Killing of U.S.-born terrorist raises questions (Can the rookie Hussein assassinate?)

The Eagle ^ | 10/01/11 | MATT APUZZO

[Libloather]

Killing of U.S.-born terrorist raises questions
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press
Published Saturday, October 01, 2011 12:06 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama steered the nation's war machine into uncharted territory Friday when a U.S. drone attacked a convoy in Yemen and killed two American citizens who had become central figures in al-Qaida.

It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so. And it raised major questions about the limitations of presidential power.

**SNIP**

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates wrote. "But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."

[Chode]

Anwar al-Awlaki came to study in the US, he came on a foreign student visa. You see, even though al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, his parents were not American citizens. In fact, after his father completed his studies here, the family returned to Yemen. Anwar would not even be considered a 14th Amendment citizen, which states "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Anwar's parents were never US citizens, nor did they intend to become citizens; neither did his parents have "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,"  which is the standard according to the Supreme court decision in United States vs Wong Kim Ark.

According to the State Department, there are different rules, and, since al-Awlaki came to the US on a scholarship from Yemen, we can assume that he renounced his US citizenship, because Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. Furthermore, his father was the Agriculture Minister in Yemen. Otherwise, why would al-Awlaki have come on a foreign student visa to study in Colorado in 1991?

[ilovesarah2012]

Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki

The Washington Post reports that a secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.

The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.

The administration has faced criticism - and a legal challenge - over its targeting of Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve a legal debate over whether a U.S. president can order the killing of American citizens.

With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of one officials, “due process in war.”

The killing of a U.S. jihadist

“The administration has tried to make very clear that this was an act of self-defense, that Awlaki was part of not only al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, but he was the external operations chief. He was ongoing in his plotting against American citizens - not only having done so in the past, but continuing to do so in an imminent way,” said CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate.

“So based on the rules of self-defense, based on the principles that we’re at war with al Qaeda and the fact that he was a part of the group, self-professed, all of that suggests that it’s lawful and appropriate to go after him and to kill him,” Zarate said.

When asked if the drone attack against a U.S. citizen - in effect, execution without trial - sets a precedent, Zarate said, “It’s a good question - you run the risk of a slippery slope here. I think people are asking very appropriate questions about what the limits of the government’s power can be in terms of going after Americans who are part of al Qaeda, and we’ve seen in the recent past that Americans have formed more and more part of the al Qaeda network - not just Anwar al-Awlaki, but others. There are important questions to ask about what the process is and what the procedures are to determine who is an imminent danger to the United States.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/01/earlyshow/saturday/main20114273.shtml

Should Bin Laden have been captured and tried in an American court? As someone posted on this thread, it really isn’t clear that Al-Awlaki was really an American citizen anyway. I am very glad he’s gone and hopefully that idiot Gaddan (spelling?) will be next.

[SunkenCiv]

Nice shootin’.

Thanks Libloather.

[PA-RIVER]

I would think Terrorist racist Opposition party members are fare game.

Tea Party, Al Qaida, GOP, Taliban ... whatever. Joe Biden has labeled them all Terrorists and Barbarians. Fire up the drones.

[boomop1]

Friendly fire LOL.

[Pining_4_TX]

I am glad he is gone, too, but you have more faith in the Obama Justice Dept. than I do. They would gladly say we are at war forever if it meant they could suspend the Constitution for their own ends.

[PA-RIVER]

This does call into question the citizenship granted to children of foreign citizens. Maybe we shouldn't be naturalizing them at birth. Maybe they should get it when they turn 21 after residing here and adopting our culture first instead of their home countries culture.

I think The Time Square Bomber was also a son of Foreign citizens, yet naturalized at birth.

Expecting Muslims born to Foreign citizens in America to be Loyal Americans is proving to be a very naive assumption.

[Pining_4_TX]

“Expecting Muslims born to Foreign citizens in America to be Loyal Americans is proving to be a very naive assumption.”

Indeed. Or as I like to call them, members of club FTA (Future Terrorists of America). Islam is not compatible with a free society.

[ilovesarah2012]

I have NO faith in the Obama DOJ. I think killing him was legal, though, and if Obama kills a few more terrorists, I think it would be great.

