Obama Administration Authorizes CIA to Kill US Citizen

[tekisui]

Source: truthout

The Obama administration has lowered another legal barrier shielding Americans from extrajudicial punitive action by their own government, in this case authorizing the CIA to kill a US citizen suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda in Yemen and links to two attacks inside the United States last year.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim cleric born in New Mexico but now living in Yemen, may be the first US citizen targeted for assassination by the CIA under a counter-terror policy established by President George W. Bush and since embraced by President Barack Obama.

Awlaki was previously viewed simply as an Islamic preacher espousing a radical religious viewpoint, but the reassessment of his status began last year when it was disclosed that Army Maj. Nidal Hassan had been communicating with Awlaki via e-mail before the Army psychiatrist allegedly shot and killed 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood in Texas last November.

A month later, on Christmas Day, a young Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner over Detroit, and US intelligence officials revealed that Abdulmutallab had been a student of Awlaki’s in Yemen. Though Awlaki denied ordering the attack, word began to spread that the CIA was adding Awlaki to a list of about two dozen people targeted for assassination.

Multiple press reports now indicate that Awlaki has been put on the death list, a move that the Obama administration justifies by claiming to have information that Awlaki has shifted from denouncing the United States to plotting violent acts against Americans.

more: http://www.truthout.org/obama-administration-authorizes-cia-kill-us-citizen58358

__________________________________________________________

This is a troubling path to head down. Extrajudicial killings, the type that Obama has expanded in Pakistan, are bad enough. But, to now expand the assassination program to US citizens? Assassination without due process is a dangerous slope to start down.

[DJ13]

1. A constitutional lawyer should know better

This is bad.

[Pirate Smile]

3. I think he knows the definition of treason.

[tekisui]

4. So, an accusation of treason restricts one's right to due process?

[Pirate Smile]

23. Yes, if you are in Yemen helping to plot attacks on the US then you get treated like the rest

of Al Quaeda. Shocking.

[tekisui]

28. That is all based on accusation and secret evidence.

You may hate it, but he is a US citizen, and that afford him rights.

[SpartanDem]

31. This is a war there is right to due process

if during WWII you decided to join up with Nazi's you killed like the rest of them. Being American citizen doesn't afford some special protection if you decide to take up arms against it,

[tekisui]

33. Are there Americans in Yemen that are in the line of fire?

I must have missed that.

[SpartanDem]

38. No, but plenty of AQ terrorist are

if this guy is hanging out in a terrorist camp and we want to bomb this guys presence should not stop it.

[tekisui]

39. That brings us back to the question of extra-judicial killings in general.

I am against them.

[ClarkUSA]

45. "international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals that pose an imminent threat"

<<I am against them.>>

Then your opinion is at odds with international law. Guess which one the Obama administration cares about more?

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Awlaki is an imminent threat.

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Pay attention.

[tekisui]

53. I should add, he is the TARGET, not the bystander.

[ClarkUSA]

70. Since Awlaki is involved in plotting terrorist acts against his country, that's a GOOD thing. n/t

[cliffordu]

160. Yep.

[backscatter712]

51. When you're in a foreign country, working with groups that wage war against the United States...

Don't be surprised if the United States wages war against you...

[IndianaGreen]

62. Obama craps on the Constitution just like Bush did!

Article III

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3

Who will be next? Antiwar leaders? Strike leaders?

The power you give the state to do the things you want it to do, will quickly be used to do the things you don't want it to do.

Didn't you learn anything from the past 8 years of Bush/Cheney?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 7, 2010
4:44 PM

Obama Administration Reportedly Authorizes Targeted Killing Of U.S. Citizen

More Information Needed On Legal Standards For Targeting Americans, Says ACLU

NEW YORK - April 7 - According to news reports today, the Obama administration has approved the targeted killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a United States citizen who is believed to be located in Yemen, far from any active hostilities. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the government to make more details about the targeted killing program available to the public. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the government to make more details about the targeted killing program available to the public.

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today's report raises serious questions about the legal standards that govern targeted killings. The American public deserves to know what standard the government uses and how much evidence is required when it decides, in the name of self-defense or otherwise, to place U.S. citizens on a kill list. In order to assess the moral, legal and strategic implications of the program, the public also needs information about how the program is overseen and what its consequences are in terms of civilian casualties."

