really wasting my time arguing with you due to the cult-like attitude of such folks.
@Rhymes With Right:
We are not at war with Yemen nor do we have troops in battle there.
Timothy McVeigh waged war on the US too. We did not just kill him.
@Rhymes With Right:
The Constitution says that to be guilty of treason you must be convicted of treason.
@Rhymes With Right:
Nope. I sort of like Rand Paul, though.
@SpideyTerry:
You betcha.
@gregory_dittman: And your point? Really I am interested!
@Rhymes With Right:
I do not borrow their arguments. I wrote the Soros post as kind of a warning against this. I am concerned for the system.
Not long ago left wing idiots were screaming about Bush and eavesdropping and rights of citizens being infringed. That pales in contrast to this.
If we need not try citizens to determine their guilt, what does that say of our system of law?
@drjohn:
Wrong — it says what must be shown to obtain a conviction if one is apprehended during or after one commits treason. But given that “levying war” is likely to involve a military response by the United States (as ordered by the Commander-in-Chief), it is implicit that some traitors may lose their life before ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
Or is it your position that the United States may not defend itself from acts of treason before the traitor has been indicted, tried, and convicted?
@drjohn:
Not a damn thing — because a military response to those who are “levying war against the United States” will almost inevitably result in the death of some or all of the traitors.
Your problem is that you would prefer that we engage in large, bloody military action against the traitors with the resultant loss of the lives of American military personnel (you know, like in the Civil War) rather than avail ourselves of the latest technology so as to take out the enemy from a distance without putting our troops in immediate danger.
@Rhymes With Right:
Opinion again.
May I similarly shoot someone I “feel” is likely to attack me?
Does the US routinely “kill” those American citizens involved in plots against the nation?
@drjohn:
What asinine arguments!
1) We did not attack Yemen. We engaged in a military operation against an enemy using Yemeni territory as a base, with the full cooperation of the Yemeni government.
2) McVeigh was inside the United States, which makes a bit of difference regarding the principles involved.
@Rhymes With Right:
Do we have permission from Yemen to bomb Yemen?
If not, under what aegis do we operate?
If we do have permission, then why not (with permission) send in a team to capture Awlaki? And if he resists, well, that’s too bad.
@Rhymes With Right:
What principles are different? The Constitution is supposed to follow you around the world.
@drjohn:
Are you really so irrational as to argue that it is not implicit that the US may use military force against those “levying war against the United States”, including the use of deadly force, before obtaining a criminal conviction for treason? What is your position on the late unpleasantness between the United States of America and the so-called Confederate States of America?
Dr. John,
Thank you for the discussion. I agree with you that personal blood-lust wants to celebrate the loss of these two *)^&$@# idiots. However, we must find a moral course lest we be worse than the vermin we chase. Put me on a hill or dune with a 90x spotter scope to positively ID our ‘target’ and my Barrett .50 cal will do the talking, even in Yemen. Order me to have my drone operators unleash hellfire, then I need better intell than 15,000 ft gives me in my trailer outside Las Vegas.
Keep up the reasonable commentary; our Soldiers and Marines must have reasonable people on the home front to ensure they are allowed to be the professional soldiers they signed on to be.
@drjohn:
Actually, it does not — as you ought to know.
@Smorgasbord: I guess then if was seen walking down a street in Anytown U.S.A. we could just send up a drone to drop on him?
There is inevitably a viscerally negative reaction to any assassination ‘claimed’ by Obama and applauded by the MSM in effort to boost his sagging ratings. After all, Obama is the champion socialist who: Denigrated Bush’s “war on terror”; sanctimoniously committed to close Gitmo; campaigned on a commitment to immediately pull out of Iraq; and waffled on everything from negotiations with Russia, to confronting Iran.
It is a clear demonstration of their stupidity that Obama and his mob of liberal loons are cheering assassinations, but shout self-righteously against torture. Splattering a body into a million pieces is OK, but torture? Not so much.
But still, he’s a wimp, and not a terribly sharp one at that. It’s just that he’s a political wimp, first and foremost, which means goal #1 is getting elected at all cost, . . . morals, principals, lives, Constitutions, consistency of thought, consistency of policy, etc., be damned – and let’s get assassinations under my belt. Get the order out, NOW.
International laws against assassinations? Depends on who is committing them. Assassinations are always OK when we can get away with them, and when someone can rationalize them to us, . . . and of course on this one, what the hell is Yemen going to do anyway? There’s nothing they can do. This was human scum which deserved to be vaporized, but I agree with some of the sentiment here, concerned with abuse of power.
Hopefully, the Constitution doesn’t get vaporized as well.
@Rhymes With Right:
So our Marine72 here no longer enjoys the protection of the US Constitution when he serves overseas?
Thanks for clarifying.
@Marine72:
Thank you
A friend of mine from elsewhere made an interesting observation:
So again, Awlaki was in this country, with suspected links to terrorism. While he was here, Democrats on this board were against us wiretapping his calls to terrorists overseas without a warrant. A few years later, he moves to Yemen. Those same democrats on this board now approve of his killing without a trial.
@Mike: #64
The USA is not a sanctuary for terrorists. They don’t come here to hide.
@DrJohn: #6
My dislike for Obama has nothing to do with it. It’s just like someone hiding a known crook in the USA. They become a crook to and are charged with the offense.
@DrJohn: #8
You seem to think that American law followed a US citizen around the world. Many Americans are in foreign jails for political reasons and our laws don’t apply in those countries.
the stupidity of this thread is mind boggling.
how many american lives would it have been worth chewing up and spitting out in the meat grinder of combat in a foreign lawless country to try and “apprehend” awlaki?????
it wasnt a law enforcement situation it was war.
so im gonna ask this only once side step this and im gonna call you a moron just like rhymes did.
put a number on his capture.
go ahead, how many american men and from what “law enforcement” group should have gone and died and in how many numbers to satisfy your desire to see him arrested?
really!! who and how?
how would they go and try to “arrest” a man who is in a combat setting surrounded by combat fighters,
oooh I can see that going swimmingly.
so tell us all how many american lives should have been spent to bring him back to the U.s. and give him a trial.
would you have gone? would you have sent me?
WHO? WHO THE FUCK SHOULD GO AND TRY TO ARREST AWLAKI AND FIGHT TO THE DEATH IN A FUCKING THIRD WORLD SHITHOLE JUST BECUASE AWLAKI WAS “AN AMERICAN”?????!!!!!
I dont think ive ever found myself in agreement with wordsmith, so that outa tell the readers something. but this a stupid thread. and im thinking its not up to flopping aces standards.
this isnt a case of “saving private ryan”!!!
the fuckhead was a traitor fighting against us and had brought war directly to us. not only did he get what he deserved but if obama had sent americans to get him and risk their lives and maybe get killed,
I would have called for his impeachment, under the charge of being a bigger village idiot than I think he is right now. (not that Im not calling for that on other issues)
I would also like to add this final note:
ron paul is a senile old fool who should be considered an honorary hippy, thus making it allowable to hippy punch him in the face.
So according to Dr. John the Constitution IS a suicide pact. Although in this case it doesn’t apply.
You see, my understanding is that once you undertake military action against the U.S., you forfeit your rights. Not to mention both him and khan openly admitted to being traitors and to waging war against the U.S.- these are facts, not conjecture.
BTW, anyone bought a gun lately? Mark yes on the form that asks if you have renounced your citizenship and see if they still sell you the gun.
Here is a good article on why the killing WAS lawful.
http://volokh.com/2011/09/30/anwar-al-aulaqi-apparently-killed-by-drone-in-yemen/
I also strongly urge everyone to read what is at the below link: It basically puts the whole arguement to reast.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
I have been fixing irrigation pipe and laying in the mud. I don’t think there is anyone on here today who wouldn’t have shot this bastard like a mad dog. However, there are those who would like the situation explained. This administration is noted for going things “His Way” and he has hinted at how he would like to bypass the old system and just start doing the things he wants to do without interference. He has earned his distrust “honestly”.
Apparently he has killed over a thousand (something I heard on Fox today)with the drones and we are supposed to assume they were all legitimate kills and they probably were, but do we know if he is making political or expediency kills as well, who has the oversight? Remember this guy likes to push the envelope concerning executive power. I am not saying we as civilians need to vote on every kill, but this guy needs a leash.
Oh, I am not a Ron Paulista. I like Cain and if we needed a politician we have hundreds of those Numb Nuts in Washington right now. I think we need a man who can think with logic, a mathematician who is also a business man.
@Skookum:
I volunteer you and Dr. John to go to Yemen and serve terrorists with warrants. After you Mirandize these animals you have my blessing to bring them here for their days, weeks, months and years in court.