[Pining_4_TX]

Well, you have faith enough in Obama to trust him to decide who is a terrorist and who isn’t. I don’t trust him for anything. He has already shown what contempt he has for conservative Christians, the “bitter clingers”.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, there's even some question now about whether he was a U.S. citizen after all. I've noticed that some of the more recent media reports refer to him as "U.S.-born" rather than "a U.S. citizen."

I think this relates to the odd curiosity about his education in the U.S. on a student visa from Yemen. He may have been born in the U.S., but if he was a U.S. citizen there would have been no need for him to obtain a visa to come back here as a young adult. From what I've read on this subject, I suspect his parents actually went through the trouble of establishing Yemeni citizenship for him as a child, which would have required them to strip him of his U.S. citizenship under Yemen law (again, this is partly speculation on my part but does explain that oddity of his student visa).

[ilovesarah2012]

How would you have felt if Bush killed him?

[muddler]

According to the obozo admin. You are a terrorist insurgent hostage taking radical. Heads up.

[ilovesarah2012]

If I see a drone over my house, I’ll run.

[Roninf5-1]

It was an act of war. Some American born men fought for Germany, Italy and Japan during World War II. There were Japanese-Americans in Hiroshima. Roosevelt did not need to get an indictment in order for a P-47 to strafe any convoy that might happen to have “Americans” riding in it.

The US was in a legal state of war with Germany, Japan, and Italy. Congress has not declared war against Yemen nor have they issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal against anyone. al-Awlaki was never tried or convicted in any US court, even in absentia. Obama claims al-Awlaki is a terrorist and has never provided a shred of evidence. All that is ever issued is a press release. He could just as easily declare Freepers as terrorists. If fact they are laying the ground work for it, conditioning Northcom/Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement for that day, probably when economy totally crashes and the People go after the crooks responsible.

MIAC Strategic Report

[Jim Noble]

I've been very reluctant to post this, for obvious reasons...

I actually APPROVE OF the increased use of drones for killing AQ suspects and known leadership elements, and I PREFER the use of drones to troops who suffer and die in a futile effort to civilize barbarians and savages.

IF Barry had anything to do with this policy, then I would say, in this case, he did a good thing.

Kind of like a high-tech Phoenix program...

[Twinkie]

“Well, at least they didn’t waterboard him.”

QUOTE OF THE DAY ABOVE! NO, MAKE THAT QUOTE OF THE MONTH!

[driftless2]

If the FBI tracks a vicious killer to his lair and then shoots him on sight, I don’t shed tears. Same for this piece of garbage. If someone is at war with my country, I say kill them on sight, no questions asked.

[Alberta's Child]

The whole idea of "Wanted Dead or Alive" relates to a couple of very interesting historical point about the U.S. legal system.

For one thing, that whole era of the "old West" you reference in your post dates back to a time when much of the West wasn't even formally part of the United States. Most of the West was comprised of terrotories that were U.S. possessions but had not yet been admitted into the Union as states. So for much of that era there was no legal system in place like we take for granted today. The U.S. military was probably the ultimate authority in these places, to the extent that it had any presence at all.

In addition, the term "outlaw" had a specific meaning for people that described not their criminal activities but their legal status under the applicable law at the time. We use the term "outlaw" nowadays to describe a criminal from that era who operated with no respect for the law, but the real application of the term was for a person who placed himself outside the protection of the law and therefore could be dealth with by authorities and/or law-abiding citizens without regard to the proprieties (e.g., a jury trial) of the U.S. legal system.

A poster indicating that someone was "Wanted Dead or Alive" simply meant that any law-abiding citizen could feel free to deal with that person without fear of prosecution.

It's interesting to note that there are some areas of U.S. law that haven't really changed much at all since then. If you have time, do some research into the fascinating hazy legal area in which legitimate bounty hunters (bail enforcement agents) still operate in the U.S. In many states, these agents -- who have no formal law enforcement authority whatsoever -- have powers that no police officer would ever be able to use, such as breaking and entering a person's home without a warrant, capturing that person without reading him his rights, etc.

[weezel]

The gang squads and police depts nationwide should take a page from this administration on how to handle their undesirables. DONT indict them, DONT arrest them,AND FOR GODS SAKE, DONT WATERBOARD THEM, KILL them.IF you think they are doing wrong, TAKE THEM OUT!!