Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

[glatt]

I voted for Obama, but I don't support this.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Is that really how it works? I never would have expected that to meet the definition of "due process"

It works like that until somebody stops them.

[classicman]

Aren't they the they that should stop them?

[Happy Monkey]

Yes. But they aren't.

Another "they" would be the Supreme Court. Hopefully some case will make it to them, and hopefully they will go the right way.

Another "they" would be Congress. I don't hold out much hope for that. And even if they did, there is now a fair bit of precedent for the President ignoring Congress on "national security".

The last "they" is "us". But the only candidate running who would oppose this decision is Ron Paul.

[classicman]

Agreed, my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[Lamplighter]

I reject Merc's stand on this issue (above), and still see no way for this to be justified.
I voted in the election of renunciation of Goldwater's "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice".

I have no idea why Obama elected to sign the Bill that authorized this.
I certainly did not expect him to let it become law.

But just as Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales, and his attorneys
in the Dept of Justice were reprimanded over the issue of torture,
and their rulings were reversed, I hope during some future Presidency
the same thing will happen on this legality too.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I have no idea why Obama elected to sign the Bill that authorized this.
I certainly did not expect him to let it become law.

It makes sense from his standpoint. It could potentially be a first step down a very dangerous slippery slope (doubt it) but it makes sense.

Anwar al-Awlaki actively recruited for anti-American terrorist causes and denounced his American citizenship. He was a direct threat to the United States. Obama's foreign policy is extremely tough on terrorism and if he had a chance to take someone like al-Awlaki, he will not make the same decision that came back to haunt Clinton and Bush (not killing Bin Laden). The backlash from that would be hundreds time greater than signing this bill.

I am uncomfortable with the definition but I am also uncomfortable with al-Awlaki being protected assuming there was no other realistic alternative besides a drone strike.

[Lamplighter]

Yes, we've sort of been through those arguments, above.

But think of Adolf Eichmann as a model for an alternative route.
Shouldn't there be a song: "If Israel can do it, we can do it better"

[piercehawkeye45]

Well you did wonder why Obama would sign the bill into law and I gave you a possible reason...

Also, Obama's decisions are not at Israel's level. Israel actually practices assassinations under false flag operations. We haven't done that for decades (that we know of).

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Well you did wonder why Obama would sign the bill into law and I gave you a possible reason...

Also, Obama's decisions are not at Israel's level. Israel actually practices assassinations under false flag operations. We haven't done that for decades (that we know of).

OK, I wasn't clear when I said I didn't have any idea... being rhetorical.

In your post, how are US decisions not at Israel's level ?
I'm not trying to quibble... just not getting your meaning.

With respect to "false flag" etc., to me it does not matter
what tool, kind of operation, with or without deception.

That is, whether by drone, poison dart, hired assassin, etc.,
it is still the assassination of an American citizen without trial
and only on the word on the President.

How does that make the US a better country than others ?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

How does that make the US a better country than others ?

If you are looking at this as a black and white issue where there is a line and anything that crosses that line is equally unethical, then yes, the US wouldn't be any better. But, in my opinion, that is absolutely horrible internal/foreign policy. Rules are a necessity for a stable society but it should also be recognized that always sticking to the rules sometimes produces dangerous and illogical decisions.

[Lamplighter]

OK, I'm following your line of thought. Things can be gray, and someone will have to decide which options to take.

Now for the "but"...

Would the US ideals (innocent until proven guilty) be lost if the President
were still required to go before a judge (i.e., Supreme Court) to make the case of guilt and
that there is no other way... that is, more or less, a trial in absentia ?

At least that way, there would be a check/balance over the decision of a single person,
who otherwise could become our equivalent of a Stalin or (whoever you want to name here)

But so far, I still maintain that capture and trial in the US is the right/best way to go.
.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

But so far, I still maintain that capture and trial in the US is the right/best way to go.

As I said earlier, I agree completely that trial is better if there is a realistic way of doing capturing Al-Awlaki. If there is not, I'm not sure if this situation applies, then you have to make the decision to take him out, without due process, or let him go, possibly harming other American citizens later.


I don't have all the information, but this could be a situation where Obama had a temporary chance to take Al-Awlaki out. In that case, going before a judge and all of that is basically the same as letting him go.

[piercehawkeye45]

Holder only defended the wartime authority to kill a U.S. citizen who presents "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States" and for whom "capture is not feasible," and only when operations are "conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles." In these circumstances, he claimed, high-level executive deliberation, guided by judicial precedent and subject to congressional oversight, is all the process that is due.

Is Holder right? It is hard to say for sure because the due process clause has never before been thought relevant to wartime presidential targeting decisions. The system described above goes far beyond any process given to any target in any war in American history. Awlaki was not given a formal notice and opportunity to defend himself in court, but war does not permit such formal practices. One predicate for the killing was that Awlaki was in hiding -- beyond legal process or the reasonable possibility of capture -- and plotting and directing attacks on the United States. The U.S. government made clear that if Awlaki "were to surrender or otherwise present himself to the proper authorities in a peaceful and appropriate manner, legal principles with which the United States has traditionally and uniformly complied would prohibit using lethal force or other violence against him in such circumstances." And as Judge Bates noted, while Awlaki's placement on a targeting list was publicly disclosed in January 2010, Awlaki publicly disclaimed any intention of challenging his status or turning himself in.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ready?page=0,0

[Lamplighter]

Would you like to expand your thoughts in regards to this posting ?

As I read the link, I get more and more the impression the whole issue
is far too cloudy and uncertain to justify Holder's position and Obama signing the law.

But then, I'm still interested in your thoughts...