Political Animal
Blog
Additional details about the strike on al Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen became available yesterday after news of his demise, including the realization that it was not Yemeni forces responsible for the attack, but rather, a U.S. drone strike. The mission was carried about between the CIA and JSOC.
Because Awlaki was an American — as was another al Qaeda member, Samir Khan, who was also killed in the same strike — questions remain about the legality of the attack. The Washington Post reports on the internal administration legal document justifying the action.
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.
“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.
The administration has faced a legal challenge and public criticism for targeting Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico, because of constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve, at least internally, a legal debate over whether a president can order the killing of U.S. citizens overseas as a counterterrorism measure.
In a statement, and Obama administration official argued, “As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense.”
As for Awlaki’s role in the terrorist network — and whether his role was limited to propaganda, or whether he was a more active leader, involved in directing terrorist plots — officials also identified Awlaki yesterday as the “external operations” chief for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The label matters, to the extent that it seeks to provide additional justification — U.S. forces weren’t just targeting some guy who made radical videos, the argument goes, forces were also targeting a guy actively involved in directing terrorist attacks against civilians.
For more on this and the larger debate, I found this discussion between Rachel Maddow and Spencer Ackerman very worthwhile.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Facebook
Twitter
Josef K on October 01, 2011 8:18 AM:
The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi
Oh, good. That makes everything fine.
American citizens can take comfort that they can now have their death warrants signed thanks to secret memos.
I feel so much safer already.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 8:20 AM:
I can still see both sides here, and I still have some mixed opinions.
I don’t like this for obvious reasons – he’s a US citizen, and a non-combatant who mainly was doing proselytizing and propaganda work - from what I understand, though that point apparently is debatable.
And this action was approved by the WH and CiC, and was aimed at this specific individual, one who was not "directly" involved in acts of terrorism or war – now, or before. And again, the issues of "directly" is what's open to interpertation.
If he was actively fighting for the enemy on the “battlefield” and had died in the course of some other action, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with this – those are the risks Al-Alwaki’s taking.
There were US citizens who actively fought against the US in both WWI and WWII. Not many, and not all willingly, but there were.
Should we NOT have fought battles, trying to kill the enemy, if we knew there was a US citizen(s) on the other side?
The only comparison I can think of here is Tokyo Rose.
There was at least one US citizen, and one Canadian citizen, who did porpaganda broadcasts for the Japanese (Tokyo Rose was a generic name given to English speaking women who broadcast Japanese propaganda, and not ONE or TWO specific individuals, necessarily).
In that time, I think if either was killed in a general air attack, no one would have had any problem with it.
I might have a problem if FDR or Truman could send a drone to specifically kill this individual.
What was she doing? Yapping propaganda on the radio.
As for trying to capture Al-Awlaki, I don’t think wasting lives trying to get him would have been a wise or productive move.
In the Middle East, we’ve already wasted too much (more) good blood on the stupid idea that we can’t let the good blood already spent there go to waste.
I think losing more good blood trying to kill bad blood is an equally huge waste.
And we’ve had enough of that already.
I suppose if I had to chose, I’ll say I’m against this.
I think a reasonable rule is that if Little Boots would do something enthusiastically, you should avoid doing it, especially if you’re doing it reluctantly.
Them’s my $0.02, in case anyone gives a crap.
FRP on October 01, 2011 8:22 AM:
There are consequences to words . There are consequences to actions . The peevish political anguish that seems rooted in an odd contempt for the office of the President , has little legal footing in its furious insults directed towards the personal reasonings the mind readers and other high ranking priests of right wingy power . The objections from a sanitized view of events which deny the consequences of declaring war , against a prevailing majority who find those details persuasive , will need to find something other to hang any tangible objection on .
As for the President , his lack of triumphalism says all you need to know about how he feels in the main , concerning janitorial engineering in the real world the rest of us cringe and weep in .
We have seen the consequences of our own home grown Taliban , and the objections to the cleansing fire which has swept through hospital clinics for women are not going to cease via phony constitutional mock ups . They require a dedicated force determined to meet the evil of right wing demagoguery , face to face and toe to toe .
Harvey Boulay on October 01, 2011 8:37 AM:
Perhaps--just perhaps--a middle road here would be a trial in absentia in the US Federal Courts. It's something of a gray area in international law, but there are ample precedents for this dating back to the 1945 Nuremburg Trials. See the summary of the issue [here http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i1/schwar41.htm] This would at least address the practical matter that it's not feasible to capture and extradite these people.
Toon Moene on October 01, 2011 8:47 AM:
Doesn't *war* incite special legislation ?
I am quite sure nobody in the Netherlands ever raised a legal issue about the death of around 10,000 Dutch soldiers who voluntarily entered the service of the SS in WW II (and subsequently perished at the Eastern Front).
Danp on October 01, 2011 8:56 AM:
Distinguishing al-Aulaqi and Kahn from bin Laden and al-Zarquawi strikes me as a strange variation of American Exceptionalism. They deserve due process only because they are American?
While al-Aulaqi and Kahn's primary roll may have been propaganda, these guys aren't merely the equivalent of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They were actually corresponding with people who carried out plots.
While some things are absolutely immoral and illegal, sometimes evil acts can be justified when the failure to act is perceived to result in greater evil. How many hundreds of thousands of people have died because of (or at least in the name of) this war on terror? If killing these two is accepted as preventing many more deaths, then it is justified. The same argument pertains to the justification of any war, including WWII.
The idea that the President might one day decide to just bomb someone in a US suburb is logical hyperbole. There simply wasn't a way to arrest them without risking far more lives. How many soldiers do we ask to give up their lives to give these two men a trial?
dje on October 01, 2011 9:03 AM:
C d u n g, we do not live in utopia. Things are what they are. This man was part of an organization that was responsible for 9/11, an organization that has said many many times, that they will kill as many Americans as they can, and all in the name of God.
Now: I know right is right and wrong is wrong, and it would be really naive to think that this organization would stop coming after the US.
I find it very interesting that critics, who did not want prisioners of Guantanamo or 9/11 trials on US soil, and when an operation is run efficiently(unlike George Bush) that takes out one of its operatives, and was a legal under the Patriot Act(which I know we also have George Bush to thank for), are so vocally against this operation. I personally don't see or have a problem with this.
Obama has been very lethal to al Qaeda, and has been very clean and efficient in doing so, very quiet about bringing the hammer down on them. That sends a stong message to the world and other organizations who would mess with the US.
And that is just the way it is.
The hypocrite right will never give Obama and what he has done the credit he deserves.
If you were Obama, could you make such difficult decisions, and not live in a pollyanna world, and get the job done, and get it done well, might I add?