What is it that you cannot understand about illegal combatant status? As for the notion that “… we go out of our way to allow non-uniformed soldiers the option to throw down their weapons and walk away, but condemn their leaders to a silent death from above, without the option of walking away.”, I can only tell you that there is plenty of footage of illegal combatants having launched that last RPG or discarded their firearm while making an exit only to be reminded by AH-64 or Predator operators that they are in fact still on a battlefield. Furthermore, you have no idea just how many people are deterred by the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism strategies but I can promise you that more would join if we gave the appearance that we were not willing to fight to win.
And here’s the hard cold fact, Dr John. Whether these people are in Yemen or in any other country, they are are war with us and giving them a notional safe haven puts our troops at a huge disadvantage. So unless you want to be one of those soldiers, Marines, or other service members that we send to fight, or you want to explain to them why you think we cannot kill the people that target them, I suggest you put this argument in proper perspective and put aside the rancor of domestic politics and the stupid commentary of people like Joe Biden.
What Skookum and Dr. John are doing today is sadly familiar. They are taking the same route that George W. Bush’s petty political opponents took during his administration by using the war to attack the sitting President to further their domestic political desires. I cannot wait for Obama to leave the White House – I cannot stand the man, his political allies, or his policies, save one – killing terrorists.
@Smorgasbord:
That’s not what I said. One does not lose his rights under the Constitution once he leaves the US.
@rumcrook:
U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes
Well, how about that?
@drjohn:
No, he loses his rights for waging war against the U.S. which I pointed out. He forfeited his rights by doing so. Period. 100% justified kill. How about you address that?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
@Hard Right:
This is great news. We can spare ourselves the need for a trial for Faisal Shahzad and future Timothy McVeigh’s.
And it means any of us can find and kill Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Especially as Ayers says he’s guilty as hell, and free as a bird.
And with this precedent we can kill anyone who mouths off at the government. Or makes any hollow threat.
Nice.
AND if the EPA feels its ozone rules will save thousands of lives and one opposes that, well, that’s like war too, isn’t it?
Same for Obamacare. All they need to do is label you a terrorist. Which they have.
Nuke ‘em, Danno.
Once you start…..
Now this is starting to sound like some left-wing rag.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): I was wondering the same thing WTF.
Comparing the Tea Party to al Queda, and the EPA going to war? Really What the Hell.
@Stix:
You keep thinking one case. You have to think “principle.” Once you erase the lines you can’t paint them back.
Who decides with whom we are at war?
@drjohn: Really so you think the EPA can actually go to war with the Citizens on the United States. Or that The Tea Party is in any way close to what a terrorist in another country plotting to kill US citizens and US military is the same thing. This is utterly ridiculous.
I am glad that Obama has not given up on the War on Terror, as he was saying when he was campaigning, even a broken clock is right 2 time out of the day
I totally agree with @tfhr: Some peple are starting to use the war against Obama the same way the Progressives and Liberals did against Bush. We are better than that.
@Stix:
Where’s the rule? Who decides?
@drjohn:
Those are pathetic strawmen.
Tell me, did Ayers or McVeigh wage war on America from another country? I would also argue that their actions were not considered waging war, but could have and perhaps should have been. Could their rights have been stripped? Absolutely. Were they? Obviously not. Was that an option? YES!
Also, you say the average joe can go hunt them down and kill them. Wrong again. The average person is not a government agent. We do not have the authority to act on behalf of the U.S. However, if the person in question is engaging in military actions against the U.S., our military IS fully justified in killing them. They DO NOT have to try to capture him. The strike was a military operation.
“Mouthing off” or “making threats ” is somehow the same as recruiting for a terrorist group, calling for and assisting in attempts to violently overthrow of the U.S. govt/wage war against America, and helping to establish a terrorist organization in Yemen? Really?
@Hard Right: Again.
Where’s the rule for any of that?
Who decides who is at war?
@Hard Right:
Totally agree, but this was not the case.
Myself, I have no problem with killing al Wacky- while he might have technicallly been a citizen, he was a traitor, and traitors who consort with the enemy get whatever we can give them.
@Marine72:
We must have talked about this situation before for you to identify me as one connected to the operation of UAVs. It just goes to show that this set of circumstances has been in existence for quite some time and it is about time that we get used to having the ability to eliminate our enemies in a manner that makes some people squeamish.
When I was in al Anbar, I watched many people die from the vantage point of a Predator feed or that of a number of other air breathing platforms. My particular role was strictly ISR and I was never part of the release of ordinance from any of the platforms that had that particular capability but nevertheless my “eyes” on particular operations contributed to the death of many illegal combatants at the hands of both Americans and Iraq police and special forces working with our side.
This is a global war and our opponents deliberately violate the rules of war by operating across borders and without uniforms while hiding among among civilians. When we can catch them off guard and are allowed the opportunity to kill them while avoiding high risk to civilians or our own military personnel, I believe that we would be negligent if we failed to act. We run surveillance on HVTs in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and other locations. Are we wrong to pass along that intelligence to those nations ( I use that term loosely) so that their governments may take action against terrorists within their borders? If we’ve provided the targeting information on a US citizen then that opens up a huge question on laws regarding collection on American citizens and the use of that intelligence. (see http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html ) I mention this now because some suggest that much of the “right or wrong” in this case depends on whether or not Yemen was cooperating.
The Atlantic has this write-up today.
It touches on what Wordsmith wrote re NYTimes article classified memo. The author of The Atlantic piece wonders “What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law?”
RIP RIP RIP United States Constitution
I have linked to that several times. Am I right in concluding you haven’t read it?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html
@drjohn:
What?! He most certainly was engaging in military action. You are trying to define military action so narrowly as to justify your view. Sorry, but military action includes things other than just shooting at our troops. Yes, their are certainly limits to the definition, but his actions met the requirement.
@Hard Right:
Which military would that be?
@drjohn:
So you think someone must be part of a military to engage in military action? Really?
Again, have you read the link I posted? There is your law. The more you post, the more it seems you are being deliberately blind or dishonest.
@Blake:
Understood.
I have no problem with him being dead. And if you want to codify specifically those actions which can forfeit an American his rights under the Constitution that’s fine with me.
I just absolutely and strongly believe that no American ought to be denied his due process under the law- especially given that that damned Holder wants to grant scum like KSM all sorts of American rights and privileges.
And I really do not enjoy this conflict with you, but I am deeply committed to principle.
@Hard Right:
When it comes to the denial of due process, I think you are obligated to be really, really specific.
@just me 95:
Bingo.
First, I do not think all of us are understanding what Dr John ans Skook are saying. They are both historians. Other despots have used similar situations to justify even more deviations from governing documents. There is no effort here to compare Tea Party members to a terrorist.
Does anyone remember when the FBI shot an innocent woman as collateral damage? They found a way to justify the action even though they had many opportunities to apprehend the suspect prior to a gun battle. We have many laws on the books that I doubt not one person fully understands and of which there has been no judicial review. My concern is that with the liberal ways this administration intreprets a wide variety of regulations, we may want to reduce the wiggle room to prevent obvious abuses. This is what I think Skook and Dr John are trying to get across.
@Randy: I am also a historian.
Earlier in this thread people were saying if they can do this to the Terrorists, they can do it to the Tea Party, since the people in the GOV called the Tea Party terrorists, a huge straw man if I have ever saw one. And that the EPA can wage war against us because they can call it a war against US citizens. I fell like I am InfoWars with this kind of BS.
@Stix:
All you need is a secret memo.
@Randy: Thanks, Randy.
@Hard Right: There are many sources that define military action. The Geneva Convention may not agree with the definition that many of us here have been using. When we first went into Iraq, our JAG officers spent many hours with us describing rules of war that few of us understood at that time. An example was taking out a sniper with (excessive force) an Apache gun ship with rockets or 30 MM explosive rounds. That rule seems to have been lost in the shuffle.
I remember in Lebanon, our Marine snipers were viewed with disdain except by a few. 9/11 changed that view. Snipers are an important part of fighting we are involved in now. Because of the current nature of warfare, we do things we would not have done a few decades ago.
The military works for the civilian government. As a retired military officer, I depended upon the civilian government to define lawful and unlawful orders. I am not sure where I could find the lawful order to execute a US citizen no matter how despicable he was without due process of the law. If this administration has determined that executing a US citizen when I was not under fire by this individual or any otherwise eminent threat to my life is a lawful order, then it should be published.
Just as the South rose up against the United States, so, too did al Qaeda.
The only difference is that al Qaeda did not declare itself a state.
It did declare its war, however.
In 1998, Feb, 23rd all the then-leaders of al Qaeda signed the World Islamic Front’s Declaration to Wage War against the Jews and the Crusaders.
Ehypt’s Ayman al Zawahiri, and Abu YasirRifa’i Ahmad Tahu as well as Pakistan’s Mir Hamza and Bangladesh’s Fazlir Rahman joined Osama bin Ladin as signatories.