In March, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas and related information. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties, internal oversight and safeguards and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

More information on the ACLU's predator drone FOIA lawsuit is available here: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-seeks-information-predator-drone-program

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/07-14

[cowman]

97. Uhhh, hate to say this

but you are in the minority in this debate, I have no problem with Pres Obama targeting this traitor for death, and don't give me this crap that he is an american citizen, as far as I am concerned he lost his right to citizenship when he started advocating the deaths of americans

[tekisui]

106. Do you have a link to the polling data on that?

I don't mind being in the minority, but I haven't seen any data on this. This was just recently confirmed.

[olegramps]

153. I will confirm it.

[ShortnFiery]

170. Charges and Conviction without trial? That's NOT due process. eom

[ClarkUSA]

2. Your OP title is misleading. The article uses weasel word qualifiers such as "may be" & "indicate".

Truthout is not a credible news source for this reason. You should know better, but I can't say I am surprised you are pushing unsubstantiated claims that are critical of this administration. :eyes:

You should change your OP title if you want to be honest and accurate. If you don't, then keep it as it is. In that case, your claim is false as well.

[Kdillard]

6. Thank you. Are we really about protecting people who commit treason

Against America and its citizens?

[tekisui]

10. It is not about protecting someone who has been accused of treason..

It is about protecting our civil liberties and our system of justice.

Accusation is not be sufficient for an execution.

[Enthusiast]

13. +1

[frylock]

11. a question better asked of obama and his doj don't you think?

you know, what with all the looking forward and whutnot, isn't he kinda protecting the treasonous bastards who lied us into war?

[ClarkUSA]

18. WE are not, but still, teksui has created a false premise w/a misleading OP title.

I am still waiting for a correction but I won't be holding my breath.

[tekisui]

20. NYT, BBC and many others have reported it.

Pay attention.

[ClarkUSA]

22. Then why aren't you using them as a source instead of the OP? n/t

[tekisui]

25. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?scp=1&sq=anwar%20awlaki&st=cse

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Reports-CIA-Authorized-to-Kill-US-Born-Cleric-90088012.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/world/la-fg-yemen-cleric7-2010apr07


If you want, start your own OP with one of them.

[ClarkUSA]

30. "international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals that pose an imminent threat"

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Pay attention.

[tekisui]

32. Imminent threat or pre-emption?

Execution without charge. Bush logic. Obama is using it.

[ClarkUSA]

34. According to one of the news sources YOU provided, he is actively "involved in plots" at the moment.

That means he's an imminent threat.

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Pay attention.

[tekisui]

36. Boogey-boogey!

Still accusations based on secret evidence.

Keep moving the goalposts. I am done playing with you. Ignoring.:hi:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

108. I repeat, this is in accordance with international law & Congress ruled on it after 9/11

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Awlaki is an imminent threat.

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

[harkadog]

164. You would have completely dismissed these secret

accusations of "threats" if Bush was in office. Now they are as good as gold. Forget the trial. If we weren't in those countries we wouldn't have to worry about "threats".

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

127. The police are granted the right to kill when someone is a mortal threat to themself

or others. You are correctly making the argument that this guy is a mortal threat to others.

[treestar]

140. Some people really do hate America as the right wing accused them

They were overgenerous with that characterization, applying it to patriotic people who opposed their needless wars, but that doesn't mean there weren't some on the other extreme who really do take the side of whoever hates the country.

[vaberella]

I'm confused.

And gets other posters riled and call him someone who "craps on the constitution."

[KoKo]

131. Clark USA...then give a better source...one YOU APPROVE OF if you

want to discredit "Truth Out." Perhaps "Faux News" OR some other Right Wing Source is more to your liking?

[secondwind]

5. I'm with the President on this one...that jerk will never get "close enough" for us to capture

him anyway....might as well take him out. I'm certain the evidence is overwhelming...Obama takes this shit very very seriously.

[tekisui]

7. You're 'certian' the evidence is overwhelming?

Your certainty, nor Obama's, is what our rights are based upon.

You may cheer this. But, when the next President targets someone else with secret evidence, it may not be someone you are so 'certain' about.

[frylock]

8. i'll bet bush took extra-legal assassinations quite seriously as well

[Ignis]

92. Oh, but that's _different_!

...If you believe in the Rule of Kings rather than the Rule of Law.

[Jim Sagle]

9. So IOKIODI - it's OK if Obama does it.

But if Bush did it, he'd be a piece of shit (chich he is, BTW).