The last thing Obama needs are progressives who, in their righteous indignation, condemn a man who is actually working to make sure al Qaeda cannot do even more harm to US citizens, who has done something about 9/11, and who is doing it with as little US casualities as possible.
This President is working to keep us safe, and is doing it with more success than previous Presidents, and is not running around saying "mission accomplished" banging his own drum.
What more do people like you want?
berttheclock on October 01, 2011 9:22 AM:
More than one murderer in WWII escaped the ultimate punishment for his atrocities because of due process following the war. Look at the events surrounding SS Major Joachim Peiper and his men, some of whom were from the US and spoke English, in atrocities in Italy, France and Belgium, including, the Malmedy Massacre. These were brutal killers who executed innocent men, women, children, and American POWs. When, Peiper's execution notice reached our US Senate, there were Republican Isolationists of the Pat Buchanan ilk, who begged for his stay. Following a release from serving only 11 plus years in prison, he became a well paid suit for Porsche. It was only the work of Italian Jews who brought his past atrocities in Italy to view and he was forced to resign. I don't believe, often, with Vigilante Justice, but, the French Communists in France knew how to deal with Peiper, when, they shot him and, then, burned his house down atop him.
But, what of those Americans who went to Germany and fought and killed innocents under Peiper's command? Ah yes, due process must prevail at any cost.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 9:23 AM:
dje,
I'm going to assume that was a typo at the beginning of your comment.
You have a lot of great points. And I'm not saying Obama's not doing a good job. He is. You can't compare Little Boots to him. W would have relished this, and trumpeted it on TV, and Cheney probably would have gotten sexually aroused.
And I know we don't live in Utopia.
I said I'm of two minds on this one. I understand what's being done and why. I'm not a pollyanna.
And while I'm categorically against torture, regarding this, I can see some shades of gray.
But, just because I may be able to accept something, doesn't mean I have to like it.
Josef K on October 01, 2011 9:24 AM:
From Danp at 8:56 AM:
The idea that the President might one day decide to just bomb someone in a US suburb is logical hyperbole.
No, its the logical consequence of this line of decision.
There simply wasn't a way to arrest them without risking far more lives. How many soldiers do we ask to give up their lives to give these two men a trial?
Wrong question. And soldiers aren't "asked" to give up their lives, any more than police officers and Marshals are "asked" to arrest felons. It's their damned job to risk their lives in service of the US Constitution.
The correct question is "are our legal principles and procedures so easily cast aside for political convenience?"
theAmericanist on October 01, 2011 9:36 AM:
You guys would do well to focus on, yanno, the actual issues?
1) Was it legal -- i.e., under what circumstances would it be legal -- for Obama to kill al-Awlaki?
The Justice Department found that he was a legitimate target because he was actively organizing attacks to kill Americans.
2) Did his US citizenship matter?
Nope.
3) What evidence was there that he was actively organizing attacks to kill Americans?
Let's see -- besides his active encouragement of Major Nidal Hassan (13 dead at Ft Hood), Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab (tried to blow up an airliner), and Faisal Shahad, the Times Square guy, there's also what he told Rajib Karim, who was planning a 'spectacular" airline explosion in the UK: ""We need men who are willing to go all the way and not hold back anything from Allah...The religion of Allah cannot be given victory by part-time service. This is not a weekend religion. The contract is to sell our souls to Allah. The compensation is paradise." Then al-Awlaki went on to ask Karim: "I was pleased when your brother conveyed from you salaams to myself and was excited by hearing your profession. I pray that Allah may grant us a breakthrough through you. As a starter, can you please answer these questions in as much elaboration as possible: can you please specify your role in the airline industry, how much access do you have to airports, what information do you have on the limitations and cracks in present airport security systems, what procedures would travellers [sic] from the newly listed countries have to go through, what procedures would a person on a watch list have to go through?"
4) Was an arrest possible?
Nope.
N.Wells on October 01, 2011 9:44 AM:
My initial reaction is against this. Then I realized that Cheney, Bush, Rove, and Limbaugh, who have done far more damage to the nation than Awlaki ever did, might travel out of the country at some point. :) Nonetheless, however attractive that might be, it puts us a long distance down a nasty and slippery slope.
I find it difficult to argue against the need to counter a citizen who is as dangerous as Awlaki (assuming that reports of his dangerousness are accurate). The most powerful argument against targeting him is that to maintain our rule of law and our self-respect we must rise above individuals like Awlaki and wait them out and absorb their damage until we can capture them and put them on trial, or they die on a more conventional battleground. This would be comparable to the way we have (mostly / ideally / supposedly) decided that we should not launch assassination attempts against foreign leaders. However, capture or incidental death are unlikely to happen in Awlaki-type situations and individuals like that can do a lot of damage in the interim, given that modern terrorism is personal, individual, and decentralized, but potentially far more lethal than the old model of a mad anarchist with a bomb or a revolver. The solution, it seems to me, is not to issue secret assassination justifications, nor to do the equivalent of carpet-bombing a Tokyo in the general but carefully unexpressed hopes of killing a Tokyo Rose (or Libyan palaces / Gaddafi), but perhaps to establish an open judicial procedure, in effect a treason trial that can proceed in the absence of the accused. It would work to openly convict someone of being a sufficiently dangerous enemy of the nation to justify targeted lethal opposition, but it would involve defense lawyers and a high bar for conviction. I suppose it should allow a form of double jeopardy if new evidence can be added to the original but failed charges. It's far from ideal and is probably not constitutional without an amendment, but it cannot possibly be worse than having some anonymous and faceless Administration bureaucracy issue secret findings with no defense presented for the accused.
SYSPROG on October 01, 2011 10:03 AM:
You guys are great! Yesterday we were totally mired on black/white, right/wrong. It's nice to read thoughtful responses to what is a sticky issue. I have come down on the side of it was OK to target Awlaki but many of the points made provide food for thought. What I don't agree with is that this means the President can bomb a suburb in the US. That makes sense about as much as gay marriage leads to beastiality. I'm sick of hyperbole. If we can't ever discuss what kind of country we want to have, we've lost.
max on October 01, 2011 10:07 AM:
The Rachael Maddow/Spencer Ackerman video was interesting because after making a very strong case to dispose of Awlaki she quickly pivots and shudders before the altar of due process. Is she expecting a drone attack on Northampton, Massachusetts. Ackerman's pandering was even more ridiculous. The possibility of getting Awlaki in front of a U.S. criminal court was probably impossible in both a practical and political sense, and even if we had Americans could have been killed doing it. And then what? More lives in the field would have been jeopardized when his lawyers demanded classified material as a prerequisite to defend him and prosecutors would also need it to prosecute him. And if convicted he becomes another martyr and a reason for more Americans to die. And there is no legal precedent for having this kind of trial. Lets defer for a moment to common sense. We are at war with an international criminal cartel hiding behind religion. They have declared war on us and they have already killed thousands of Americans. In the end, perhaps the real issue is does the far left have enough common sense to defend itself. I know the protestations about the drone strike from the far right are hypocrisy as it almost anything we hear from the far right. It is the far left that is the problem regarding this issue and that is one reason I have been a registered Independent for decades. A little known fact outside the military is that officially acknowledged conscientious objectors to war (often combat medics) are authorized to use lethal force to defend casualties, and they have. Even CO's have enough sense to defend themselves and helpless wounded people. Why doesn't the far left?