In their Declaration ALL Muslims were called to either fight the Jihad or support it passively.
All are called but, according to the principle of Fard Kifayah only a few have to actually take up arms.
Remember your American History when the Barbary Wars were being considered?
Alexander Hamilton was part of the debate about whether the President had to wait on the Congress to declare war to go after and KILL those Barbary pirates who were commandeering our merchant ships, stealing our goods and holding our crews as slaves/hostages.
Well…..what did Hamilton say about waiting on Congress?
He said it would be STUPID and SUICIDAL for the Constitution to be saying that, and that it did not say that.
He said, in effect, that when we are being treated as if we are at war by attackers, WE ARE ALREADY AT WAR!
Well, we are at war right now from those who will answer the call from al Qaeda as well as any other Jihadist organization which uses the USA as its scapegoat for its own failure to effectively care for its people.
Were the sheriffs and marshals of the open West breaking the law when they put out a WANTED – DEAD or ALIVE poster about some US-born outlaw?
No.
Anwar al-Awlaki made himself as much an outlaw as any of those wild west bank robbing teams.
There was usually someone who stayed away from the action although he planned the robbery.
If caught, he was just as much a part of the ring as the guy with the gun in hand.
I don’t know why anyone is bellyaching about this.
According to John W. Chambers, II, ed. in chief, The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 978-0-19-507198-6. P. 849.
The South had 72,524 American citizens killed by the USA.
And the USA lost 140,414 American citizens getting the ”win.”
One thing I totally agree with Obama about: he is a terrible communicator, for all his flowery speeches.
He has led Americans to believe that America’s issue with terrorism is some sort of ”law enforcement” issue, when it is actually a war and he is treating it exactly as a war.
No wonder his base is confused.
In a war you kill your enemy….foreign or domestic.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/president_obama_and_our_core_a.html
@Nan G:
Which reminds me, in the case of the GWoT, didn’t Congress already give its approval through the AUMF?
@Randy:
The purpose of the AUMF is to prevent future attacks- the kind which al-Awlaki was calling for. Did you read my links to the Lawfare blogposts (comment #29)? Did President Obama call for the use of lethal force as last resort and exhaust other possible means? (I don’t see this as an “assassination” so much as a military action against a known enemy of the United States; otherwise lets call into question the use of all predator drone attacks in these surgical “killings/assassinations”).
And the 2nd link again:
@drjohn:
Here’s the rule Congress wrote:
@Aye:
OK, you win. That trumps the Constitution, I guess.
@drjohn:
Two questions:
1) Were the US citizens fighting on behalf of the Confederacy given due process rights or were they simply killed wherever they fought?
2) Were the American citizens who fought for Germany during WWII given due process rights or were they simply killed wherever they were encountered?
http://members.mobar.org/civics/DueProcess.htm
@Aye: 1) Were the US citizens fighting on behalf of the Confederacy given due process rights or were they simply killed wherever they fought?
I’ve already made clear that if Awlaki was encountered on a field of battle against US soldiers he is fair game. That would not be specifically identifying and targeting a single individual.
2) Were the American citizens who fought for Germany during WWII given due process rights or were they simply killed wherever they were encountered?
Ibid.
To include context I have quoted an entire paragraph from The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, Document 11.
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett et al. 26 vols. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961–79.
Found in many places on the web.
Here is one link:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_11s11.html
What does Hamilton say here?
In other words, we are at war.
All fighters in al Qaeda (not declaring itself a ”nation” because it pines for a worldwide caliphate, btw) are legitimate targets for our military.
A person can be a member of al Qaeda AND a natural born US citizen.
One is by an accident of birth, the other by choice.
No one is accidentally a member of al Qaeda.
@drjohn:
Non-responsive to both of the questions.
They’re not really difficult. History 101.
A distinction without a difference because you’re attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to argue denial of due process.
@Aye:
I think not. We are not in any sort of battle in Yemen. We bomb them, with dubious legality. Active combat is wholly different from assassination.
@drjohn:
Asymmetrical warfare against a stateless sworn enemy is bound to look unusual to a classically educated person.
But then, trench warfare would have probably looked pretty darn off-bounds to the likes of a Napoleon or a Caesar.
Times change.
@drjohn:
Sigh.
Perhaps you should refer back to post #107.
absolutely obtuse thread and all your narrow answers.
I told you to put a number on american deaths to “aprehend” him. you didnt. your position is one of a strident fool. its foolishness.
anywhere awalaki was in the world we call third world shitholedom would instantly become a battlefield if you tried to aprehend him that makes him a combatant.
soldiers are not police and I wont put them in the position of trying to take this scum on the ground just to preserve his rights. we had a chance to kill him and we took it. you, by your position have made it clear any number of deaths of american service mewmbers would be all right by you to preserve awlakis “rights” most of the rest of us dont, and we think its just fine to hellfire his ass instead.
we have clarity.
Dr.J. I would again suggest you seek immediate treatment for O.D.S. Your support of these terrorists and The Mad Colonel simply because BHO SEEKS THEIR TERMINATION suggests you are not of sound mind.
Semper Fi RJW
When an “American” gives AWAY their entitlements of CITIZENRY, (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/citizenship/responsibilities.html), as in the acts of the wanton/ ideological destructions of their former residence the repercussions become equal to those acts that the offender exhibits in most cases. This new “rule” that we’ve witnessed is the culmination of recent historical events of “home-grown” terrorists counting on the sympathies of former friends and neighbors. In this GENERATION the X-factor is that of a belief that they can “DO” what they feel . That idea is now being squelched. DRASTICALLY, YES, but how many of our “born-and-bred” should we allow to TARGET and TAKE the lives of a possible classmate who is ‘SERVING’ against the ideals of the offending “CITIZEN”?
This is not worth the trouble. I will ask Curt to delete this post.
Well Dr.J, since Curt didn’t delete this post, have you considered that al-Awlaki legally renounced his citizenship the moment he took up arms against America? Read the Fourteenth Amendment again:
When you refuse to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you aren’t one of us any more.
@Nan G: Bravo!
@John Cooper:
I found it interesting that A a-A enrolled in college using a student visa which listed him as a citizen of Yemen.
The guy was born in NM but moved to Yemen with his parents when he was six.
At best he had dual citizenship as allowed by Yemeni law.
Plus, and I don’t think this has been mentioned yet, Judge John Bates ruled against the ACLU when they brought a case on behalf of A a-A’s father. Seems that Judge Bates found the decision of the Executive to be “unreviewable” by the Courts:
For the record, I think killing A a-A was justified and within the boundaries of the WPA.
I find it hilarious that Greg, liberal1, and Rich have all sounded off in favor as well. If it had been Bush that had done this, they all would be beside themselves and firing off letters to their representatives for immediate impeachment.
Oh, and now the left is touting the Op-ed by John Yu as conservative backing for the decision. Yu, the man the left wants in prison for eternity is now the voice of reason. Hypocrits.
Also from Judge Bates’ ruling:
Looks like we took him up on that request.
Aye– I think that settles the matter.
@rumcrook: #117
You reminded me of a question I have for those who say we should send in troops instead of bombs or artillery to prevent the deaths of “innocent civilians?” The question is, “How many ‘innocent civilians’ is one soldier’s life worth.” In other words, if your son or daughter died in a fight, how many “innocent civilians” saved would it take for you to say it was worth it? Since the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms, how do we tell them apart?
That low life gave up his citizenship when he tried to get other Americans, and people to kill Americans. Back in the day these people could be shot for doing what he did if they were caught. Also, I like to think that they saved some lives by taking this wacko out. Our government actually took some proactive instead of waiting for the dead, and injured bodies to pile up as they argued back and forth for years as “what to do!” They wear no uniform, represent no recognized country, adhere to no civilized rules of war, kill women, children, the elderly, and anyone else just to make a point. If he would have been captured and shipped here for a trial, it would have taken decades if ever. He may even have been released. he would have had the power of the ACLU, and Human Rights groups behind him and every step of the way, oh and Ron Paul too. And trust me these people have deep pockets, and powerful people in the right places, not to mention the media. So yeah, I am tickled pick that he got a taxpayer ride to Terrorist Heaven, along with another slimebag.
I look at it this way:
If some German American US citizen in WWII had become 3rd in line to Hitler and was “openly”, in SS uniform, trying to recruit other americans to attack the U.S. during time of war, helping the riech organize attacks against us, there would be no “question” that that person would be treated as an enemy combatant and not as a US citizen. Under such circumstances, you are no longer a US citizen. You can’t claim rights and protections of US citizenship as you try to destroy and attack the US on behalf of a foreign entity that is openly at war with US.
