Obama Admin: Legal Theory for Whacking US Citizen "classified."

[TommyGunn]

Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act shouldn't be hard.  His YouTube videos alone had quite a bit more than two views.

  Ziiiiinnnnngggg!

Awlaki was a highly placed AQ member.  He got what he deserved.

I don't like that the legal "theory" is classified but good riddance to evil rubbish so far as Awlaki is cocnerned.

[Fitz]

Yeah, why don't you post the rest of the story?  Like, how you prove treason for example...

You are trolling... either that or you're delusional.


There are mountains of proof of him aiding terrorists, and his involvement in the detroit airliner plot.


As far as I'm concerned, he lost his rights as a citizen when he became a traitor.

Tell me, if he was not a US citizen by birth, would anyone care? As far as I'm concerned he's an enemy combatant. No different than any other scumbag we've sent to their deaths in the war on terror.

My problem is that the legal theory is classified, but I have NO problems with the US exterminating this sack of *expletive deleted*it.

Just as I have no problem stomping on a cockroach

[De Selby]

Fits, have a think about the potential consequences of allowingthe government to kill people without proving their guilt - mountains of news articles and anti-American rants cannot be the basis of government killing in a free country.

You don't have to love this guy to see the problem with that.  Nor do you need to love him to see why arbitrarily deciding who gets "citizenship protections" (as if the right not to be executed without trial has something to do with citizenship) cannot exist in a free country.

This is how oppressive regimes start - they target people who are hated by the population.  Now all that needs to happen is for the people who most influence policy to decide some other group (maybe gun owners?) is "traitorous" and "threatening America." 

It is a certainty that you'll find this power turned against someone you're less enthusiastic about killing. 

[Fitz]

What is the difference between killing this guy and killing any other terrorist leader? His plots failed, so he's not considered the enemy?

The burden of proof is a much different animal in war. He was an enemy combatant, no different than any other terrorist leader we've killed in the war. Did you also have a problem with the death of Bin Laden? After all, he didn't fly the airplanes into the twin towers.

In my mind, motivating and cultivating terrorists (even ignoring for a second his failed plot) is only one small step removed from doing it oneself.

Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone.



I will excuse myself from this discussion now. You tend to see things a different way when you've seen, up close and personal, the results of the work of these people. To continue any further in this argument may cause me to walk off the high road, and I don't wish to do that.

[Perd Hapley]

Fits, have a think about the potential consequences of allowingthe government to kill people without proving their guilt

Has there ever been a nation whose government was not allowed to do that?

What is the difference between killing this guy and killing any other terrorist leader? His plots failed, so he's not considered the enemy?

The burden of proof is a much different animal in war. He was an enemy combatant, no different than any other terrorist leader we've killed in the war.

Nothing to add.

[De Selby]

The "battlefield" exception to our homicide laws doesn't make any sense in this context - there isn't anywhere on the planet that is off limits to the war on terror.  To use that justification is to say that the government should have the power to kill anyone anywhere, as long as it asserts (to itself only) that the person is a terrorist.

It defies belief that to question such a government power would provoke so much opposition on a forum that focuses on individual rights.

I don't see anyone saying bin laden, Manson, or this guy should have been left alone.  What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people.  That is why the colonists insisted on juries; they prevented arbitrary and political violence from being used against the citizenry.

As it stands now, we've basically given Obama the power to kill anyone he wants without proving anything, and to do that anywhere in the world. 

How could that possibly go wrong?  Doesn't take too much imagination nor any love for awlaki to see the problem

[Fly320s]

If Al-Awalki had renounced his US citizenship, would that make a difference either legally or morally?

[Perd Hapley]

The "battlefield" exception to our homicide laws doesn't make any sense in this context - there isn't anywhere on the planet that is off limits to the war on terror.  To use that justification is to say that the government should have the power to kill anyone anywhere, as long as it asserts (to itself only) that the person is a terrorist.

 What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people.

OK, so you're opposed to doing that to American citizens.

You don't have to love this guy to see the problem with that.  Nor do you need to love him to see why arbitrarily deciding who gets "citizenship protections" (as if the right not to be executed without trial has something to do with citizenship) cannot exist in a free country.

But you don't want us to do that to non-Americans, either.


How are we supposed to wage war, again?  

[Blakenzy]

I posted on this subject way back in early 2010 after seeing some obscure reports that the Government was arbitrarily assigning people -including US Citizens- to a hit list without anything more than thumbs up of the President as a legal requirement. I remember being kind of ridiculed by some members back then for even considering this to be a potential reality.

The Legal Theory is "classified" because it probably adds up to nothing that would fly in court. Seriously, allowing the Executive branch to target and kill Citizens and then deny access to any meaningful legal explanation is a power you DO NOT want ANY administration to have. Killing this one Citizen may have been good for short term security, but allowing a Government to do so in the way that they did without question is a far greater threat to the citizenry than the occasional hijacking or blown up building.