Josef K on October 01, 2011 10:11 AM:
From theAmericanist at 9:36 AM:
You guys would do well to focus on, yanno, the actual issues?
1) Was it legal -- i.e., under what circumstances would it be legal -- for Obama to kill al-Awlaki?
The Justice Department found that he was a legitimate target because he was actively organizing attacks to kill Americans.
By that logic, armed robbers can now be summarily executed upon arrest by the police. You comfortable with that?
3) What evidence was there that he was actively organizing attacks to kill Americans?
You appreciate all the 'evidence' you cite is more hearsay than solid documentation, right?
4) Was an arrest possible?
Nope.
Says who? Based on what criteria of risk and probability of success?
Kathryn on October 01, 2011 10:11 AM:
Agree with Danp and dje, a close relative of mine has a sensitive job at CENTCOM and hears far too often what a socialist Obama is as retired military shoot the breeze. As my relative says, there is no more socialist organization in the world than the U.S. Army. Also Obama Administration has been so much more effective in eliminating al Queda leaders than Bush ever was. Bush who didn't really give bin Laden much thought. What do you purists think the Cheney crowd would have been screaming if the black guy in the White House said what Bush said? The double standard for Obama exists on the right and on the left. Obama gets little credit for his accomplishments (what accomplishments they say?) from right or left. I wonder why that is. My opinion is a black leader gets much less time to produce results and is more harshly judged than a white one due to ingrained unconscious racism which is in the DNA of all of us older folks. Who of us as children did not hear our elders denigrate African-Americans, sometime subtly, sometimes not subtle at all? I'm in know way calling myself or anybody else bigots, but do believe the legacy of slavery seeped into our unconscious resulting in a tendency to judge black folks by a different standard and not even realize we're doing it. The Tea Party crowd, on the other hand, is flat out bigoted though they would deny it with their last breaths just as they bristle when a truth slips out of Rick Perry calling them heartless, which they are.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 10:13 AM:
theAmericanist,
BINGO! You hit on the source of my problem:
"The Justice Department found that he was a legitimate target because he was actively organizing attacks to kill Americans."
The Justice Department found... Oh, then that's ok!
What did they use for evidence?
Was there any?
I know damn well Al-Alwaki didn't get to face his accuser - just a drone missile.
Again, I can see both sides of this, but saying that just because 'The Justice Department said' it had enough evidence, doesn't mean that it was good, or there was enough, or that it was real.
That's why we're supposed to hold trials. To determine if the evidence is enough to convince a jury of peers that the person accused can be charged in the first place, and then tried in the second, and then sentenced based on established guidelines.
This situation is the classic no-win situation.
"Real Politik" says do one thing, the Constitution says do another.
I prefer the Constitution.
But, those who believe in the "Real Politik" of the situation, well, you certainly have a strong case - at least that's IF what we've been told is true.
And we'll have to assume it is, as there was, and will be, no trial.
And we all know what happens when we ass/u/me, don't we?
And I'm not naive enough to think that no other Presidents in history have had this done before. But if they have, that still doesn't make this right.
YUCK!
bdop4 on October 01, 2011 10:20 AM:
This issue is strictly over due process. I've been reading people posting long lists of ALLEGATIONS concerning what Awlaki did to warrant execution and it is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Listen to what Ackerman says in the video. The only FACT that exists is that the government has offered NO evidence to justify killing an American citizen without due process. The government has made a number of statements about Awlaki's role in AQ, but nothing that would stand in a court of law without supporting evidence.
And, of course, the overriding rationale for not even attempting to observe the Constitution is the State Secrets doctrine, which has now become the Law of the Land.
The biggest casualty from this action is the Due Process clause, and it remains to be seen what other government action, justified by the State Secrets Doctrine and performed to Keep Us Safe, will follow from this precedent.
And are we safer as a result? Well, it is true that AQ has lost two propagandists, but they have now gained two new AMERICAN martyrs to present to their followers. Not sure if we came out ahead on that exchange.
One more certainty: that there will be posters that construe what I've written as support for Awlaki and AQ. Again, wholly irrelevant to the procedural issue at hand.
Yes, we do not live in a utopia, but there was a time when we used to try to achieve utopian ideals.
dje on October 01, 2011 10:42 AM:
Hi c u n d gulag and yes that was a typo; sorry.
I understand your perspective, I do, but being of two minds and making the tough decisions is what Obama seems to be exceptionally good at, and that needs to be recognized.
The shades of gray are what makes life difficult and I am so frustrated at those who would try to turn this positive accomplishment into a negative one.
The President did what he had to do and he did it well. Kudos for him.
Those hypocrites who would be loving it if Bush had done the same thing(on both the left and the right) are really starting to piss me off.
That's all I am saying.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 10:43 AM:
Also, too - what Kathryn said!
dje on October 01, 2011 10:52 AM:
bd,
Trying to achieve utopian ideals only works if everyone is trying to do the same thing, and that is not the case here.
Letting these people, whose sole purpose is to destroy the US, live would do just as much damage and embolden an all ready bold organization. Is that any better?
At least Obama is doing what he has do to do and is doing it as efficiently as possible, and that is the best any President can do(and what Bush couldn't seem to do at all, despite all his tough talk) and he is doing it quietly, which is the best way to handle touchy situations like these.
You can speak softly and carry a big stick. The right has pegged liberals as speaking softly and being weak when it comes to matters such as this one(security and defense).
I, for one, applaud Obama for being smart enough and strong enough to carry out missions like this one, and for getting OBL. Obama is quiet but sends a message to the world: "Don't fuck with the US, because we will get you" and with a great deal of diplomacy to boot. It doesn't get any better than that. Just sayin.
Danp on October 01, 2011 10:53 AM:
The government has made a number of statements about Awlaki's role in AQ, but nothing that would stand in a court of law without supporting evidence.
You mean like the e-mails he sent, the articles he wrote and the videos he made? Is your argument that these may not actually exist? Or that they aren't enough to prove his role? Or that without jurors and a defense lawyer, they prove nothing?