The US is currently (still) operating under an authorization for use of force against AlQueda affiliates for the purpose of preventing further attacks on US soil. Mr Alwaki is not just someone who went to training camp in Pakistan of Afghanistan and dreamed of jihad or got caught up in the moment. He’s part of the leadership of AlQueda and one of the inspirational imam’s preaching jihad against the US and helping to send attacks here (although we’ve thwarted everything thus far).
This is also what makes Adam Gadhan different from John Lynde. Truth is, it’s to their discretion how they want to treat them, depending solely upon what kind of threat they feel that they pose to security. Bush signed Gadhan’s death warrant a long time ago.
@rumcrook: Like you have a clue.
To become a naturalized US citizen, one must SWEAR loyalty to the USA and show understanding of and respect for US law.
But people lie.
Amina Farah Ali is a naturalized American of Somali descent.
She is on trial for sending men and money to fight jihad in Somalia.
During her trial she is refusing to stand for the entrance and leaving of the judge and jury.
Her ”rationale” is that Mohammad told people not to stand for him so somehow that means she should never stand for anyone.
When sentencing Amina Farah Ali on the contempt charge, Judge Davis said he would allow her to speak with some imams while in custody to see if their interpretations of Islam might change Ali’s views.
Each terrorism count carries a 15-year maximum prison sentence.
Ali is charged with conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
Ali also faces 12 counts of providing such support for allegedly sending more than $8,600 to the group from September 2008 through July 2009.
15 years maximum times 13 total terrorism counts equals a potential for 195 years.
We are being very understanding of this woman.
She is getting every due process and then some.
Nan, that is great news, but something tells me we are not going to prosecute the wealthy “Bundlers” who contribute money to Jihad; especially, if they are major contributors to the Obama campaign.
Are our judges aware of the fact that Muslims are supposed to lie to the Infidel to advance Jihad? Will the Muslim clerics advise her to have an epiphany or revelation to receive a lesser sentence?
Keep us informed Nan, this will be a good one, no matter how it plays out.
@drjohn: Dr. John, I do believe that when a man turns traitor to his native country, he (or she) has abrogated his/her rights as a citizen of said country. At that point, fighting and killing members of the US, and aiding and abetting, not to mention exhorting others to do the same, is traitorous, and should get the death penalty, no matter what form it comes in.
If there was some doubt, then I would be all for a trial, but in his case, there was clearly no doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
Oh my… negative feedback leads to a request that a reader’s post is deleted? Should I, Aye and Wordsmith plead with Curt to delete all the Cordoba House/GZ mosque debates last year (where we took far more serious heat for our opinions), merely because it’s too much “trouble” or there is a disagreement where we became unpopular for our stance?
Seriously, drj… buck up. You wrote it. You own it. There is no “delete” in the cyberworld. Cache abilities are alive and well. Simply doesn’t go away because you run into dissent.
But INRE the original content. It’s quite a leap of ODS to assume because there was yet another successful predator bombing in Yemen… just like there is daily in Pakistan, and has been done so under the prior POTUS… that Obama is going to order assassinations of political enemies.
I don’t like this POTUS and his policies, but even I don’t buy into that nonsense. Unless he pulled the trigger himself, there would have to be cooperative military or intel/law enforcement agencies in targeting a political enemy. And frankly I doubt our intel agencies or law enforcement officers, or military, are on board with what is so overtly incorrect. The suggestion that is what would happen is just one more leap too far into the abyss.
I’ll agree with many here that risking lives, and State diplomatic relations, by conducting yet another raid on foreign soil with boots on the ground would be nothing short of foolhardy. And on that note, I would only like to say to Marine72 that it’s most likely that prudent intel was obtained.. with a high degree of probability… prior to unleashing the drone missiles. US operations are generally more successful and cautious than NATO’s. Tho I do understand that you want more stringent criteria with such a hands off type of warfare. But as Nan G says, thus is the nature of today’s battle against the enemy. Stateless, hiding in urban areas, not following any rules, and certainly not wise to play Miranda Rights on the battlefield.
Back to the original subject… you did sundry posts back in May after the UBL raid, drj. Mostly you were annoyed about where Obama decided to show up for ceremonies (which you, yourself, linked to that thread but not the dissenting commentary pointing out your errors), and the fact that he didn’t give credit to Bush for the UBL kill. Because of that, I have to assume that you have no problem with officially authorized Predator drones – and even boots on the ground in another State’s sovereign territory – in order to get a bad guy.
So I would assume this particular new indignant tangent of yours rests solely on Awlaki’s citizen status, and whether it’s legal to target him – as well as the NC born Samir Khan, also killed simultaneously and not mentioned here – on foreign soil, without a reasonable attempt to capture, extradite and detain them in some Gitmo type facility.
So the first question that would need to be asked is whether you, drj, would be just as chagrined had Dubya done the same in his waging of war? You should ask yourself that question seriously because it was George W. Bush who laid the groundwork for the shoot to kill terrorists via a directive back in Sept 2001. You can also read about this directive at sundry other sites like History Commons, the UK’s Telegraph, or WaPo’s version that also ties it to a Clinton directive in 1998 as well.
As a few publications have pointed out, neither directive differentiated such authorization to kill or capture the enemy based on their nationality. Therefore an American “citizen”… Awlaki or Khan – can be considered for that hit list when they meet the criteria for waging open war against the US. If you find such a directive offensive, then you are really late to the party in joining the lib/prog voices whining about it back then. In fact NYU law professor, Philip Alston, has been lobbying the UN to get involved in int’l predator drone rules.. which would not only crimp the US response that minimizes the risk to our military, but also not do sheeeet to stop the bad guys from not following those same rules.
And ya know, I don’t have a problem with it at all. Good on Awlaki and Khan’s death. Good on UBL’s death. The latter I had a problem with only because it further damaged an already tenuous relationship with Pakistan, and entailed US troops/boots on the ground in foreign sovereign territory… without even a tacit nod of approval. I’d like the same outcome, but handled differently as it relates to Pakistan State officials.
And good on Obama for not reversing that directive that two POTUS before him exercised.
I suspect you don’t have a problem with the “principle” of waging war either. But in your attempt to link this to Obama, supposedly desiring to sanctify the legal assassination of political enemies – of which there is absolutely no indication of this – you simply stepped out of the realm of reality, and into the world of ODS hyperbole.
There is no legal authority to assassinate political enemies and I highly doubt those ordered to do so would comply. On the other hand, there is ample legal authority to kill enemies of the US – regardless of their nationality – when they are actively waging war on the homeland. Such killing can be done via drones or face to face battle… the former used especially if it’s reckless endangerment to troops for capture, and involving boots on the ground in a foreign nation.
Mata Excellent To Dr.J. “Physician heal thyself”
Aqua These traitors deserve” termination with extreme predjudice ” whether by BHO OR “W”
BTW, just to correct some erroneous information in the original post… specifically:
No, Holder was opposed to the action and took the same view as the ACLU.
Ooops… guess political lynching of Holder is out of the question here. Fear not… there’s much more around to sink that one.
However there was, indeed, a judicial review by senior lawyers across the administration.
Obviously, Holder was not one of those “senior lawyers” involved in the opinion.
As the WaPo article I linked above quoted from a senior CIA official:
In this case, the intel agencies receiving the orders act as a checks and balance. However, considering that a predator drone killed a US citizen in Yemen back in 2002, and the courts have opined that natural security matters and POTUS authority to wage war are beyond their judicial review, there was a form of review with the unanimous justices’ opinion. As former Condi Rice legal advisor, John Bellinger, said in his WaPo op-ed that opinion was likely to pass muster for “due process”… especially for a guy who knew he was hunted, and refused to turn himself in and instead continued to actively wage war against the US.
As I said, this has been a directive and POTUS authority under two prior POTUS. Then, of course, as I mentioned above… this isn’t even the first predator bombing of an American in Yemen. Ahmed Hijazi, an American citizen suspected of leading the captured cell near Buffalo, NY, was killed in a drone attack conducted by the CIA in Yemen in 2002. Hijazi wasn’t the primary target, but I read an account that the CIA well knew he was also present in the convey, and let ‘er fly anyway. I’ve read other accounts where they denied knowing he was there. Certainly wasn’t something they wanted to offer up for debate.
The point remains the same. The courts leave the national security reasons/evidence for terrorists waging war within the powers of the CiC, as it should be. The CIA reviews and updates the “hit list” regularly for changes, adds or removals from the list. And apparently they don’t just do a blind “yessir” for an assassination when there is an American citizen involved.
BTW, Stix… nice to see you back. Where the heck ya been all these years??
@MataHarley: I have been busier than hell. Still always lurk around here and check stuff out though.
Been the webmaster for The Minority report and a few other blogs
Right now I am helping a friend run for the Senate against Olympia Snowe in Maine and then another for the House in California.
I did not ask Curt to delete this post because I thought I was wrong. I do not feel I was wrong. It simply became too burdensome.