[barbiegeek]

27. Yep

[donco6]

172. Yeah, like the mobile chemical weapons labs.

Incontrovertible.

[tekisui]

12. What Does a U.S. Citizen Have to Do to Make Obama Want to Kill Him?

Source: Vanity Fair

Using the singular example of Anwar al-Awlaki, apparently one must:

Fraternize with terrorists

• Officials believe that Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hassan attended the same mosque where Awlaki was preaching. According to ABC News, in the wake of the Ft. Hood massacre, Awlaki penned a blog post titled “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing,” in which “Awlaki calls Hasan a ‘hero’ and a ‘man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.’”

• Hasan also told Awlaki in an email, “‘I can't wait to join you’ in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.”

• He also is believed to have been in contact with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day underwear bomber. “Sources tell the CBS News investigative unit that they believe Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab communicated with Al-Awlaki while Abdulmutallab was a student in the United Kingdom.”

Be a source of spiritual inspiration to the 9/11 hijackers

• “The 9/11 Commission Report indicated that the hijackers also ‘reportedly respected as a religious figure.’ Authorities say the two hijackers regularly attended the mosque he led in San Diego, and al-Awlaki had many closed-door meetings with them, which led investigators to believe al-Awlaki knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.”

Have a Facebook page

• “While many al Qa’eda-affiliated clerics are only accessible to an Arabic-speaking audience, Mr al Awlaki, with his English website and Facebook page, holds appeal for English-speaking youths.” He’s been described as the “bin Laden of the internet.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/04/what-does-a-us-citizen-have-to-do-to-make-obama-want-to-kill-him.html

[Kdillard]

16. Stop acting as if this nutjob is some innocent. He made his choice.

[tekisui]

19. What choice?

" Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished. The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants." Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind. Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations/index.html

It is due process. Obama CANNOT decree that someone is guilty and then order them dead. "Off with his head!" That is not how it works in the US. So far, the only evidence offered up is that he advocates attacks on military targets (which happens to be protected as speech).

If there is evidence that he has participated in terrorism, or committed other crimes, the proper channel is to reveal it through the courts.

[Kdillard]

35. The choice to commit treason and go against the US. The NY times and other

Articles make it clear that he has the choice to surrender.

[tekisui]

37. That is the accusation.

Execution based on accusations of a crime is not how the US works.

[Jim Sagle]

47. We also have a choice - to support state murder without trial, or oppose it.

Choose wisely.

[onenote]

49. do you oppose the use of deadly force by the police in any and all situations?

Or are you willing to concede that deadly force can constitutionally be used against someone suspected, but not convicted, of criminal activity under certain circumstances?

[tekisui]

55. When another's life is in immediate danger.

That is not the same as a secret evidence claim that at some unknown point in the future, the person COULD be part of carrying out a crime.

[Jim Sagle]

90. Only if he's actively committing a crime or resisting arrest.

Neither of which applies here.

[boppers]

72. You are confused about what is, and isn't, protected speech.

I suggest you read up on the topic before you get yourself in trouble.

[frylock]

21. pretty incriminating evidence to be sure..

believed to have been in contact with; reportedly respected as a religious figure

[PBS Poll-435]

14. 24 Business Hours Later...

:eyes:

[tekisui]

15. ?

:shrug:

[Robb]

59. .

:rofl:

[tekisui]

17. Glen Greenwald nails it here:

Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

(snip)

No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist "involved in plots." These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?

Just to get a sense for how extreme this behavior is, consider -- as the NYT reported -- that not even George Bush targeted American citizens for this type of extra-judicial killing (though a 2002 drone attack in Yemen did result in the death of an American citizen). Even more strikingly, Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished. The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants." Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind. Even GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, when questioning Adm. Blair, recognized the severe dangers raised by this asserted power.

And what about all the progressives who screamed for years about the Bush administration's tyrannical treatment of Jose Padilla? Bush merely imprisoned Padilla for years without a trial. If that's a vicious, tyrannical assault on the Constitution -- and it was -- what should they be saying about the Nobel Peace Prize winner's assassination of American citizens without any due process?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations/index.html

[frylock]

24. nailed it..

don't expect the obama dee-essers to see the logic in that argument though.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

29. What's that outrage-monger squawking about now? He doesn't understand international law that well.

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Furthermore, Awlaki is an imminent threat:

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

He and you should pay attention.

