Posted on 10/08/2011 7:51:07 PM PDT by lbryce
The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.
But the document that laid out the administration’s justification — a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 — was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm sure the terrorists feel much better now that they know the death of al-Awlaki was legally sanctioned. Bammy doesn't wants his Muslim family to have any hard feelings.
Bush has a guy write a memo to waterboard a terrorist and Bush is a war criminal.
Obama has a guy write a memo to kill an American citizen without a trial and the left yawns.
It has nothing to do with right and wrong only (r) or (d).
And this differs from the decisions to waterboard.... how?
Except for the part about Democrats screaming for Bush, Cheney, and the advising attorneys heads on pikes outside the Rayburn Building, that is.
I heard the drone dropped leaflets with his Miranda rights on them before sending a Hellfire up his butt.
It makes you wonder. Because I remember Barry’s regime bending over backwards to have FBI people talk to the Somali pirates to try and negotiate before finally getting the SEAL’s to do what they do best! Odd that all of the sudden it’s perfectly legal to kill an American Citizen Obama’s regime decides is a threat....Hmmmm (Still glad the Dirtbag is dead though...Hopefully he is enjoying his 72 Helen Thomas lookalike virgins in HELL!)
Thanks lbryce.
So the way the Slimes describes the “secret memo”:
Awlaki could be legally killed, if
(1) it was not feasible to capture him,
(2) because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, and
(3) because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.
The reasoning SHOULD have been even simpler:
(1) Was Awlaki part of a terrorist army that has explicitly declared and is conducting a war against the US? YES
(2) Was he attacked by a military strike in the field, meaning somewhere we and our military allies do not have effective dominion over? YES
End of story. It doesn’t matter whether he is a US citizen or not.
If you join a foreign army conducting a war against the US, you are subject to attack in the field just like any other member of that army.
But why not make the legal reasoning public? I can understand why the enhanced interrogation memo was secret, because we don’t want the bad guys to know what will be used against them.
But there is no reason for Zero and Holder to keep secret their legal analysis in this case.
Death by missile = good.
Getting information by non-lethal waterboard = bad.
Uh...okay...
To anyone who believes this is a violation of his civil rights as an American, including you Ron Paul:
THIS IS TREASON!!! LOOK IT UP! ARTICLE III, SECTION III states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Even though people say that this is the one thing Obama has done right, I’m not convinced he made the decision.
Treason still requires being charged with treason. This little phrase right here: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court”, implies, no not implies, says that to be CONVICTED (conviction requires a jury and you have to be charged first) with treason requires a confession in OPEN court or TESTIMONY, which again takes place in court or through some type of legal hearing, of 2 witnesses. I’m just flabbergasted...a “secret” memo, which none of have or can read and a “secret” panel to place someone on the list are ok. Aren’t you the least bit worried about the civil rights of the rest of us??
And the word “shall” is a requirement, not a choice made by a secret panel or because of secret memos.
Pretty much except I’d substitute (r) and (d) with Conservatives and Communists respectively.
In who's opinion? Holder??? Obama???? The field commander??? This is dictatorial Barbra Striesand.
It doesn’t matter how serious the crime is that someone is accused of. What matters is what process is used to determine someone is guilty of that crime.
Military tribunal, fine.
Court of law, fine.
Media accounts, not fine.
Political appointment of President Obama, not fine.
Nameless civil servant, not fine.
We should be asking the government what process will be used to determine if a U.S. citizen is subject to assassination. That they are not willing to tell us should give us all pause.
Under the Constitution, the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for identifying enemy targets in the field. There is no role for the courts in that activity.
The key point here is "in the field". The Constitution does not allow the Commander-in-Chief to order a military strike on a US citizen in Brooklyn, NY or Manchester, England who is part of al-Qaeda. That person must be detained and tried for treason.
I wish these people wold go SHOVE IT. Obama does ONE thing right and he gets criticized.
Every time they kill one of these bastards I’m happy. The amount of “information” they can provide is NOTHING compared to the amount of GRIEF we would have to undergo deciding what kind of circus trial to have for him.
This guy was a MUSLIM. Their citizenship in any country takes a back seat to being MUSLIM.
Further he was an enemy combatant in arms against America and his fellow citizens. Too bad they can’t kill him a thousand times over.
Maybe the U.S. Government should target the editors of the NY Times too. There are little better than Alwalaki,
>> The hypocrisy is staggering.
True.
>> That they are not willing to tell us should give us all pause.
Indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.