The point remains:
Due process is dead.
The arguments here are that it was acceptable to kill Awlaki because it was hard to apprehend him.
In principle, and law is all about precedent, is that anyone may be killed because it would be difficult to apprehend him.
In principle. anyone may be assassinated outside the country because it is problematic to apprehend him.
And yes, Constitutional rights do follow one outside the country as far as the US is concerned.
If not, then there is no basis for extradition from other countries for crimes committed here.
There have been many rationales for why this was acceptable, the underlying premise being that Awlaki was disliked.
Awlaki was not convicted of anything. He was never shown to be guilty of anything in a court of law. There was no effort to apprehend him, and democrats sought to protect his communications when he was in this country.
That “we know” he was guilty would not ever pass muster in a court of law.
The bottom line is that this sets a precedent- a precedent that allows an American to be killed without due process.
Period.
I never said that Obama was going to kill Boehner, but the fact remains that he could do so with only a “secret memo.” Especially if Boehner left the country.
Mata was kind enough to bring up an irrelevant death consequent to American action not intended to target the individual. This was different. It was an assassination- of a specific American , like it or not.
It was stated that Holder was not responsible to vetting this decision. Holder is AG of the US, and ultimately the responsibility is his.
This
permits the use of lethal force against anyone designated as “actively continuing war against the US” and that includes a broad definition.
“Actively continuing war against the US” is an interesting term.
Strictly speaking, others conducted war. By all accounts, Awlaki did not. Saying things is not a crime, according to the First Amendment. It’s comforting to broaden terms in order to distract the truth. This is about the law, not about feelings.
A precedent has been set. Now we will all have to live with it.
Thank you, Dr John. After reading every comment, I still agree with you. Just wanted you to know that.
@Mataharley: A number of your comments require correction.
“In this case, the intel agencies receiving the orders act as a checks and balance. However, considering that a predator drone killed a US citizen in Yemen back in 2002, and the courts have opined that natural security matters and POTUS authority to wage war are beyond their judicial review, there was a form of review with the unanimous justices’ opinion.”
The assertion that national security matters and the POTUS authority to wage war are beyond the judicial review of the Courts is false. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held precisely the opposite in Hamdi v. Rumsefeld, holding that: We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U.S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380 (1989) (it was “the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty”); Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426 (1934) (The war power “is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme cooperative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties”).
The central holding of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was that a citizen may not be deprived of life, liberty or property (in this specific case, liberty) without due process. The Court ruled that a US citizen who has been designated as an “enemy combatant” by the federal government has the right to challenge that designation before an impartial judge.
“As a few publications have pointed out, neither directive differentiated such authorization to kill or capture the enemy based on their nationality. Therefore an American “citizen”… Awlaki or Khan – can be considered for that hit list when they meet the criteria for waging open war against the US. If you find such a directive offensive, then you are really late to the party in joining the lib/prog voices whining about it back then.”
In Hamdi, the government argued that it had a right to indefinitely deprive the petitioner of his liberty and that his status as enemy combatant meant that it had met the standards required by due process. This is where the Court’s ruling becomes very important: “Under the definition of enemy combatant that we accept today as falling within the scope of Congress’ authorization, Hamdi would need to be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” to justify his detention in the United States for the duration of the relevant conflict. Brief for Respondents 3. The habeas petition states only that “[w]hen seized by the United States Government, Mr. Hamdi resided in Afghanistan.” App. 104. An assertion that one resided in a country in which combat operations are taking place is not a concession that one was “captured in a zone of active combat operations in a foreign theater of war,” 316 F.3d, at 459 (emphasis added), and certainly is not a concession that one was “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” Accordingly, we reject any argument that Hamdi has made concessions that eliminate any right to further process.”
In other words, the allegation by the executive branch that a citizen is an enemy combatant DOES NOT mean that the citizen has lost his due process rights. In order to satisfy due process and deprive the citizen of his liberty, the government must prove before an impartial judge that the citizen was, in fact, an enemy combatant.
What of his reasonable capture? Our forces captured Saddam Hussein. They captured Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. They nearly captured Osama Bin Laden. For you to argue that a capture is suddenly “too dangerous” is disingenous. This is precisely what certain military assets are designed to do.
Every day, we ask police officers and SWAT team members to go into situations in which they may be attacked and killed in order to apprehend individuals. Are you going to argue that it is permissible to send those individuals into such situations in spite of the danger, but that it is not permissible to do the same thing with military personnel who are specifically trained for such a purpose because of the danger? Such an argument is preposterous.
I will finally point you to Justice Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi, in which he went further in protecting the rights of citizens. “Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”
@Mataharley: Here is another part of your post that seems to give you little concern, although it should.
First:
“Attorney General Eric Holder and other lawyers close to the president took a view similar to the ACLU’s. Congress authorized war in Afghanistan, they said, not Yemen. So the “battlefield exception” does not apply. And killing a U.S. citizen was simply wrong.”
Then:
“The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”
How did we suddenly go from dissent to no dissent? Did the president intentionally exclude those with dissenting views from the official review? Because, as your first cite clearly indicates, there was dissent in the administration. In light of the presence of dissent, I would think that the assertion that there was no dissent would raise a red flag to even the least skeptical individuals.
Now you see what legal issues our soldiers face without written guidance. In this climate, if Bush were president and this happened in Yemen by a special operations team, I am afraid that team members could be prosecuted like the Navy Seals were for roughing up a prisoner. I still believe the SOB belongs where he is, but we need to see the documents that Obama sealed that justified this action. Why are they sealed if it is a onetime deal? If it is not and represents a new US policy of flying drones anywhere in the world and killing who we think is guilty, then we should look at this document. While I hope there was evidence presented that would prove him guilty before the operation was approved, was there? Maybe we should send a drone to kill Roman Polanski for raping a 13 year old girl?! We cannot apprehend him in France or Switzerland and he has been judged guilty. He has fought his extradition to the US.
There has been a lot of comments that chastised Dr John for his comments. There have also been comments that the US Constitution does not follow US citizens throughout the world. If that was so, then why did we prosecute contractors for bribing officials in Iraq to get their work done? That is accepted procedure in Iraq and other Middle East countries, but they were prosecuted under US law.
My position and that of some others who posted at this site is that the bastard is better off dead, but the issue is much more complex than just killing him with a missile. Does approval of this action mean that any administration has the power to determine what US citizens deserve to live or die? That is why we have three branches of government and a governing document called the Constitution.
@Randy:
Because all Obama knows how to do is seal documents pertaining to anything he’s done./sarc
I didn’t think this was a one time deal. My understanding is that the DOJ found a legal writ allowing them to kill US citizens without due process. It was in a ‘memo’.
I know they write laws all the time that are unConstitutional, but I think we usually find out about them and they’re usually passed by Congress. Obamacare is now going to SCOTUS for such a decision.
I think it very strange that so many on this thread seem to have no problem with a secret law/memo that removes ‘due process’.
The secret panel that determines who dies and what Americans can be assassinated is explained. It is a big secret and you are not allowed to participate, but if the President decides that someone shouldn’t be on the list, the name will be removed. Now, we understand the justification for legal assassination and the oversight required, it is all prescribed in the Constitution and the sealed documents of Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
Now if someone will point out the Constitutional justification of “secret death panels.”
Today we kill badasses; tomorrow, is another story indeed. If the panel is secret and no one knows when they meet or how they decide whom should be executed and the president sees the list, how much better can it be?
Do we allow our blood lust for the enemy to cloud our judgement?
I will volunteer to squeeze the trigger on these guys, if it is done legally, but to compromise our principles or to allow Obama to keep everything under lock and key, has the potential for tyranny. Have we grown immune to this sealing of documents from Obama sealing his past from public scrutiny. If we are to be kept in the dark on this rather serious and dubious potential for abuse of power, what powers will you be willing to cede to this president in the future?
Is it possible, that if the system is secret, perhaps the system is circumspect and corrupt or has the glaring opportunity for corruption; especially, since everyone is praising Obama for his ruthless killing ability and utter disregard for the rule of law. If there is a rule of law or just precedents, precedents that can now take tangents, since Obama’s wisdom in selecting targets is never to be doubted. He is after all killing enemies, but the term enemy may have broad connotations in the future, the sealed nature of the selection process will guarantee that fact.
Awlaki never relinquished his citizenship. Nor was his citizenship revoked. The Obama administration was well aware of this fact. Therefore, as an American citizen, he was still entitled to the protection of the U. S. Constitution. Despite the fact that he was a potential danger to the world and the people of the United States, and as much as we might not care for the facts, his constitutional rights were probably violated. I have spoken to a Constitutional Lawyer who says this is a questionable point as he could be considered a “Combatant” is which case things are not so cut and dried.