[RollWithIt]

158. Hold on a fucking second, "Advocating Attacks on US Military Targets" Constitutionally Protected????

Sorry, I stopped reading right there.

[Phx_Dem]

40. When you're overseas actively working with al-Qaeda to plan attacks on the U.S.,

you should be treated no differently that other al-Qaeda members.

No problem here.

[tekisui]

54. It is okay to kill people who we think at some point might be commit

a terrorist act, even if they are a US citizen?

THink about that for a minute. Preventive executing?

[Phx_Dem]

107. Don't be such a drama queen. No one is talking about "executing" anyone.

The administration has authorized the U.S. military to "take him dead or alive." He's in a fucking warzone overseas plotting with the terrorits. There is no order to "find and execute" him. Simply, if you have to kill him becuase you can't take him alive, that's okay. It's not like he's hiding in a London flat somewhere and we're sending an assassination squad after him. Give me a fucking break.

I guess we could send the police to the Middle East to track him down and arrest him.

[tekisui]

115. A warzone with the US in Yemen?

Don't fool yourself. No effort will be made to capture him. Intel will be bought and sold, and a drone will strike. Sure, we might miss a few times and take a few dozen civilians down, but they be damned in our hunt for this most-powerful (boogey) man!

[Phx_Dem]

117. Yes. We've been aiding Yemen in it's "war" against the terrorists.

And it's highly likely that we have covert personnel there. And I don't give a rat's ass if they capture him or kill him. He's a traitor to his country and since he's in a foreign country plotting against us, I see no reason to try to arrest him.

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/12/news/world/doc4b4c949de1d4a346481715.txt

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Asks-Yemen-for-Help-in-Fight-Against-al-Qaida--80695287.html

[tekisui]

118. An accused traitor. Guilt by association is not grounds

for an extra-judicial execution.

[treestar]

147. Everyone killed in a war is "extrajudicially executed" if you use that

strained definition.

[tekisui]

150. What War???

We are not at war with Yemen.

[treestar]

159. We are with Al Qaeda

Though I might question the ability to be at war with them, but Bush got us started on the War on Terra.

Yemen is pretty dicey - that was where two of the hijackers were seen in an Al Qaeda safe house - leading them to be put on the watch list, but even that did not lead anyone to them before 911.

There are Al Qaeda safe houses and operatives there. But we aren't at war with Yemen because the government cooperates.

Yet the point is to stop the terrorists before they are able to carry out something else.

[Phx_Dem]

162. No one said we were!! Yemen is at war with al-Qaeda, and this

terrorist is living and plotting with al-Quaeda in the middle of that war zone in Yemen. He put himself in the middle of a war so if he gets killed, good. One less terrorist.

And for the record, we ARE at war with al-Quaeda. Or haven't you been paying attention for the last 8 years.

[tekisui]

165. Please tell me what the standard is to label someone a terrorist

by decree.

The 'war with AQ' is no different than bush's global war on terror. Ridiculous.

We are not at war with Yemen. Guess what else AQ lest Yemen. They went to Somalia. The idea that a US citizen can be labeled a terrorist, and then when the missiles go after him, because the missiles go after him, declare he is on the 'battlefield'.

If he were killed as a result of Yemeni action in their war, that is one thing.

But, to bring our war there for one person that we have deemed a terrorist is chilling.

[Phx_Dem]

167. Living with, working with, plotting with al-qaeda.

If you insist on actually witnessing a person commiting a terrorist act, then I guess Bin Laden is not a terrorist either in your book.

[tekisui]

123. So, there 'might' be some Americans in harms way in Yemen.

Not necessarily even from Alwaki, but by someone who knows him or even communicates with him. And, that is enough to drop bombs, which will inevitably result in the deaths of innocents, just to kill this target.

You fall hard for the propaganda. Why are you so afraid of this guy?

[treestar]

146. If someone is overseas conspiring with Al Qaeda

Why should they be allowed to do that, as opposed to the other Al Qaeda members, who are not U.S. citizens?

It is OK to kill the foreign conspirators, just because of where they were born. Their intent against the US is the same.

Why shouldn't they have the same right to trial?

[onenote]

41. the use of deadly force against an unconvicted suspect who is thought to pose a substantial threat

occurs legally in the US against citizens with regularity and is not per se unconstitutional.

[tekisui]

52. Sure, when a gun is pointed at someone or a cop.

That is a far cry from a citizen not actively attempting a violent act.