SYSPROG on October 01, 2011 11:03 AM:
Thanx Kathryn...that has been going thru my head for a while now. You articulated it nicely. OK now I have a question. I've been looking up birthright vs naturalized citizenship. The US government can revoke citizenship for 'naturalized' citizens because they took an oath to 'protect and defend'. What about us citizens that were born here? CAN they revoke our citizenship for conspiring against the US? I've been wondering because Awlaki left when he was 7, went back to Yemen which was the country of his father, applied to US colleges as a 'foreign student', and never did protect and defend...
manapp99 on October 01, 2011 11:18 AM:
"You mean like the e-mails he sent, the articles he wrote and the videos he made? Is your argument that these may not actually exist? Or that they aren't enough to prove his role? Or that without jurors and a defense lawyer, they prove nothing?"
No...the argument is not that they may not exist. The argument is giving one man, the President, the authority to deem e-mails, articles and videos enough to warrant a death sentence. Without a trial. Do you really really want anyone in government to have this power? Perhaps your going to be O.K. with a President Perry having this power?
This killing needs to be questioned and condemed as beyond the authority of any single person. Even a President your trying to defend.
Your willing to give up your right to a fair trial to help get Obama re-elected?
theAmericanist on October 01, 2011 11:19 AM:
You guys would do well to look up what "tautology" means. Let's take 'em one at a time -- no, wait, there's only one. (Look up "echo chamber", too.)
The President, carrying out his duty as Commander in Chief AND as Chief Executive, asked the Justice Department: under what circumstance can I kill this guy?
The answer was: if and when he is actively engaged in organizing attacks on Americans.
That's a factual question, not a legal one. If you want to argue over the legal question, you have to distinguish the law from the facts.
The law is very clear -- this guy was not in the United States, nor in any country where arrest and extradition would have been possible. (Um, for the reality-challenged here: he WAS in jail in Yemen for awhile, yet was not returned to the US. The Yemeni government actually tried to get him a couple times after his release, and got shot at.)
So it becomes a factual question, since the law is clear that under certain circumstances, Obama could legally kill him without trial.
Going too fast for you guys? Cuz, yanno, if you're arguing the LAW, that's what you have to focus on. Challenging the facts as if they;re the law, then the law as if it's the facts, and switching back and forth randomly kinda demonstrates you dunno what you're talking about.
That's why I cited the law first, and THEN the facts.
Hassan killed 13 people. Abdulmuttalab tried to kill more than a hundred. Shahad was hoping to kill several times that. Karim was aiming even higher -- 'spectacular' is pretty big.
This is where you guys confuse your dispute about the law with delusions about the facts.
The LAW says that if the facts establish that al-Awlaki was actively organizing attacks against Americans, Obama had the authority -- and I would argue, the obligation -- to kill him. You evidently don't like the law (in fact, apparently you don't even understand it), but that doesn't change what it is.
The FACTS establish that al-Awlaki was actively organizing attacks on Americans: he had done this at least three and more likely four times BEFORE the Karim emails were published in March. The specifics of each case, viz. what he said to Hassan (established in court as probable cause), and to Abdulmuttalab (likewise established in court), and Shahad (used as legal evidence to convict the guy -- see the pattern here, folks?), demonstrates the legal validity of the conclusion drawn not just from those sets of evidence, but also his communications to Karim -- which are clearly not theological exhortation, but planning for mass murder.
Then you go back to being confused about not only the distinction between facts and the law, but also on what the law itself says: you claim that these aren't facts until they have been established in court.
See, when you refer to reality instead of that mush between your ears, you find that in all four of the cases I cited, these factrs WERE established in court. Two of 'em as probable cause (all by itself sufficient for a kill or capture order in cases of clear and imminent risk), and two of 'em for convictions.
Read the Karim emails again. Tell me how you can possibly imagine that guy wasn't planning to kill large #s of people as soon as he could possibly find somebody who could get on the plane with a bomb.
Then kindly explain why anybody should ever listen to you clowns again.
JackD on October 01, 2011 11:41 AM:
If analogy to "conventional" war is appropriate, ask yourselves if the allies had known the location of Himmler or someone like him, would they have attempted to kill him and wouldn't that have been "legal"? If someone is actively involved in warfare against the United States, as this person apparently was, why does American citizenship protect him from the hazards of the battlefield? The fact that he is not actively involved in an immediate attack should not immunize him. During WWII, the U.S. deliberately downed an aircraft carrying a Japanese commander because his presence there was known. It's difficult to see the distinction.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 11:43 AM:
theAmericanist,
You apparently are All Knowing.
At least when it comes to "THE LAW."
Or, so you tell us.
So, I guess there's no disputing anything you say, or arguing with you. Even if some of us agree with some of your points, and are merely trying to have a conversation about what we feel are gray areas.
But, I mean, to what end?
You are, after all - ALL KNOWING!
Oh, and can you treat us like morons some more, and make fun of us, and call us mush-brained, and clowns?
That's a great way to make friends and influence people!
But I think you must have read "Cale Darnegie" instead of Dale Carnegie.
You might want to work a little on your people skills.
All Knowing people sometimes lack empathy. But, how silly am I? Why would they need it?
Robert Waldmann on October 01, 2011 11:43 AM:
I really don't understand. As far as I can tell, Constitutional due process rights for US citizens are identical to those for non citizens. The 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments do not make any reference to citizenship.
I'm not a lawyer and I understand how little the text of the Constitution has to do with Constitutional law which consists almost entirely of precedents.
But I just don't see any basis for the idea that the Executive branch can kill non citizens but not citizens.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 12:04 PM:
Robert Waldmann,
Ask 'theAmericanist.'
He'll be happy to explain it to you.
Of course, he may tell you that he has already - but, hey, they're your electrons...
Old Uncle Dave on October 01, 2011 12:06 PM:
Obama has adopted the Nixon doctrine:
"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
Danp on October 01, 2011 12:19 PM:
The argument is giving one man, the President, the authority to deem e-mails, articles and videos enough to warrant a death sentence. Without a trial. Do you really really want anyone in government to have this power? Perhaps your going to be O.K. with a President Perry having this power?
Your argument is overly simplistic. The evidence was not solely weighed by Obama. It was weighed by US intelligence. The articles and videos are on-line, though of course, it's probably safe to assume that much evidence, both incriminating and exculpating, are classified. I think it is safe to say that these intelligence experts had far more evidence than a jury would ever get to see.
Do I really want anyone in government to have this power? No, but that misses the point. Sometimes you condone evil actions because not acting yields more evil results. If evidence shows that the decision was insincere or capricious, the whole issue changes. But to think that the law is perfect is naive.
theAmericanist on October 01, 2011 12:22 PM:
Gulag: when people know what they are talking about, it helps to notice, and learn. I notice that you don't know what you're talking about -- and point it out.