Oh lawdy, the desperate lengths to which you leap in order to defend the indefensible. No… “anyone” may NOT be assassinated. There is a criteria/standard of intel to which one must rise to be on the hit list directives that Clinton, Bush and Obama use. That criteria of intel, and current status of the target, is reviewed by the CIA/FBI regularly.
You clearly misrepresent this as your fantasy – that some innocent political dissident, traveling abroad, will be legally getting flattened by a drone missile because he/she is a Tea Party participant. Get serious, drj.
Like I said, if you are so bothered by this terrorist directive, used by two prior POTUS, then you are way late to join your lib/prog/ACLU friends who have been whining for the duration. And you are just enough ill-informed to lay this as a policy all on the current POTUS.
Mercy… you can’t just pull any terrorist related SCOTUS decision out of your hat, and expect this to be your template. SCOTUS addresses only a particular argument presented, and that was Hamdi’s unlawful detention. Or are you confusing it with Hamdan vs Rummy, which was about whether Congress could pass legislation preventing the SCOTUS from hearing Hamdan’s case before his tribunal?
This relates to a CiC national security directive INRE capture and killing of terrorists, regardless of nationality, how?
Now if you want to play the opinion game, it would be more prudent for you to refer to the federal case that actually deals with *exactly* the issue… i.e. the legal targeting of al aulaqi/awlaki, and Judge Bates 83 page opinion on the lawsuit brought by Awlaki’s father.
The only relevance that Hamdi has to this is INRE the standing and next friend status issue… that unlike Awlaki, Hamdi had no ability to appear before the courts. Awlaki not only could peacefully turn himself in, thus being protected from lethal force (where the only relevance Hamdan has in applying the Geneva Convention Common Article 3 to the borderless battle with the global jihad movement), he refused to comply with both US courts and the Yemeni courts as well.
Might I remind you of the obvious? That if an American citizen is, for example, holding hostages and threatening harm, and refuses to peacefully surrender, law enforcement officers are well within their legal rights to “assassinate” or kill the guy on the spot. There is little difference.
The flaw both you and drj suffer from is the assumption that a secret directive… of which you and I are not privvy to the specific details AND has been enforce in some degree thru three admins…. did not allow for the peaceful surrender and detainment of this so called “American” citizen.
As for judicial review, of which you attempted to evoke the irrelevancy of Hamdi, as you would know had you read the federal court 83 pg opinion, there is SCOTUS precedent that keeps the court from crossing the separation of powers that affects the duties of a CiC… which is what I said when mentioning that some things are beyond judicial review. (illegal detainment and habeas corpus not some of those outside their jurisdictional review… i.e. Hamdi)
Excerpts from the opinion:
I suggest, INRE judicial review, you continue to read from pg 65 in the opinion about “The Political Question Doctrine”.
As to the below:
Not sure what “we” you are speaking of, Kemo Sabi. What you think I said, and what I said bear no resemblance.
What was provided per news sources was that the WH senior legal advisors were not in dissent in their opinion of legal targeting. What has this to do with the fact that Holder, as the AG for the DOJ, disagrees? And where did I say this was a slam dunk legal opinion from every possible legal source the POTUS may have drawn on for advice?
Do either you or drj (and I should probably include WaPo writer, Peter Finn) realize that WH legal advisors are a different critter than the DOJ? And that a POTUS may, and usually does, solicit the opinions of both? Currently the Obama admin has at least 20 legal counsels on staff. How many participated in the opinion he ultimately decided upon is not known.
Therefore, this brings me to another error of drj’s research when he says:
No. The ultimate responsibility is the Commander in Chief. A POTUS seeks the advice of his legal advisors, cabinet members… anyone he wants. However as CiC only he can authorize such a military operation. A seriously ill-informed statement. If you’re out for Holder’s head, not a quest with which I disagree, it ain’t gonna be found here. Stick to Fast & Furious, the Black Panthers, etc etc.
You will never find the entire legal community in unison on the subject at hand. There will always be dissent… therefore your comment about “dissent to no dissent” is something you can only have imagined you read.
However this thread seems to have several different aspects, and more than one foolhardy ODS conclusion.
Was the targeting of al Awlaki legal? Most likely, altho up for debate over specifics of how “guilty” Awlaki was via classified intel that should only be released on a “need to know” basis. However it’s just as unlikely this will end up again in the federal courts because of this separation of powers and judicial hands off on a CiC’s decisions authorizing military combat actions.. I even doubt it will end up in the ICC.
Is this form of waging war all confined to Obama and Holder? Absolutely not, contrary to what the original post’s sketchy research concludes. Nor does it even recognize that law enforcement engages in a form of “assassination” often when capture of an American citizen proves fruitless. Many citizens are killed by “government” without trial, based on their cooperation to participate in the system. Awlaki has refused publicly on multiple occasions, as is noted in the Bate’s opinion.
And lastly, the other leap to fantasy is that this somehow allows for political enemies or others to randomly be assassinated sans any oversight. Absurd. Unless a citizen rises to the status of a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (created designation by a GWB EO back in 2001), and now included under the more recent Treasury list, called Specially Designated Nationals, such a “dead or alive” type approach to their capture (if feasible) or kill is not applied to what has been suggested… political enemies.
And under all circumstances, any US citizen wanted always has the option to surrender peacefully, and run thru the system…. just as any criminal standing on US soil, threatening others, has the right to do before legally being shot dead.
@MataHarley: do not know if I can add anything to that. Excellent
One more thing about this “due process” bit… while the Constitution does provide for due process, it does not designate the specifics about what due process is owed.
If a common American thug murderer, holding hostages, refuses to surrender and is therefore legally killed by law enforcement, is he denied his “due process”? Or did he just refuse to participate in the due process that was extended by US law? Just as Awlaki refused his due process rights, nor sanctioned his own father’s lawsuit on his behalf, he also can be killed like the common thug who refuses to surrender.
Oh yes, drj… about this comment of yours:
If it’s too burdensome for you, simply stop replying. Simple enough. However a request to “delete” seems overkill as a kneejerk reaction to dissenting opinions. Because you don’t want to be “burdened”, you want to erase other valuable perspectives of others in the content?
Chutzpah. You are not being honest with yourself in your initial desire for a “delete”.
“Mercy… you can’t just pull any terrorist related SCOTUS decision out of your hat, and expect this to be your template. SCOTUS addresses only a particular argument presented, and that was Hamdi’s unlawful detention. Or are you confusing it with Hamdan vs Rummy, which was about whether Congress could pass legislation preventing the SCOTUS from hearing Hamdan’s case before his tribunal?
This relates to a CiC national security directive INRE capture and killing of terrorists, regardless of nationality, how?”
First of all, you stated that national security matters and the POTUS authority to wage war are beyond the judicial review of the Courts. I began my argument by addressing that point and stating that it was false, because that baseline needs to be established. Now you are shifting gears and attempting to hide from what you said. As the Supreme Court held:
“But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties”
Hamdi is relevant for its discussion of the rights of citizens and provides useful background and analysis. It is common practice for Courts to rely upon prior cases for both legal analysis and dicta where there are similar issues (i.e. the rights of citizens). Courts do this even where the caselaw is not directly on point…it is common practice and Courts do it in their opinions all the time…but I will forgive your lack of knowledge on this subject, as your words demonstrate that it is clearly outside your area of expertise.
You say:
“As for judicial review, of which you attempted to evoke the irrelvancy of Hamdi, as you would know had you read the federal court 83 pg opinion, there is SCOTUS precedent that keeps the court from crossing the separation of powers that affects the duties of a CiC… which is what I said when mentioning that some things are beyond judicial review. (illegal detainment and habeas corpus not some of those outside their jurisdicational review… i.e. Hamdi)”
In Hamdi, the administration argued that the detainment was an executive/military action that was beyond the review of the Court. The Court rejected this argument, and in so doing, plainly restricted the president in the performance of his official duties. Hamdi involved an executive/military decision to detain indefinitely a US citizen abroad…the present case involves the decision to execute a US citizen abroad. It stands to reason that if the decision to detain a US citizen abroad is subject to judicial review, then so is the decision to execute a US citizen.
You say
“What was provided per news sources was that the WH senior legal advisors were not in dissent in their opinion of legal targeting. What has this to do with the fact that Holder, as the AG for the DOJ, disagrees? And where did I say this was a slam dunk legal opinion from every possible legal source the POTUS may have drawn on for advice? Do either you or drj realize that WH legal advisors are a different critter than the DOJ?”
What your sources said was:
“Attorney General Eric Holder and other lawyers close to the president took a view similar to the ACLU’s. Congress authorized war in Afghanistan, they said, not Yemen. So the “battlefield exception” does not apply. And killing a U.S. citizen was simply wrong.”