[Ex-MA Hole]

I hate to admit this, but I see where both sides are coming from in this....I don't know what the right answer is....guys, please keep this civil so I can read and learn more....

[TommyGunn]

The "battlefield" exception to our homicide laws doesn't make any sense in this context - there isn't anywhere on the planet that is off limits to the war on terror.  To use that justification is to say that the government should have the power to kill anyone anywhere, as long as it asserts (to itself only) that the person is a terrorist.

It defies belief that to question such a government power would provoke so much opposition on a forum that focuses on individual rights.

I suspect that's because most people here consider terrorists to be legitimate targets during war where ever they are.  These terrorists are liable to operate many places in this world.  And since when is the power to "kill terrorists" the "power to kill anyone anywhere?"  We're not talking about that, we're talking about the power to off terrorists.  It's not like SEAL teams are infiltrating senior citizen rest homes and offing 97 year olds who are bedridden with oxygen tents....though you might be able to assume that from your phraseology.

I don't see anyone saying bin laden, Manson, or this guy should have been left alone.  What I am saying is that when the government takes action against these people, there needs to be a check on it's power so that it's restrained from terrorizing its own people.  That is why the colonists insisted on juries; they prevented arbitrary and political violence from being used against the citizenry.

As it stands now, we've basically given Obama the power to kill anyone he wants without proving anything, and to do that anywhere in the world. 

How could that possibly go wrong?  Doesn't take too much imagination nor any love for awlaki to see the problem

Get back to us when the govt. actually DOES start offing anyone without proving anything.  Anyone with the sense God gave a pump handle knows Awlaki was working with the Islamic terrorists. 
A lot bad "might" happen .... but let's not borrow trouble.  There isn't a law or a principle or an action that couldn't be bastardized, misappropriated and/or misused and in doing so, injure, maim or kill people.  But you don't stop govt. from doing it's responsibility and what's good because it "might" someday somehow do bad.

[mtnbkr]

I suspect that's because most people here consider terrorists to be legitimate targets during war where ever they are.  These terrorists are liable to operate many places in this world.  And since when is the power to "kill terrorists" the "power to kill anyone anywhere?"  We're not talking about that, we're talking about the power to off terrorists.  It's not like SEAL teams are infiltrating senior citizen rest homes and offing 97 year olds who are bedridden with oxygen tents....though you might be able to assume that from your phraseology.
Get back to us when the govt. actually DOES start offing anyone without proving anything.  Anyone with the sense God gave a pump handle knows Awlaki was working with the Islamic terrorists. 
A lot bad "might" happen .... but let's not borrow trouble.  There isn't a law or a principle or an action that couldn't be bastardized, misappropriated and/or misused and in doing so, injure, maim or kill people.  But you don't stop govt. from doing it's responsibility and what's good because it "might" someday somehow do bad.

Quoting for posterity and because govt never abuses the power we allow it.

Chris

[freakazoid]

The yellow, it burns teh eyes!

Seriously, allowing the Executive branch to target and kill Citizens and then deny access to any meaningful legal explanation is a power you DO NOT want ANY administration to have.

Well it is in the name, 

I don't see how it being classified is helping at all. 

[Tallpine]

The best that this guy could allegedly come up with was the underwear bomber 

 

[seeker_two]

How are we supposed to wage war, again?  

Just drop nukes at a location near the terrorist....if he dies from the radiation and blast, it's his own fault....

[De Selby]

The word terrorist keeps coming up with no consideration as to how that label should be applied - if you think being a terrorist should trigger the governments right to kill you, then there needs to be some process around determining who is and isn't a terrorist.  "because the government said so" creates a blank check for government killing.

In no US war has the government asserted the right to kill people it accuses of aiding the enemy without process; the battlefield rule works fine when you've fielded an army and it encounters other armed forces.

Fistful, if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam.  That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror. 

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam.  That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror. 

Um, wasn't he killed in Yemen? Yemen is well outside the United States, as I recall.


I'm not comparing it to any war. I'm asking how we could possibly wage war when you seemed to be saying that the government must hold a trial before it kills anyone. Now that you seem to have backed up from those statements a bit, I think I have my answer. Thank you.

[TommyGunn]

The word terrorist keeps coming up with no consideration as to how that label should be applied - if you think being a terrorist should trigger the governments right to kill you, then there needs to be some process around determining who is and isn't a terrorist.  "because the government said so" creates a blank check for government killing.

In no US war has the government asserted the right to kill people it accuses of aiding the enemy without process; the battlefield rule works fine when you've fielded an army and it encounters other armed forces.

Fistful, if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam.  That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror. 

The terrs are out on a battlefield.  I don't see why it should be so hard to identify them; we had photos of Awlaki as well as Osama Bin Laden.  For others, when they're out in the field and shooting at you, they're probably not the Girl Scouts trying to sell you cookies.