[Jennicut]

43. Why doesn't the US just revoke his citizenship if he is committing treason?

Or do you have to be convicted of treason first to lose citizenship?

[Rage Inc.]

44. Fuck!

I hope it's not me!

[underseasurveyor]

46. In the hands of a sarah palin administration

In her twisted and warped world, this could mean any U.S. citizen to her left is a potential threat to America.

[tekisui]

56. That is exactly the point.

[phleshdef]

48. Authorizing deadly force is fine and constitutional. He didn't ORDER anyone killed.

This isn't assassination. This isn't violating anyone's rights. Stop it with the horse shit. If a deadly criminal is being pursued and resists arrest, they will likely be taken out by force. Police officers always have the right to act in that fashion and it happens all the time.

Just because the right wing has labeled us as terrorist coddling fools doesn't mean we have to actually be terrorist coddling fools. I'm all for the respect of one's rights and I don't want to see anyone killed, regardless of what they did. But this authorization is not setting any new precedents nor is it violating anyone's rights. The guy can turn himself in and hopefully thats what will actually happen.

[onenote]

50. +1

[tekisui]

57. How is he a deadly criminal? What has he been convicted of?

This is not a police action in hot pursuit.

[onenote]

58. the constitutional standard for the use of deadly force is not "hot pursuit"

Different jurisdictions have different standards for the use of deadly force by law enforcement against suspected, but not convicted, felons. "Hot pursuit" is not a prerequisite in many of them.


The constitutional standard, as set forth in Tennessee v. Garner permits the use of deadly force where necessary to prevent the escape of a suspected felon and law enforcement has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury and a warning has been give "if feasible".



Under the Model Penal Code, the use of deadly force by law enforcement personnel charged with apprehending a suspected felon is authorized if the person is suspected of a felony, the law enforcement officer believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; and the felony that the suspect is being apprehended for involved the use or threatened use of deadly force, OR there is a substantial risk that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.

[VespertineIconoclast]

75. Excellent response and thank you for the...

specific precedents and citations. I appreciate the clear and concise information that you have provided.

The wonderful (and sometimes frustrating) thing about DU is that we all have different backgrounds. Sometimes posters react to these news stories with a gut reaction (which can be understandable in certain instances) that is not grounded in facts because the issues being discussed are outside their field of expertise.

[phleshdef]

66. I can't believe this actually has to be explained to you.

What part is hard to understand here? ANYTIME we are in a situation (by We I mean America) where someone is suspected of something bad enough and are considered "wanted" by whatever law enforcement body it is for whatever that something was, this is the way it has been handled. If Tim McVeigh hadn't been identified in jail and was fleeing apprehension, do you think the feds wouldn't/shouldn't have authorization to use deadly force to apprehend him? Its the same for Bin Laden. It would have been the same for Tim McVeigh.

[tekisui]

68. You are still using the police frame.

This is not a police action. It is a CIA action. A US citizen, for the first time ever, has been placed on the CIA's kill list. They know they cannot go into Yemen and try to capture him, so this is a death sentence based on nothing but accusations.

[phleshdef]

71. Well you can't exactly send an ordinary squad of LA police officers after him in Yemen.

I think you are just pretending to lack common sense here. No one is this dense.

What the hell do you think we should do? Just forget about those suspected of high crimes just because they are no longer in the country?

[tekisui]

76. Monitor him and capture him when he moves.

I am not a fan of dropping bombs on people, especially US citizens, based on suspected acts or accusations.

He is accused of committing a crime. That crime does not reach the level to justify execution (with the likely fallout of other deaths nearby). It just doesn't.

Good intelligence and monitoring protect us. Blowing up groups in countries around the world doesn't.

[Robb]

129. Shall we shoot the gun out of his hand, Roy?

[olegramps]

154. Give it up. You have lost this argument.

There is reasonable evidence that he is suspected of plotting to kill American citizens. We should attempt to capture him, but if he resists or flees he can be stopped by what ever means are necessary.

[spoony]

73. The CIA is not a law enforcement agency

"no police or law enforcement functions, either at home or abroad"

That's from the National Security Act which created it. Obama is giving the CIA authority it does not have.

[treestar]

143. It's war

We don't try every enemy soldier.

[Robb]

63. This needs to be a new sigline.

"Just because the right wing has labeled us as terrorist coddling fools doesn't mean we have to actually be terrorist coddling fools." :toast:

[Robb]

60. And now we're defending al-Awlaki?

I feel like I woke up in a cuckoo clock.