See the difference? Didn't think so.
Look -- if you have a problem with the LAW, say so. There are two basic arguments over the law: first, you can claim that it doesn't mean what the Justice Dept says it means. That kind of argument would go -- 'yeah, Obama says he has the authority to kill anybody, including a US citizen, who is a) outside the US, b) cannot be safely arrested or reliably extradited, and c) who is actively organizing attacks on Americans, but YOU think this misreads the law, cuz it only authorizes...' and then, yanno, you actually have to back up what you say.
Well?
OR you can concede that the law DOES say what I noted it says (following the old-fashioned method of actually paying attention), and argue instead that the law should be changed to say something else.
Which are you trying to do? Cuz nobody can tell. You're too confused.
Then again, you might concede the law authorizes the President to kill a guy in those circumstances (this would be a good move for you, since it would demonstrate at last a basic grasp of written language), and then argue the facts.
Again, there are basically two ways to do that: first, you could argue that it wasn't al-Awlaki, just somebody using his name, email address, and who looked remarkably like him in a series of video and audio recordings in which he counsels, encourages, and praises Hassan, Abdmulmuttalab, Shahad, and Karim. (This would also raise questions about what happened to the real guy, who never objected to this impostor. who used his name to... sound just like him.)
Is that what you're doing? Cuz, like I said: nobody can tell.
OR you could concede, okay, so it was Anwar al-Awlaki -- but his counsel to these four guys (among a long series of others) doesn't meet the criteria established in the law: was he, or was he not, actively organizing attacks on Americans?
This is where that literacy thing comes into play, again. Did you read what he said to Karim, that I quoted? Or what he said to Hassan, Abdulmuttalab, or Shahad?
Again -- nobody can tell which of these arguments you're making, cuz you're incoherent.
Note that you'd have to be doing the following, to make the closest thing to an intelligible argument that you've lurched toward (and you didn't get close): you MIGHT be trying to say that, okay, so the law authorizes the President to kill al-Awlaki, because he WAS actively organizing attacks on Americans.... b-b-but that's unConstitutional!!!
Trouble with that argument is that it is flat-out false. Even within the US, the Constitution AND both Federal and state law allows for cops and the FBI to use deadly force against a fugitive who is a clear and imminent danger: that's what "armed and presumed dangerous" means. So there is no Constitutional barrier to cops shooting a guy who has killed and will kill again, if that's the only way they can stop him. See again, the distinction between the facts and the law. If you want to argue the facts about al-Awlaki -- go back to the Karim emails.
Since al-Awlaki was outside the United States, in a country where it was clearly impossible to safely arrest him (note the Yemeni forces who were fired on when they tried), and since he plainly was planning to kill large numbers of people, including Americans: inthenameofallthingsgodly, would you kindly explain WTF you're bitching about?
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 12:47 PM:
theAmericanist,
No thank you.
I respectfully, unlike you, decline the offer to explain what I think about anything anymore, or to talk to you any longer.
You're putting words in my mouth and arguing with me over points that I never said, and didn't make.
But, whatever floats your Strawman boat..
Oh, and btw - can you be any more smug and condescending?
And can you angrily lash out some more, just to prove your supposed, self-appointed, superiority and knowledge?
It's a real turn on!
Just not for anyone but you.
HUMBLY, I wish you a nice weekend!
manapp99 on October 01, 2011 12:48 PM:
"Your argument is overly simplistic. The evidence was not solely weighed by Obama. It was weighed by US intelligence."
Boy...that's comforting. The same US intelligence that told us about Saddam's WMD in the 90's and early 2000's? Can't get the info right on Iran or North Korea? Can't get the "watch list" right?
The idea that the US is using targeted assassinations even on non-citizens in countries with which we are not at war is troubling. Through in the fact that we are now assassinating citizens on un-proven evidence without the benfit of trial is really scary. Remember that the "global war on terror" was officially scraped by the Obama administration so the only people we are currently at war with are the Taliban in Afghanistan. Any drone action outside of that country is illegal. How would you feel if the Mexican government were using drones to kill drug lords who come to the US? Perhaps there will be a little collateral damage like the innocents the drones have killed in Pakistan but your o.k. with that? The drone kills in countries we are not at war with sets a dangerous precendent and this killing of a US citizen should be used to review and, hopefully kill, this program.
SYSPROG on October 01, 2011 1:06 PM:
Whoosh......calm down. This is a really scary topic. Do we go with how WE interpret the Constitution or legal experts? People are understandably angry. But what some of the above posts DO show is the GOP spin of 'NEVER TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT' is working. It is always good to question but some pendantic posters seem to believe that 'they are out to GET us'...that just feeds into the narrative. No matter what we think, this decision was not made in a vacuum. You may not agree with it but it doesn't make it wrong. What is bugging me is the attacks by both the right and the left on Obama. No, he is NOT Nixon. Give me a break.
manapp99 on October 01, 2011 1:11 PM:
Actually SYSPROG...the right agrees with Obama on this issue. FOX news is defending the President on the killing. It is really strange to see that the oppostion to this action is shared by Glen Greenwald and Ron Paul.
President Perry is all for it.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 1:27 PM:
SYSPROG,
I don't mind discussing this, because I agree with you that it's a scary topic.
It's just that I don't choose to debate someone who, after awhile (actually - right from the person's first comment), shows that they are smug, arrogant, and condescending. (And I'm not talking about you, as I'm sure you know.)
My original point was not one necessarily over the law at all, but of moral ambiguity. MY moral ambiguity, and MY feelings and opinions on this subject. As I said, those opinions were my 2 cent's worth, if anyone cared. And then, my simple mental musings (not simple-minded), were turned into an argument I wasn't having over the law with someone who might give "The Donalde" a run for his 'arrogant' money.
I didn't, and don't, try to put words in others people mouths, unlike some others.
I was trying to share how I felt about a complicated, and difficult subject.
And I refuse to be baited into an argument over the law that I don't want, with a person who shows no respect for me, or for the opinions of anyone else but him(her)self.
And them's my last $0.02 on this subject.
Josef K on October 01, 2011 1:43 PM:
I feel a bit guilty responding to this, give how thoroughly theAmericanist has gotten their clocks cleaned. But some things require a response.
From theAmericanist at 11:19 AM:
The law is very clear -- this guy was not in the United States, nor in any country where arrest and extradition would have been possible. (Um, for the reality-challenged here: he WAS in jail in Yemen for awhile, yet was not returned to the US. The Yemeni government actually tried to get him a couple times after his release, and got shot at.)