...if you want to compare this to previous wars, it would be the equivalent of shooting someone without trial in New York and claiming that it was a military strike against North Vietnam.  That the government never claimed it could do - until the war on terror.

That's a ridiculous analogy.  Awlaki, IIRC was in Yemen, a foreign country.

During WW2 we got intel that the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was going to be on a certain aircraft at a specific time.  FDR himself issued an order to intercept and to shoot his aircraft down.  A flight of USAAF P-38s intercepted and shot the plane down, killing Yamamoto.  This admiral had been in charge of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
It was legal then and it's legal now.

[Tallpine]

It's so hard to keep up on all the news these days.

So, when did we declare war on Yemen 

[Fitz]

Are they on the state sponsored terror list?

[Blakenzy]

I am amazed at how a lot people can feel so safe and smug thinking that the term "terrorist" will only ever be applied to people that look a certain way or belong to certain group, especially when we are told flat out that the reasons for considering a Citizen a "terrorist" and issuing their extrajudicial execution can be "classified", i.e. not subject to any explanation, scrutiny or burden of proof.

Isn't it obvious that "Terrorist" is a catch-all word? It doesn't really hold any concrete and definite meaning as it can be spun in so many ways. Today it may be the bearded Muslim guy, tomorrow it may be someone advocating resistance to unfair taxation and a runaway central bank. Who the F decides?

[Fitz]

I am amazed at how a lot people can feel so safe and smug thinking that the term "terrorist" will only ever be applied to people that look a certain way or belong to certain group, especially when we are told flat out that the reasons for considering a Citizen a "terrorist" and issuing their extrajudicial execution can be "classified", i.e. not subject to any explanation, scrutiny or burden of proof.

Isn't it obvious that "Terrorist" is a catch-all word? It doesn't really hold any concrete and definite meaning as it can be spun in so many ways. Today it may be the bearded Muslim guy, tomorrow it may be someone advocating resistance to unfair taxation and a runaway central bank. Who the F decides?

And the moment it becomes something other than an evil murderer, my reaction will be quite different.

For now, it's someone who has advocated, and planned, to murder innocent people. I ask again, though I was ignored... would it be different if he was successful in the detroit plot?

A terrorist by anyone's definition.

[mtnbkr]

And the moment it becomes something other than an evil murderer, my reaction will be quite different.

For now, it's someone who has advocated, and planned, to murder innocent people. I ask again, though I was ignored... would it be different if he was successful in the detroit plot?

A terrorist by anyone's definition.

He's a US Citizen.  US Citizens enjoy the protection of our legal system.  Other "terrorists" that happened to be US Citizens received trials (Timothy Mcveigh, "Beltway Snipers" to name a few).  There is noise about "domestic terrorists" in our govt today.  Do you want to risk being labeled a terrorist because of your limited govt beliefs and not have the right to a trial to defend yourself? 

If he's not a US Citizen, then I don't care, but Citizenship confers rights and those rights must be respected.

Chris

[Fitz]

at one point does one lose citizenship protections?

I'd say the moment you start murdering (or advocating the murder) of innocents.

[TommyGunn]

I am amazed at how a lot people can feel so safe and smug thinking that the term "terrorist" will only ever be applied to people that look a certain way or belong to certain group, especially when we are told flat out that the reasons for considering a Citizen a "terrorist" and issuing their extrajudicial execution can be "classified", i.e. not subject to any explanation, scrutiny or burden of proof.

Isn't it obvious that "Terrorist" is a catch-all word? It doesn't really hold any concrete and definite meaning as it can be spun in so many ways. Today it may be the bearded Muslim guy, tomorrow it may be someone advocating resistance to unfair taxation and a runaway central bank. Who the F decides?

What ***** told you we feel so safe and smug about who's being labeled a terrorist??
I don't -- not when Tea Partiers are, among some circles, considered "terrorists."
What would you have the govt. do; send AQ sympathy cards?
Right now they are a danger.
Our government has always such.
If you believe otherwise ask Randy Weaver.
Ask the Branch Davidians.  Oh wait, you can't; they're DEAD.  Well, most of 'em.

It's a complicated world we live in.  I'm sorry things are not simple.  It's not all Roy Rogers-like, good-guys-wear-white, bad-guys-wear-black kind of thing.  Ma and apple pie were superceded by improvized explosive devices and cell phone triggeres.  Pretty quilt blankets knitted by grandma were superceded by 19 terrorists commandeering fully fueled jetliners and smashing them into buildings, and watching people in those buildings jump to their deaths rather than being fried Colonel Sanders' extra-crispy style.
I want AQ smashed inside my lifetime.  Maybe I will be labeled a terrorist myself by SorryCharlie Schumer for being against taxes in three years or something.  I will have to deal with that cr@p at that time.
Life sucks.
'tain't easy.
Deal with it.