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”
Try reading your sources for a change. AG Eric Holder AND OTHER LAWYERS CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT said that it was wrong. Then the second source says that senior lawyers from across the administration had no dissent. Is it your position that lawyers close to the president are not from “across the administration”? Sounds like he cherry picked the lawyers…but I guess you believe whatever you are told.
You say
The flaw both you and drj suffer from is the assumption that a secret directive… of which you and I are not privvy to the specific details AND has been enforce in some degree thru three admins…. did not allow for the peaceful surrender and detainment of this so called “American” citizen.
For what was he surrendering, by the way? The man was never indicted. For your information, Osama Bin Laden was indicted.
Perhaps the most misleading of all of your comments:
“Might I remind you of the obvious? That if an American citizen is, for example, holding hostages and threatening harm, and refuses to peacefully surrender, law enforcement officers are well within their legal rights to “assassinate” or kill the guy on the spot. There is little difference.”
Where are the hostages that Awlaki was holding? Further, Awlaki is not obligated to turn himself in or face his death. The analogy would be that if the police are going to arrest you, and you fail to turn yourself in at the local police station, you may be killed on site. Thus, an accurate analogy would be if US forces showed up to apprehend him and THEN he refused to surrender. For your argument to make sense, Awlaki would have to have been able to surrender to a predator drone missile…and I think we can reasonably interpret the sense of that analogy.
You say:
If a common American thug murderer, holding hostages, refuses to surrender and is therefore legally killed by law enforcement, is he denied his “due process”? Or did he just refuse to participate in the due process that was extended by US law? Just as Awlaki refused his due process rights, nor sanctioned his own father’s lawsuit on his behalf, he also can be killed like the common thug who refuses to surrender.
He is not denied due process if he forcibly resists surrender and has hostages. But your analogy is irrelevant because Awlaki did not have hostages and did not forcibly resist detainment. Hiding out is not forcibly resisting.
@Mataharley: If arguments were built on arrogance and condescension, yours would stand the tallest.
Unlawful detainment and habeas corpus are not “waging war”… i.e. military missions authorized based on intel. ’tis you who are shifting gears and interpreting what is “waging war” as a wide concept to justify your continual references to Hamdi, which is only relevant to Awlaki INRE the ability to appear before the courts personally. You really should just take some time to read the pertinent brief instead of trying to tell me there are apples in the orange grove.
Please try to let this sink in… you are trying to equate the courts rejection of separation of powers in Hamdi’s unlawful detention with a Commander in Chief’s decision for military action based on intel. They are not the same, no matter how many times you want to ply that tact.
sigh….. must run in the genes, I guess. There is an official and not released “opinion” by WH legal advisors, of which none involved in that “opinion” dissented from it’s legality. This has nothing to do with how many others were asked for their legal advice that was not supplied in a written “opinion”.
Again, I will have to point out that I never said every legalese hound dog that weighed in was in complete agreement. Only those WH legal counselors who signed on to the written “opinion”. Does this sink in yet, or do you also like to bark up the wrong tree in misrepresentation?
The fog over clarity remains, I see. Those on the “lists” are not put there because they have been “indicted” in a court of law… nor is it necessary for that. To seek a court “indictment” would mean having to reveal sensitive intel as evidence, proving why intel agencies and the WH have them on such a designated list. Speaking of shifting gears, you’re off and running.
Improper analogy since you are too anal in your thinking via word parsing. Again, if you read the Bates opinion, you would learn that the feds argued there was sufficient evidence in his participation in the underwear bomber and other events as to be a constant threat to the harm of US citizens…. ergo, holding “hostages” to threats of harm.
You, however, seem to think that the threats to the safety of others – which most certainly gives law enforcement the right to kill when detainment is not feasible – is only limited to Awlaki having innocents within his physical reach. This word parsing, attempting to defend the indefensible is quite tiresome, you know. Perhaps I should have Curt delete this post… LOL
@Stix:
Stix, I PRAY your friend is successful in his/her bid.
You could probably sell that on Pay Per View.
Never fails to happen… argue points of law, provide links, point out the folly in trying to convert an apple into an orange, and I’m “arrogant”. LOL
Thin skin also run in the family?
@Hard Right: ROFLMAO Yes that would be a big time pay per view event.
Yes my friend is running against Olympia Snowe in Maine http://dodgeforsenate.com
and the other is running for the House in CA where a new seat is opening up http://stevefoley2012.nationbuilder.com/
this is all while having a full time job. I do not sleep
“Please try to let this sink in… you are trying to equate the courts rejection of separation of powers in Hamdi’s unlawful detention with a Commander in Chief’s decision for military action based on intel. They are not the same, no matter how many times you want to ply that tact.”
Please try to let this sink in…you are calling the execution of a US citizen “military action based on intel.” You are engaging in word-play and re-framing that issue so that it is something that you are comfortable with. You could call a Predator Drone attack on Roman Polanski a “military action based on intel.” You can call anything a “military action based on intel.” The point is, as was made in Hamdi, the executive does not remove an action from the purview of the Courts by referring to it as an executive/military action. When you are dictator, feel free to force your doublespeak on the populace.
You said:
“sigh….. must run in the genes, I guess. There is an official and not released “opinion” by WH legal advisors, of which none involved in that “opinion” dissented from it’s legality. This has nothing to do with how many others were asked for their legal advice that was not supplied in a written “opinion”.”
You just don’t get it, do you? The point is that there were lawyers across the administration who disagreed with the President, but somehow there was no dissent among those selected to write the memo. Perhaps you know how the lawyers doing the writing were selected?
You say
“The fog over clarity remains, I see. Those on the lists are not put there because they have been “indicted” in a court of law… nor is it necessary for that. To seek a court “indictment” would mean having to reveal sensitive intel as evidence. Speaking of shifting gears, you’re off and running.”
I told you that OBL was indicted. Apparently you ignored that, or choose to because it doesn’t support your argument.
“Improper analogy since you are too anal in your thinking via word parsing. Again, if you read the Bates opinion, you would learn that the feds argued there was sufficient evidence in his participation in the underwear bomber and other events as to be a constant threat to the harm of US citizens…. ergo, holding “hostages” to threats of harm.”
You said holding hostages AND refusing to surrender. Holding hostages is not the same as conspiracy to act, and you apparently do not grasp that distinction. By your definition, any individual who conspires to commit murder is “holding hostages.” This is an absurdity and not recognized at law. Second, I will reiterate my point that the US made no effort to detain him, and he did not have a chance to resist.
@Mataharley: Arrogant is presuming that I did not read the Bates decision and confusing that with the fact that I disagree with it.
You call relying on Hamdi and applying the dicta and analysis of the case as comparing an apple to an orange. In law, it’s called applying precedent. Even if the case is not directly on point, it offers useful guidance. But you wouldn’t understand I guess…
Tell me Mata, do you always look into the backgrounds of your posters? Paranoid much?
“Never fails to happen… argue points of law, provide links, point out the folly in trying to convert an apple into an orange, and I’m “arrogant”. LOL ”
What you do well, like the president, is set up a straw man to knock down. Any reasonable observer could tell you that I am referring to your excessive use of comments such as “Obviously” and “If you had read” and “defend the indefensible.” You don’t point out the “folly” as much as you act as though no reasonable person could disagree with you. That is arrogant and condescending.
Wow… if you read the Bates opinion, and still keep harping on unrelated Hamdi arguments, it’s worse than I thought. A precedent, of which I am well aware of, is one that has elements that relate within a previous decision. The fact that the courts do not consider habeas corpus or unlawful detainment out of their jurisdictional reach, but a CiC’s authority to authorize military missions based on intel is, is the point. Hamdi, referenced in the Bates opinion, had everything to do with Awlaki’s ability to appear before the courts when Hamdi did not.
As far as your background, I don’t, nor didn’t care about your personals. However when there is potential for sock puppetry, usually one of the authors or Curt checks into it. I was only advised on a side off forum. Nor did I care. But I can sure tell the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree is debate style. When challenged… even in civil fashion.. you resort to personal insults. Don’t much care. Your presence on this forum, or even this planet, doesn’t interest me in the least. Your erroneous misinformation does.
What about a CiCs authority to command military operations escapes you? It does not require consensus among his legal advisors or DOJ. It does not require court indictments. A POTUS as CiC has a decision to make. He collects opinions from all related advisors and cabinet members he desires, then makes… and takes responsibility for… his ultimate decision.
UBL’s indictment, or any of those terrorists on the FBI’s most wanted listing has nothing to do with a suspected terrorist’s presence on the lists maintained by the Treasury (now), and regularly updated by CIA and FBI. Again, some off the beat desperate tangent unrelated.
Again you rely upon anal word parsing to argue the indefensible. A threat to the nation’s citizens, as Awlaki was deemed via his presence on the list, does not require the physical presence of hostages. And, again if you had read the Bates opinion, the defendants (feds) presented the arguments that there was strong evidence of more than “conspiracy” in activity to put Awlaki on that list.