[tekisui]

61. I am defending a citizen's right to due process.

I feel like I'm in the cuckoo clock with so many against civil liberties.

[Robb]

64. This is not a streetcorner preacher in SoCal.

His civil liberties don't enter into it. Whether or not he's started wiring bombs instead of just wiring money, he's off the US citizen clock.

[tekisui]

65. Accusations of his money uses and his free speech

are grounds for execution without trial?

Wow.

[phleshdef]

67. Since when has free speech rights guaranteed protection against conspiring to murder people?

[tekisui]

69. If he hs in fact done that, the evidence needs to be provided and

a warrant put out for his arrest. Intel agencies should monitor him and watch for movements and threats. Not drop a bomb on him.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Wrong. Your polemic runs contrary to international law.

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Awlaki is an imminent threat.

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Lather, rinse, and repeat. Stop beating a dead horse.

[Vattel]

98. One question here is whether he can be apprehended.

If it is likely that he will murder if not apprehended or killed, and it is impossible to apprehend him, then due process would not be violated by killing him. I don't know how strong the evidence is that he poses a significant threat of serious harm, nor do I know how feasible apprehension might be. So like you I am worried about whether due process is being respected, but unlike you I'm not convinced that it is.

[Vattel]

111. posted in wrong place. reposted it below

[boppers]

77. They *HAVE* monitored him, and decided the best course of action is dropping a bomb on him.

I'm sure they'll Mirandize the bomb, of course.

If he wants due process, he can turn himself in.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robb]

93. Straw man. It's got nothing to do with party, and you can't show it to be so.

Not that I'm surprised at a little rhetorical dishonesty. But I figured you'd lay off it for a while.

[tekisui]

94. I'm working on it,

at least on DU.

Come vote: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8108063

[Robb]

100. Wow, you sure are.

An entire poll with a false premise. Congratulations.

[tekisui]

102. I'll put you down for other.

And, you can tell me the distinction between the two.

[ClarkUSA]

104. So sorry, but it appears your push poll, which was based on false premises, just got locked.

:rofl:

FYI:

"It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

[ClarkUSA]

85. Anyone defending Awlaki has no clue about international law.

Your opinion is at odds with international law. Guess which one the Obama administration cares about more?

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

FYI, Awlaki is an imminent threat.

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

[ClarkUSA]

82. "Sick folks here" are defending a terrorist who is actively plotting against his own country.

"Sick folks here" are also ignoring the facts about international law in order to push their own version of events that bear no resemblance to the facts provided by their own news sources.

[spoony]

86. How about our laws?

You keep insisting this is okay by international law, a dubious claim, but you are only leaning on that because there's no way to justify it based on either the Constitution or the NSA, which does not give the CIA law enforcement powers. It is a civilian intelligence gathering agency, not the President's personal hit squad.

[ClarkUSA]

96. "You keep insisting this is okay by international law, a dubious claim"?? Prove it's "dubious".

I can prove it's not dubious at all:

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Awlaki is an imminent threat.

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Lather, rinse, and repeat.

[boppers]

87. Under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter (etc.), Ford, Nixon...

If you think this is new, or recent, you haven't been paying attention. It's not about the President or parties in power.

[tekisui]

88. That doesn't make it right. And, Obama is the first to target a US citizen.

[boppers]

101. First to target a US citizen? Uh, no.

The president with the biggest record of killing US citizens, without due process, would probably be Lincoln, with 93,000 US citizens killed, by government forces, under his presidential authorization.

[tekisui]

103. It is the first US citizen to go on the CIA's kill list.

I don't think Lincoln had one of those.

[ClarkUSA]

120. For good reason...

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

[cowman]

99. Would you feel

better if the Miranda Warning was printed on the bomb that is dropped on this piece of shit? Would that satisfy you?

[Phx_Dem]

114. LOL. Works for me.

:evilgrin:

[ClarkUSA]

79. According to the New York Times, Awlaki is actively "involved in plots" at the moment.

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Lather, rinse, and repeat.

[katandmoon]

81. The NYT? Also known as Bush's stenographer?

[ClarkUSA]

84. Does Glenn Greenwald and the OP know that? Because they both cited the same NYT article as sources.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=262344&mesg_id=262382
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations/index.html

:rofl:

[vaberella]

91. *ZZZZZing*

That's an interesting find.

[ClarkUSA]

110. *ZZZZZing*

That's an interesting comment.

