Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Northerner

(5,040 posts)
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 04:33 PM Mar 2012

In assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama left the Constitution behind

Memo or no memo, the administration lacks any legal principle behind the killing of the anti-American American citizen, says David Dow

Last week Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to confirm what many have long suspected: that the Obama Administration's Office of Legal Counsel prepared a secret memorandum authorizing the targeted killing of U.S. citizens living abroad. Until these killings began, the idea that an elected official could be judge, jury, and executioner was just an empty expression. But when Hellfire missiles from Predator drones killed American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan on September 30th, it appeared that the Obama Administration had transformed metaphor into policy.

Despite Holder's ambiguous acknowledgment of its existence, the memorandum—purportedly prepared by administration lawyers to justify these acts—remains unreleased. But even without holding the memo in my hands, I feel confident saying one thing: These killings were, and will continue to be, lawless.

For starters, we can assume the memo takes as true what the Obama Administration has said about al-Awlaki. According to the government, at least two of the 9/11 hijackers attended a Washington, D.C., area mosque where al-Awlaki was the imam and delivered incendiary sermons. Al-Awlaki presided at the funeral of the mother of Nidal Hasan, the accused Fort Hood shooter (and another worshipper at the mosque). Al-Awlaki’s phone number was found in the German apartment of the supposed 20th hijacker. He has been connected to the unsuccessful effort to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day 2009, to recent efforts to place bombs on commercial aircraft destined for the United States, and to an article that called for the murder of, among others, a cartoonist living in Seattle.

All of this may be accurate, or it may not be. It is useful, in reviewing the presumed factual predicate for the government’s supposed legal analysis, to recall a few names: Richard Jewell, who did not set off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996; and Steven J. Hatfill, who had nothing to do with sending lethal anthrax powder through the U.S. mail. And let’s not forget Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction which never existed.

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/13/in-assassinating-anwar-al-awlaki-obama-left-the-constitution-behind.html

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
4. I think that's a harsh assessment of the author, no?
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 04:53 PM
Mar 2012

I found his legal analysis non-existent....but when you don't have the law on your side, you appeal to emotion.


















_ed_

(1,734 posts)
15. I agree
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:53 AM
Mar 2012

The rule of law might be important, but I think it's much more important to support political personalities no matter what they do. I know it seems massively hypocritical to bash Bush for his civil liberties abuses and then support Obama when he does the same (or worse), but I'm a Democrat first and an American second.

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
8. If Obama wasn't blatantly violating the Constitution perhaps he wouldn't be criticized so much.
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 05:28 PM
Mar 2012

However, as long as he continues to assassinate people without trial, wage illegal and immoral wars, conduct illegal drone strikes against sovereign nations, he is going to be criticized harshly and deservedly so. When Bush did similar things I bet most people here were up in arms, funny how a letter next to someone's name can change that.

SammyWinstonJack

(44,130 posts)
13. Don't worry, with the next letter change, the criticism will resume, harshly.
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 05:45 PM
Mar 2012
Until then, it's okay if Obama does it.

_ed_

(1,734 posts)
16. I assume you'd be comfortable with President Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:54 AM
Mar 2012

having this power, then, right? I mean, you wouldn't defend Obama for the same thing you criticize Republicans for, right?

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
6. Oh, evidence!
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 05:25 PM
Mar 2012

If you're going to require evidence for every little thing, you're never going to kill America's enemies. It's just so much more efficient to shoot off a missile and provide the rationale later. Anwar al-Awlaki was a very, very bad person, even if nobody outside his circle of executioners could have told you why on September 29. And that goes double for his 16-year-old son, who got blown to smithereens shortly after that.

In this very scary world, we don't always have time for "due process" and "evidence" and "trials." You never know when some terrorist, looking for all the world like he's just riding along in a car or sitting in a house, won't suddenly morph into a super villain and rain down terror and scariness on the American people. Besides, Al-Awlaki should have just turned himself in to the country that summarily executed him. His phone number was in an apartment, our faultless leaders say! What further evidence do we need?!

indykatie1955

(63 posts)
9. Odd That All This Poster's Anti-Obama Posted Articles Never Include Comment
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 05:38 PM
Mar 2012

I Have yet t see one with additional personal comments. It's always cut and paste and then on to the next anti-Obama article, often within minutes. While some of the topics generate discussion Notherner is never in on the conversation. I have yet to see any positive posted articles on the Obama administration but I will look closer in the future so I don't miss any that are posted.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
12. Why would ANY administration give up the
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 05:43 PM
Mar 2012

powers that the BFEE wanted for Dick Cheney? The government had the event they needed to make America into a police state...they will NEVER give up that power again. EVER.

I don't care who is in charge, government is not in the busniess of giving up huge authortarian powers over a docile populace.

Why would they?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
19. Why
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 11:02 AM
Mar 2012
Last week Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to confirm what many have long suspected: that the Obama Administration's Office of Legal Counsel prepared a secret memorandum authorizing the targeted killing of U.S. citizens living abroad.

...is it necessary to misrepresent what Holder said? Since no one is buying that the admistration wants to kill all Americans citizen, it's now killing all "U.S. citizens living abroad"? What utter bullshit!

What Holder said is posted in my response here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=430608

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In assassinating Anwar al...