This is blatantly false and, if you indeed say you read Bates opinion, you would recognize that statement as false. Awlaki was well aware that he was a hunted man, and had ample opportunity to surrender himself to a US embassy with full protection from lethal force. He refused to do so repeatedly, and instead taunted US law. Additionally, Awlaki was required to come before Yemeni courts, and he refused that as well. He was not only in defiance of US authority, he was also in defiance of Yemeni courts.
Now, like drj, you believe that first the US must attempt to risk soldiers and boots on the ground on foreign sovereign territory as a prerequisite. That’s just not how it is. When capture is not feasible without a high degree of unnecessary risk, killing is the prudent alternative. And nor does Awlaki’s targeted killing, instead of capture, mean that this happens to any citizen, in political dissent with this administration, as this post suggests.
“A precedent, of which I am well aware of, is one that has elements that relate within a previous decision. The fact that the courts do not consider habeas corpus or unlawful detainment out of their jurisdictional reach, but a CiC’s authority to authorize military missions based on intel is the point. Hamdi, referenced in the Bates opinion, had everything to do with Awlaki’s ability to appear before the courts when Hamdi did not.”
For you to suggest that the status of a citizen and his rights against the US government, which was explored in Hamdi, has no application to Awlaki is to engage in sophistry of the highest degree. The Administration’s argument for what constituted a military action was challenged and it lost. I believe that the Bates decision was wrong in light of Hamdi…you don’t suddenly get rights before the government because you surrender to it. You are not removed of your rights by executive declaration.
I never made a personal attack…I attacked your argument. If you want to take it personally, that is your business. Further, you made it personal and decided to bring up my personal life to the forum. You should explain your reasons for doing so, because I find it to be highly inappropriate and irrelevant. Is it fair game to look into your background and start bringing up details about you?
This is a blanket and generic assertion. The rights of Hamdi’s unlawful detention has no relationship to Awlaki’s refusal to participate in his due process rights. Were the element of Hamdi and his rights applicable to Awlaki, Bates would have never dismissed the lawsuit, nor evoked the precedent that the “Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the separation-of-powers concerns posed by any judicial attempt to “‘enjoin the President in performance of his official duties.’” In fact, the only element of Hamdi that is referenced in that opinion has to do with Awlaki’s ability to appear personally before the US courts.
hummm… let’s try that again, shall we?
Dissenting arguments and points of law cannot be arrogant since it’s an adjective used in relationship to a proper noun (a proper adjective). i.e. a “chair” cannot be “arrogant” . Only those putting forth those arguments can be considered so. Therefore, that was a personal statement, and was meant as such. Quite disingenuous of you to attempt to mask your contempt under such a thin disguise. As far as your personals, I don’t care who you are, and I doubt anyone else cares who you are. Nor was there anything specific here for you to feel so threatened. However I would suggest you keep your personal remarks out of your future commentary… assuming I feel the need to be so burdened by repetitive nonsense… and you shall not be met with like kind.
The real Mata emerges.
In all of these comments, not once have I insulted anyone. Not once have I done anything other than simply defend what I believe. Witness all the invective directed at me personally.
Now, in contrast:
I have seen posts deleted on this blog per author’s request. This is not not the first.
Mata is always the self-appointed arbiter of right, wrong, just and unjust, pretty much everything. No reasonable would dare disagree with her- just ask her. There is no room for dissent. It’s her way or it’s wrong.
But that’s not the worst of it.
@Skookum 145 – I agree with everything you wrote and have even said the same. It’s a scary precedent. No one should approve of ‘secret panels’. Or are we now living under a dictatorship?
Something I don’t think has been touched on yet: trust.
Do we really trust Obama to do the right thing? He’s given us a false ‘shovel ready’ stimulus package he laughed about later, bailed out the car industry that only helped the unions, O’care, Clash for Clunkers, Frank/Dodd, EO’s – one of which, the Rural Council, gave over a huge swath of our country to the UN Agenda 21, a ‘kinetic action’ in Libya, and the list goes on. For anyone to suddenly believe Obama is capable of doing anything ‘good’, or even lawful, for this country by flaunting a ‘secret memo’ and telling us “It’s okay. I got the legalities on this,” must be…. you fill in the blank. I can’t and don’t trust a thing he does. And I don’t put it past him to do something totally unConstitutional. Even in Skookum’s 145 link, it says they used international law to justify what was done. No. We do not do that. Ever.
But defend Obama’s actions because it will make you sleep better at night. Unfortunately for me, I now sleep worse knowing for sure there’s what I consider to be a rogue in the WH who is determined to bring America to her knees.
John Adams wrote: “Power must never be trusted without a Check.” Where’s our check now?
@MataHarley:
This is singularly the most contemptible thing I have ever seen on a blog- let alone this one. It shreds all pretense at civility. This information derives from a private conversation. Getting pasted by a commenter is not something to which Mata is accustomed, and this was a despicable act in desparation and distraction.
It entirely customary for Mata to insult those who disagree with her. I have sought to avoid confrontation with her but she seeks me regularly as a target for her condescension. To wit, Skookum and I pretty much share the same opinion on this subject yet Mata steers clear of Skook while zeroing in on me. Mata did the same thing to Mike Miller. She seems to need a whipping boy. Perhaps there’s something deep down inside that we do not know which motivates this behavior.
Regardless, even if I knew of something I would never make it public. I would not reveal private and personal information to use as a stick of vengeance when losing an argument. I know some things about the authors here but I would not in a million years divulge them over a snit.
This was loathesome. It was pathetic. It is wrong. I told no one what to say. I told no one what to do. Not being able to argue successfully the facts of the discussion is no reason to violate personal communications.
Mata said:
What galactic disingenuousness. To reiterate:
Mata:
It doesn’t matter, except that Mata saw fit to share a personal communication. If it didn’t matter, why do it?
Because it did matter. It was a straw to which Mata had to clutch in order to demean yet another commenter. As if that wasn’t enough, there’s this:
You see, only Mata is entitled to make personal remarks. No reasonable person would disagree with her- ever.
If hypocrisy was a star, this would be a supernova.
drj, you have an archive full of historic insults. Surely you don’t think your commentary is confined just to this one readers post, do you? And the only posts that were ever deleted from this blog that I know of were all of Mike’s Americas… for an entirely different reason. It was also complied with for an entirely difference reason.
Nor is your hyperbole in writing and yellow journalism headlines unique. What remains a constant is that whenever you meet dissent with your opinion… most especially with me… you just go off the deep end. I personally thought it hilarious you wanted it “deleted”….
@MataHarley: What private information from others will you be releasing when you don’t like the way a discussion is going? Do you do this at home too?
@MataHarley:
Me – but not Skookum. Sure, Mata.
Someone is off the deep end alright.
@MataHarley: Feel free to stop responding whever you like.
@MataHarley:
So why not tell us all about that too and take another shot at Mike?
And the histrionics rage on.
@MataHarley:
I don’t believe I went off any deep end on this post. You came into this at comment 134. I responded (not to you in particular) in comment 139 and as I said I do not believe it was off the deep end at all. I explained my opinion without bombast. I insulted no one.
Your assertion is entirely without merit.
On the other hand, you have compromised the integrity of this blog.
@Aye… LOL! Ya know, I can remember the days when everyone always thought you and I were sock puppets. I always seem to be the scape goat for you, guy. I consider that an honor.
Speaking of sock puppets, I don’t remember commenting on who the alleged sock puppet was… Nope, I sure didn’t.
BTW, I’ve disagreed with Skookum often. He just doesn’t go into a tirade of self defense.
The last word.
a relevant point on this subject:
with that said sultan kinish nails it with this essay in opposition to the supposition of this post
Sorry, rumcrook, I didn’t read that he nailed anything.
And now we even have Michael Savage agreeing
listen here
Dr. John,
“Useful idiot” comes to mind when I read something like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/al-qaeda-joins-those-questioning-legality-of-awlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html
But with AQ on your side of the fence on this issue, how could you be wrong?!
I don’t know who will do the job that needs doing soon. But I hope someone does the job ASAP
@John Cooper: There is a gaping hole in your argument that it’s ok to assassinate todays bad guy because he committed treason: when was he tried and convicted?
As bad as the guy may have been he is not a criminal in the legal sense until convicted. That means that Obama assassinated an innocent man and you’re for killing innocent Americans. You are both criminals.
@tfhr:
The difference is that he was not in a fight when he was killed. It is recognized that police, soldiers, and private citizens can kill to defend themselves and others from direct immediate threat. However, to go outside of this for any other reason is a violation of the 14th amendment. I am opposed to terrrorists and want them stopped, but to answer wrong with illegal actions is wrong. Moral highground is not gained by immoral actions.