So it becomes a factual question, since the law is clear that under certain circumstances, Obama could legally kill him without trial.
The law is anything but clear, at least until you can cite a specific section of the US Code that states American citizens residing overseas and engaged in private political activity can be targeted for execution by the President.
As for his arrest and removal from Yemen territory being an impossibility, your own facts (which I'm not inclined to accept without clear citation) rather undercuts the 'impossible' argument.
This is where you guys confuse your dispute about the law with delusions about the facts.
Your own 'facts' are thin to the point of vapor, friend, and they establish nothing in any legal sense.
Then you go back to being confused about not only the distinction between facts and the law, but also on what the law itself says: you claim that these aren't facts until they have been established in court.
That, very simply, is because they aren't. They're unsupported claims, made all the more dubious by the use to which they're put.
Then kindly explain why anybody should ever listen to you clowns again.
The same reason nobody should never listen to you and yours again: because we're not confusing the primary issue at stake with undocumented assertions from dubious sources.
theAmericanist on October 01, 2011 1:48 PM:
LOL -- Gulag, your illiteracy oddly extends even to what YOU write: not entirely unusual, but notable nevertheless:
I noted that you guys would do well to focus on the issues, and I cited 'em.
You prompted replied: "BINGO! You hit on the source of my problem:
"The Justice Department found that he was a legitimate target because he was actively organizing attacks to kill Americans."
The Justice Department found... Oh, then that's ok!
What did they use for evidence?
Was there any? "
Kindly I observe I was responding to YOUR questions, directed to ME, with the actual evidence.
I also noted that you remain confused on the distinction between the facts (which is what evidence is about) and the law (which continues to deeply baffle you).
But I am merely noting here that YOU asked ME questions. When I answered them, you decided to insult me as much as possible (which, given your skills, ain't much), rather than as a more sensible person would, understanding how the answers to your own frigging questions illuminate you as even dumber than usual.
'Course, you felt compelled to go on to note that your stooopidity is not limited to your intellect: you feel it is entirely compassed in morality.
You can be as narcissist as you like, since as you say, it's all about YOUR feelings and YOUR sense of moral ambiguity. But courtesy compels noticing that nobody asked you -- although you did ask ME, and I gave you answers.
Which you've ignored. Didn't please your sense of your own righteousness, I suppose, tortured as you are in that magnificent conscience that you brag about at every opportunity.
theAmericanist on October 01, 2011 1:51 PM:
Josef: try Google.
The Justice Department's reasoning in their memo for the President is very public.
Likewise, there are these things called "courts", which have these events called "cases". Hassan and Abdulmuttalab are two "cases", which have had "filings" that have established "probable cause', as I cited. It's been in all the papers.
Shahad and Kamir's cases resulted in convictions. These are, yanno, documented? In (respectively) NY State and the United Kingdom.
You could look them up. But methinks that might confuse you -- reality, and all.
c u n d gulag on October 01, 2011 2:00 PM:
theAmericanist,
I defer to you.
I am but a humble beginner, a peon, and you are in "The Narcissistic and Rightious Pontificators Hall of Fame."
First ballot!
I'd want to grow up to be like you - but then I'd have to kill myself.
Do have a pleasant weekend.
Though goodness knows what that would entail...
Danp on October 01, 2011 2:42 PM:
"Your argument is overly simplistic. The evidence was not solely weighed by Obama. It was weighed by US intelligence."
Boy...that's comforting. - manapp99
And yet you are comforted by the process Troy Davis got? Or do you think jurors picked from the American public at large would be better able to weigh the evidence in this case? Would they be less biased? With all due respect, were you this outraged when al-Zarqawi was killed? I don't defend Bush for anything, but this was one event that didn't bother me, and it wouldn't have made any difference to me if he were a US citizen.
As for bystanders that just happen to be near the target, on that subject, I would agree with your point. My only argument is that protecting one guy's due process at the expense of many other innocent lives, doesn't pass the morality test.
jjm on October 01, 2011 3:10 PM:
It just occurred to me that this event is what the Obama administration must have been waiting for before they put the final pressure on Saleh to quit. If he had quit before Obama disrupted Al Quaeda in Yemen to this extent, then AQ might have won the day politically in the country. Now, I imagine Saleh will leave.
Of course, John Bolton, defender of dictators, has jumped in claiming that Saleh has to stay to 'stop Al Quaeda'... 1) to keep a strong man dictator type in power, and 2) to attribute the stopping of AQ in Yemen to -- you guessed it! -- Saleh, rather than Obama. (I was wondering why that guy popped up again, but now I can see why.)
Cha on October 01, 2011 5:01 PM:
@ Old Uncle Dave on October 01, 2011 12:06 PM:
"Obama has adopted the Nixon doctrine:
"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
No, he hasn't. That's just sloppy. President Obama backs it up with the law. It was legal to do this and he did.
Josef K on October 01, 2011 6:32 PM:
From theAmericanist at 1:51 PM:
Josef: try Google.
The Justice Department's reasoning in their memo for the President is very public.
I've followed every working link on Google on this reported memo. I've yet to see anything detailing the actual reasoning used by the DOJ (never mind telling us which division and what staff were involved).
Likewise, there are these things called "courts", which have these events called "cases". Hassan and Abdulmuttalab are two "cases", which have had "filings" that have established "probable cause', as I cited. It's been in all the papers.
If memory serves, the late al-Awlaki was never made an accessory, co-conspirator, or co-defendant in any of those. A glaring oversight in this matter, don't you think?
Shahad and Kamir's cases resulted in convictions. These are, yanno, documented? In (respectively) NY State and the United Kingdom.
And, again, I don't recall the late al-Awlaki being named as an accessory, co-conspirator, or co-defendant in either case. So why use either as justification (especially after the fact) for his killing?
You could look them up. But methinks that might confuse you -- reality, and all.
I fear you're the one confused, both to the relevance of Shahad and Kamir's cases here, and more significantly about what the controversy actually is.
Here's hoping you never suffer for that ignorance.
Josef K on October 01, 2011 6:41 PM:
From Cha at 5:01 PM:
@ Old Uncle Dave on October 01, 2011 12:06 PM:
"Obama has adopted the Nixon doctrine:
"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
No, he hasn't. That's just sloppy. President Obama backs it up with the law. It was legal to do this and he did.
The White House and the DOJ have both declined to explain, even in the most general terms, the reasoning outlined in this memo of theirs. Perhaps its airtight based on lengthy precedent, or its as vaporous as Michele Bachmann's sanity.
Either way, their ongoing reticence fuels the sense this action has crossed a very dangerous line.
theAmericanist on October 01, 2011 7:49 PM:
K -- you don't actually follow this as closely as you think.