[vaberella]

141. Oh, it's for zinger.

You threw their own argument in their face...which I agree with. I'm not sure how I feel about the situation since most of this seems to be built on presumption and not facts.

[Vattel]

95. The issue is whether the Constitution permits this,

not whether int'l law permits it.

[ClarkUSA]

105. Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after Sept. 11

"Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

[Vattel]

113. That doesn't resolve the issue of what due process requires

[ClarkUSA]

116. You answered this yourself earlier...

Vattel (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-07-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #74
98. One question here is whether he can be apprehended.

If it is likely that he will murder if not apprehended or killed, and it is impossible to apprehend him, then due process would not be violated by killing him. I don't know how strong the evidence is that he poses a significant threat of serious harm, nor do I know how feasible apprehension might be. So like you I am worried about whether due process is being respected, but unlike you I'm not convinced that it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=262344&mesg_id=262586

I think you hit the nail on the head. For the Obama administration to take this "extraordinary step" Awlaki must pose an imminent and "significant threat of serious harm" and since he is hiding in Yemen, it is be well nigh impossible to apprehend him.

From the NYT article:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

[Vattel]

122. I left out the "not" at the end of that post and posted it

in the wrong place (it was supposed to be a reply to the OP). But anyway, to you I would say that you might be right that the situation is such that basic principles of due process would be satisfied by killing him, but we don't really know whether that is the case. It is especially difficult to know how much evidence there is that killing him is immediately necessary to prevent him from acts of unjust aggression against others.

[ClarkUSA]

124. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

<<But anyway, to you I would say that you might be right that the situation is such that basic principles of due process would be satisfied by killing him, but we don't really know whether that is the case. It is especially difficult to know how much evidence there is that killing him is immediately necessary to prevent him from acts of unjust aggression against others.>>

True, but you could say that about any military action we take in Af-Pak. I've read enough in the NYT article that I and Keith Olbermann keep quoting to surmise that Awlaki is now an imminent threat. Also, there are enough folks who do know everything and who approve of this action that I trust to do the right thing, President Obama foremost among them.

[Phx_Dem]

112. Not me. He's in a war zone plotting against his own country. If he gets killed, tough shit.

[tekisui]

125. In a war zone with Yemen.

Not the US. 'If' he gets killed is not the same as 'target him for assassination'.

[Ignis]

89. Get with it, dude: Due process is SO 20th century!

Trials? Pshaw, we don't need no stinkin' trials!

We have "credible evidence!" And our intelligence has never, ever, ever been wrong when it comes to Al-Qaeda!

[Vattel]

109. We need more facts.

If it is likely that he will murder if not apprehended or killed, and it is impossible to apprehend him, then due process would not be violated by killing him. I don't know how strong the evidence is that he poses a significant threat of serious harm, nor do I know how feasible apprehension might be. So like you I am worried about whether due process is being respected, but unlike you I'm not convinced that it isn't. I'm glad that you at least care.

[Sheepshank]

119. Bush didn't even dare do this...some say?

bull.

Bush painted a target on Plame, and she was serving her country at the time. SHer Dh just wasn't cow towing to Bush's lies. Not even a close comparison.

Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen by accident of where his mom went into labor.

[tekisui]

121. Plame was not put on the CIA target list, not that we are

aware. Her security was compromised to be sure, though.

As for the 'accident' of Awlaki's US birth, it doesn't make him any less of a citizen, or lessen his rights.

[olegramps]

155. Have the birthers seen his birth certificate?

[Aramchek]

126. You did know that , Adam Gadahn, a US Citizen, has been on that list for years, right?

where was your outrage then?

[tekisui]

128. Can you show me that?

I can't find anything saying Gahdan is on the list.

I am against anyone being targeted for extrajudicial killing.

[tekisui]

132. Still waiting on that info on Gadahn.

As far as I can tell, you are wrong.

[Robb]

133. 25 January, 2008.

He was one of several targets for a Reaper strike in Mir Ali. Something of an Al Qaeda leadership slumber party. Gadahn wasn't there, but they believed he was and fired anyhow. Work for you?

[tekisui]

135. That is different than being put on the target list.

I am often told on DU that the US military doesn't target civilians, but it won't stop them from striking a target.

[Robb]

136. Trust me, if there was a list, he was on it.

And he wasn't listed under "civilians," either.

[tekisui]

137. How would you know?

Yet, this one is confirmed. It is different.