For one thing, I noted the DOJ's reasoning, which is very public, e.g., "“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense..."
You don't happen to like this reasoning, but it's quite clear and specific -- just like I said. It's sorta silly of you to insist that you haven't seen the actual reasoning: "the authority provided by Congress..." regarding al-Qaeda, et. al, and self-defense under what, a bazillion conventions of international law? Then again, you ARE sorta silly, so I suppose it makes sense to you to be this stooopid in public.
Secondly, beware of begging the question -- using the term precisely in that you are embedding your conclusion in your premise, which is why you make no sense.
I had noted the actual law -- the President has the authority (and probably the obligation) to kill a guy like al-Awlaki in circumstances like this, if he is actively organizing attacks on Americans. As noted, you may not LIKE the law -- but that's what it is. I even suggested the two intelligent ways to attack it -- to say that there is a law, but it says something different, or to recognize that the law says what the DoJ has publicly stated it is (the reasoning I quoted), but then to argue the facts and insist the al-Awlaki didn't meet the standard.
You do two, utterly foolish things, instead: first, you insist that you haven't seen the Justice Department's reasoning when the quote I cited is in every frigging news report on teh subject, all over the world. (This is why I note you really ARE silly.)
Second, you insist that the law doesn't actually apply, but some OTHER law does -- noting that al-Awlaki wasn't charged as an accessory, accomplice, etc., in the Fort Hood case, the Times Square case, the underwear bomber, etc. (I think he was actually charged in a French case, and I don't know whether he was included in the Karim case in the UK.)
That's not the law. You want criminal law to be the controlling standard in this case -- and it ain't. That's why I noted you guys would do better to focus -- first on understanding what the law is, and THEN recognizing the facts.
Like I said, you can intelligently argue (gee, there's assuming a fact not in evidence) that the law doesn't say what the Justice Department says it does, OR that it should be changed. But it is downright delusional to insist that it doesn't exist but some OTHER law applies.
That's why you make no sense whatsoever about what actually happened here: there is a trail of evidence on al-Awlaki that is more than a decade long -- he knew two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego, who both then prayed at his mosque in Falls Church. Then he took it on the lam to Yemen. He counseled Major Hassan before the Fort Hood killings, and praised him lavishly afterward. He counseled Abdulmuttalab, and Shahzad: all of this established in court, under rules of evidence -- two convictions, and two solid determinations of probable cause.
I noted that Yemen tried to arrest him -- and al-Awlaki's guards shot back.
So I challenged you guys to read what al-Awlaki told Karim (which was established in court in the UK, under solid rules of evidence, open to challenge by the defense), and TELL me that this guy wasn't actively organizing attacks on Americans.
(crickets)
The grim irony, of course, is that you guys are legitimately concerned not so much about al-Awlaki's killing (what, are you going to miss him?) as the precedent this could establish.
But you're too fucking stooopid to realize that you make this precedent much broader but failing to recognize its actual characteristics.
theAmericanist on October 01, 2011 8:01 PM:
Er, BY failing to recognize its actual characteristics.
It's sorta like people who want to abolish the death penalty, by cherry picking difficult cases (like Troy Davis) and then insisting they're "innocent", despite juries and evidence and that sorta thing.
You really want to abolish the death penalty, candidly insist that the worst guys shouldn't be killed for the crimes they clearly committed. Then it's a matter of principle that doesn't depend on conning people, the way the Innocence Project does.
Likewise with al-Awlaki: if you really want to limit (or even repeal) a President's authority (and obligation) to kill a guy like that in circumstances like this, recognize how completely legit this was -- otherwise you're skiing down the slippery slop, imagining all your intellectual lubricant is really traction.
Josef K on October 01, 2011 9:32 PM:
From theAmericanist at 7:49 PM:
K -- you don't actually follow this as closely as you think.
Its more a matter of you and I talking past one another.
For you, the procedural motions that were taken to initiate this action appear paramount and justify its undertaking. Fine. Its a perfectly legitimate viewpoint to hold.
For myself, the fact this course of action was even contemplated, never mind actually taken, is the overriding point. The procedural hurdles taken to justify it are of secondary concern, and in no way excuse or justify that action.
I'm going to make a final observation on this issue, then leave it for the night. Whether you accept it or not is your affair:
Die Endl�sung der Judenfrage was arrived at by reasoning and policy goals that, at the time, were perfectly legal. Anyone here want to so much as suggest that policy is in any way defensible today.
Should this policy be as readily accepted, as that one was?
Josef K on October 01, 2011 10:05 PM:
Put more simply:
If government policy is a reflection of that country's values, we Americans now accept that our fellow citizens can be assassinated without benefit of trial or defense.
Forget the context specific to al-Awlaki; that's the policy that's just been put into effect.
Anyone besides me have a problem with this?
Sparko on October 02, 2011 1:16 AM:
Hey, he was just vacationing in Yemen. And directing terror strikes.
There is a time when someone becomes a clear a present danger as a criminal I think this is pretty easily one of those times. I think we would all prefer it if Americans stopped using hate speech, joined terror organizations, migrated to unstable middle eastern countries, and plotted attacks on their former country. We certainly could have waited until we could safely arrest him--but damn people, you see how really stupid that reasoning is, right? And it isn't like Bin Laden and company are out there leaving finger prints at the crime scene. These guys are traced through intercepts and great personal sacrifices by people who have been killed trying to save your smarmy asses. People who are not always talked about as missing. Sigh. Anyway, those who tread the oh so righteous path of Greenwald on this: fly to Yemen with your legal teams immediately and fan out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/01/aaron-bassler-killed-by-police_n_990746.html
theAmericanist on October 02, 2011 9:54 AM:
K: this isn't a matter of you and I talking past each other, as you so fatuously put it.
I've been talking directly to what you doubtless still consider to be 'points'. You've been sticking your fingers in your ears, humming hymns to a conscience so vast that both you and Gulag have to take turns reifying it.
I noted that you guys would do well to focus. Have you? Nope.
I noted WHAT you would do well to focus ON -- the law, and the facts. You can't figure out which one is more difficult for you to grasp.
I even explained how an intelligent person can legitimately address the law: you can argue that it doesn't say what the Justice Department found, OR that it does, but the facts don't apply in this case, OR you can demand that the law be changed.
You've done none of those things, because the foundation for your views is jello. You denied knowing the Justice Department reasoning, concealed as it is in the lead stories in all media on al-Awlaki's killing. So I quoted it to you (twice -- Mods, pay attention); rather than acknowledge reality, you decided to change the subject.
I noted also that you could, finally! argue the facts -- in fact, I've INVITED you guys, over and over again, to read what al-Awlaki emailed to Karim and explain how that guy wasn't actively organizing to kill Americans.
(crickets)
Your first ploy was to say these were all just allegations. I noted they were not -- each has been established as either probable cause (sufficient in itself under the law), or evidence for convictions. You assumed your conclusion (again!), trying to argue that since al-Awlaki wasn't charged (except that he has been, of course), none of this mattered. So I reminded you that isn't the law -- AND I did the right thing, inviting you once more to actually speak to the law if that's what really concerns you. You didnt. Instead, you tried to claim that these facts hadn't been established in court. So I noted that actually, they've been established in FOUR court proceedings, and I named 'em: Hassan's indictment, Abdulmuttalab's arraignment, Shahzad's sentencing, and Karim's conviction.
Well?
So now, shredded and incapable of embarrassment, you're arguing that, um, ya see, it's all about VALUES -- yeah, that's it, values!
Even you know that's bullshit. No value whatsoever would have been upheld if the President had refused to kill al-Awlaki. It does not exalt US citizenship to make it a rationalization for a failure to uphold the law and protect us against our enemies. It diminishes its purpose and demeans its function.
Worse -- by trebling your failure to grasp the characteristics of this one, you make this President's use of a serious expansion of power into an essentially indefinable authority: honest, it helps to KNOW what you're talking about. Your head is so far up your ass that you're guaranteeing what you want to avoid.
If Yamamoto had become a naturalized US citizen when he attended Harvard (which he could not have done, since the law restricted naturalization to 'free white persons' at the time), it would still have been entirely legal, in fact imperative, to have the Army Air Force P-38s chase his plane and shoot him down. Yamamoto planned Pearl Harbor. He was an enemy. He's dead -- thank God.
There is no meaningful difference between that operation, and this one. Face it, k (not to mention Gulag) you've publicly exposed yourself as a goddam fool - not so much because you were wrong, as because you don't have the grace or education to recognize when you've been corrected.
Josef K on October 03, 2011 9:41 AM:
From theAmericanist on October 02, 2011 9:54 AM:
K: this isn't a matter of you and I talking past each other, as you so fatuously put it.
No, its precisely that.
For you, the new policy decision underlying this action is acceptable because you've apparently been satisfied by what little we know about the DOJ's reasoning (which, like it or not, has not been spelled out in detail) and the White House's deliberations, plus the target himself was reprehensible character who I agree deserved removal.
For me, its the policy that needs to be argued, not how much or how little the late al-Awlaki was encouraging or planning the next attack on American interests; all that is completely secondary to the fact President Obama has just set a very, very dangerous precedent for the future.
You would do better to focus on the fact the President has just demonstrated the willingness to kill American citizens without benefit of any kind of trial. The legality of that move is less a worry than the fact its been undertaken in the first place. Once that kind of precedent is in place, using it again and again gets easier.
Keep in mind both The Nuremberg Laws and The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service both became part of German law in the mid-1930s. Both establish policies no sane person would agree with or try to defend today.
Should this policy, objectively standing counter to many of our country's professed core beliefs, be allowed to stand without protest simply because the target in question was a reprehensible slug?
theAmericanist on October 03, 2011 11:03 AM:
See how focus works?
I suppose it's way past time to invoke Godwin's Law, but since I believe in redemption:
1) K: only a fool (or an ignoramus, you've established you're both) argues either law or policy as an abstraction. (That's why I used "reify" upthread, you really should consult a dictionary when you don't know what a word means.) It becomes semantic, rather than substantive. That's why I noted that we haven't been talking past each other -- I've been speaking directly to what you have fooled yourself into thinking is an argument, while you've had your fingers in your ears humming self-righteous hymns.
2) I've noted several times that for folks who are serious (which lets you out) about limiting this power that the President has used, it is necessary to recognize the definitive nature of THIS use. Read that again, cuz it's slipped right past your steel sieve intellect every time.
3) The Justice Department is quite clear on the law here, particularly since the actual memo is secret -- for reasons that are obvious* to those of us who think about it, which again excepts you. They've cited two sources of authority -- the specific authorization that Congress provided to fight al-Qaeda (and the Taliban) which, a sensible person would note, was never limited to Afghanistan; and the more general principle of self-defense recognized by all international law.
4) Under THOSE laws -- rather quaintly, I insist that when you're arguing about the law, you need to focus on the one you're arguing about -- al-Awlaki's US citizenship doesn't matter. What's more, it never did.
5) This is where it helps to avoid reification, particularly when talking about "policy". I caution you, K, about this part, because it is barely possibly that you might uncontrollably learn something.
See, any action by the US government, particularly one that follows a "policy" with specific legal authorization, has characteristics, i.e., facts that are measured against the definitions required by the law. Part of the finding by the Justice Department (as well as the CIA and ultimately by the President) is exactly as I noted above -- first, they said what the law was, second, they established the facts -- THEN, they splattered the guy.
A smarter guy than you would have recognized instantly (without my repeated prompting) that there are only three ways to limit any President's authority to do what Obama just did:
First, you can deny it exists and insist that the al-Awlaki killing was unlawful. You can also buy a roll of tinfoil and make a hat.
Second, you can recognize that it exists (take off the hat, dude), and insist that the facts about al-Awlaki don't meet the standard. (This is WHY you should take off the hat.)
Third -- and by far the most effective -- you can concede that the President had not only the authority, but the obligation to off this guy: under the authority specifically provided by the Congress regarding al-Qaeda, and with the facts of this case.
Then (if you're a delusional progressive) you would make 'em as specific as possible: the target would have to be just as tall and skinny, with glasses and a beard, not to mention having played little league and gone deep sea fishing and solicited hookers, as well as the aforementioned actively organizing attacks on Americans.
What would be more likely effective would be to note the important characteristics of the al-Awlaki case: he had been progressively developing a strategy to attack Americans for more than a decade, counseling Major Hassan, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, Faisal Shahzad, and Rajib Karim, among others; his efforts are documented in at least four court proceedings, including two multiple-count felony convictions; he was outside the United States and plainly beyond the reach of even the local military authorities in Yemen, so under THOSE cascading circumstances (which are quite limiting, you realize) a President has authority to blow the guy to smithereens.
Trouble is, your denialist delusions are far more likely to leave all the limiting factors unchallenged, precisely because you don't recognize the actual characteristics of this case. That's the way to give the next Republican President exactly the authority you want to deny him.
*There are only two reasons why the Justice Department memo is classified. First, it was written quite some time ago, when the 'kill or capture' order was issued. Second, it uses a variety of secret information and methods to make the factual case that the law applied to al-Awlaki. I noted the public evidence, e.g., the Karim case in Britain, where al-Awlaki's emails were introduced under rules of evidence and subject to cross-examination, viz., the cryptograhers, etc.