[Clio the Leo]

130. If you're going to take someone out, why announce it to the world?

Or allow it to be announced? (they certainly haven't denied it.)

Why tell the target you're literally gunning for him?

Something's odd about this whole thing.

Are we sending a signal to the world that they're free and clear to kill an American citizen without worry of retribution?

Does the Obama admin. have info that al-Awlaki is a big chicken sh*t and is only operating because he THINKS he WONT be killed? Would knowledge to the contrary cause him to be less brazen?

Hmmmmm.......

[vaberella]

144. Completely, hence the reason I decided to wait on more information.

Way too much people running on speculation. Even the article is a speculative piece is having people run around like headless chickens. Nothing has been confirmed or verified.

[Moochy]

134. Yay! More non-Change I Don't Believe In!

He told us he was gonna keep the extrajudicial killings going, wasn't this in his acceptance speech in Colorado?
:patriot: Besides, courts and due process are so quaint and pre-partisan!

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

145. You won't last very long here. n/t

[BklnDem75]

157. 16 posts and quoting Palin?

Really?

[treestar]

139. There were other Al Qaeda members born in the U.S.

How long did the guy live in the U.S.? If he was born here because his parents lived here temporarily, and then moved with them back to the middle east, he may not culturally be American and it sounds like he is not.

If he is fighting for Al Qaeda, he's part of the enemy. We may not have agreed to start the war, but once it is on, we can't treat some of the enemy with kid gloves due to coincidence of being born on US soil. Not every citizen has many ties to the U.S.

[livebythebeach]

142. good show

more targeted killings / less neighborhood cannon strafing*



*since new guys are often called freepers, I thought this'd be a good time to chime in (lurker since '03- I'm kinda introverted, lol)

[Hippo_Tron]

148. Question, if an American citizen enlisted in the Nazi army during World War II (and several did)

Would it be an extrajudicial killing to kill them without trial?

[Cleobulus]

149. Actually yes, and that did happen a few times...

in the western theater, others ended up as POWs.

[tekisui]

151. A couple of points.

We didn't put those Americans on hit lists. If they are in the theater of war, shooting at our troops, of course they will be shot at as well.

But, to sign off on a permission to kill to the CIA when there isn't an actual war zone, that is a whole different scenario.

Unless, of course, you buy into the 'global war on terror', in which case every point on the planet is a war zone. Hell, I guess we can use the CIA to kill Americans deemed threats right here on our own soil?

[vaberella]

166. No one is killing anyone without a trial.

This is something pushed by an article which uses a word to sensationalize their article. In actuality this is a capture-or-kill list. The FBI has a similar one and no one ever seemed to complain about the Top Ten Most Wanted. If he is captured he will face a trial. This is further proven the latest article provided on this site where Awlaki's father has asked the US government for a 3 month hold on the manhunt---because the Yemen government is also after this guy, to talk him out of hiding and turn himself in. If he does---he will face a court of law and given a fair trial. The kill is if he does not come quietly and fires back.

[olegramps]

152. If Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are on the list its ok by me.

[zulchzulu]

156. God damn right!

Anwar al-Awlaki is the kind of guy who would love to have the chance to behead you and your loved ones because you refuse to believe in his twisted 7th Century view of abject superstition and malace.

No music for you.

Women, put on your burka and shut your piehole. The only rights you have are your right foot and hand.

No dancing. Or you die.

Just fucking pray to some fictional god that was never even a god.

Or die if you don't get on that fucking prayer rug and start muttering shit like a fucking psychobabbling Baptist speaking in tongues.

FUCK HIM. Capture him and throw him into a pit of pigshit for all I care.

[tekisui]

161. I missed the report that showed he has beheaded anyone.

[Ter]

163. The CIA doesn't need Obama's authorization

Maybe on paper, but it won't change anything so why worry about it?

[Moochy]

171. Nothing to See Here

move along

[Hell Hath No Fury]

168. Thank you, again --

for doing much of the heavy lifting here in GD: P ! :hi:

I hated this policy when Bush Co. wanted to do it, and I still hate it. :(

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

173. Good.

International law permits the killing of persons (and groups) who pose an imminent threat to a nation. Mr. Awalaki has, through his actions, effectively renounced any claim to the protections that his U.S. Citizenship might have offered him.

He has been linked to multiple terrorist attacks, including the Ft. Hood Massacre.

Smoke the son of a bitch.