Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki

cbs ^ | 10/1/2011 | David Morgan

[tobyhill]

I don't disagree with you but it's too easy for the courts to decide, not the DOJ.

Holder is a Communist sleazeball and there's no way in hell I would trust his dept over over any court, especially since an indictment in this case would have been one of the easiest things to obtain.

[equaviator]

“My fear is this sets a precedence that puts the DOJ in charge of judge, jury and executioner.”

Pardon me but unless I misunderstand your meaning...If the DOJ is not in charge of J,J & E then the DOD might as well not be in charge of the military.

[Erik Latranyi]

Do you not think the the U.S. has professional hit men (snipers) who take out enemies of this country not on the battlefield?

Duh. But giving the President authority to use those men to assasinate a US citizen without oversight or review is the issue at hand.

[Erik Latranyi]

So then the guys who killed Bonnie and Clyde acted exjudiciously?

I am not familiar with the details surrounding Bonnie and Clyde. I know that law enforcement cannot just shoot a criminal unless the law enforcement is currently being threatened with deadly force.

The fact remains that I am not comfortable with the Executive Branch being able to order the asassination of a US Citizen without oversight.

[NCLaw441]

I am no fan of Obama, but I have to ask: Would this thread have been started if President Bush had been president when this killing took place? I submit that it would not.

[tobyhill]

The DOJ is a part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.

[Erik Latranyi]

Do you not think the the U.S. has professional hit men (snipers) who take out enemies of this country not on the battlefield?

Duh. But they do not asassinate US citizens.

The fact remains that I am not comfortable with the Executive Branch being able to order the asassination of a US citizen without oversight.

[Erik Latranyi]

I am no fan of Obama, but I have to ask: Would this thread have been started if President Bush had been president when this killing took place? I submit that it would not.

No, because Bush would have gone to the courts to declare Al-Awlaki to be an enemy combatant who has renounced his US citizenship.

[tobyhill]

Bush would have gotten an indictment because there appears no reason not to have. Even Bin Laden was indicted.

My only problem with this killing is that Holder just seemed to throw every CYA aspect out the window.

An indictment is an easy task so why didn’t Holder get one?

[Joe 6-pack]

"People like Al-Awlaki and Adam Gadhan (sp) equaviator can’t be US citizens and part of bin Laden’s fatwa Jim Robinson's Free Republic at the same time without having foregone their civil rights here."

Would a memo from Eric Holder's Just-Us Department make that ok with you?

[Para-Ord.45]

They cannot even cite which law allowed them to blow him to smithereens, ONLY the “political” right to do it :

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Last year, the Obama administration invoked the state secrets privilege to argue successfully for the dismissal of a lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Washington by Aulaqi’s father, Nasser, seeking to block the targeting of his son. Judge John Bates found that in Aulaqi’s case, targeting was a “political question” to be decided by the executive branch.

WaPo

[nathanbedford]

It seems to me that we are hopscotching around without grappling with the issues coherently.

For example, we declare on this and other threads that Al-Awlaki has forfeited his citizenship by committing any one of a number of deeds which the posters assert automatically strips him of citizenship. But no thought is given to who makes the determination and under what circumstances.

We finally get a good contribution from Freeper ConservativeInPA who posts a statute. Please note the statute carefully talks about rebuttable presumptions and the burden of proof. This is something quite different from a unilateral decision by the President of the United States even if buttressed by an opinion letter from a lawyer in the Department of Justice. It wasn't long ago that this very administration was seeking to indict lawyers for writing opinion letters to George Bush on these issues that the administration did not like.

In any event, the whole point of this discussion is to consider whether there should be procedures which must be adhered to and by whom this decision should be made. Should the decision be subject to some sort of review? Is the president going to be accountable are not? Have we just turned Barak Obama into 007 with a license to kill?

There is a further irony here. Candidate Obama criticized George Bush and his party, even threatening criminal action against Cheney for actions against non-United States citizens. Here, Obama simply kills an American citizen. Some seem to think that obtaining an indictment for treason or some other crime would cure this dilemma. More ironies ensue: The principle justification for waging the war on terror as we have been doing is that it is a war and not a matter of criminal justice so the rules of criminal justice do not apply. Yet here we seek to cure an anomaly existing under the war making powers of the president by resort to the criminal justice system.

Does it matter that the object of the sanction is an American citizen? Does that require that the matter be handled as a criminal matter and not under the war Powers? If so, how does an indictment without more authorize the killing of an American citizen? We want to behave in the field as though this is a war situation and we want to make it a war situation by resort to the criminal justice system. Which is it? If it is a criminal situation, or even if it can be cured by resort to the criminal justice system, how does an indictment alone justify the president killing an American citizen? The statute sets forth:

if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Seems to me that we get into the weeds of civil or military jurisprudence to justify killing people we've got to go in the whole way and actually have a hearing by some court with jurisdiction.

What is absolutely clear is that there must be some mechanism established to restrict the power of the president to kill American citizens and when the deed is authorized it must be subject to some sort of review. The first distinction I would draw is that the president may not kill any American citizens on American soil. Second, I would insist that a prima facie showing be made to a judge, analogous to securing a warrant, setting forth the necessity for killing rather than apprehending etc. These things can be sent down and procedures worked out.

The last thing we want is for an inchoate tyrant like Barak Obama to be authorized to kill Americans without restraint or review. That's what we tried to sort out at Nuremberg.

[Para-Ord.45]

Hamdi V. Rumsfeld

[vette6387]

More reason for there to be substantive changes to the 14th Amendment. The US is alone in the world granting citizenship to children born to non-citizens on our soil. That’s what needs to change. All the prattle about these guys “rights” is what’s at the bottom of our problem as a nation defending ourselves against those who mean to do us harm. To go on about how this “poor citizen” had his “right’s trampled upon” makes me want to puke! The cold hard fact of the matter is that the muzzies are on a worldwide crusade to remake the world to their liking and we are helping with numerous laws that “protect” them. What BS!

[caww]

The cold hard fact of the matter is that the muzzies are on a worldwide crusade to remake the world to their liking and we are helping with numerous laws that “protect” them. What BS!

And to date they're success is ongoing and that with politicians enabling them. They're training in community centers and Mosques is extensive and with that instructions on 'how to use our laws' to their advantage in order to continue their march..their smoke screen of using their 'Community Centers" to help the poor and indigent is in actuality to convert them so that the new american converts will recruit others to islam...thus avoiding being directly involved in the islamification of america. This is also going on in our educational sustem with a direct targeting of converting or influencing teachers....who then will teach an open door to islam education within the schools. It's fast now moving across our nation and at breakneck speed.

[RobinOfKingston]

I think the filth needed killin’, as the saying goes, sometimes you just do the right thing. But just how far can a “Justice memo” be stretched in cases like this? Or, in totally different cases?

Inquiring minds really do want to know.

[tobyhill]

That’s my problem with this. All I wanted to see is a simple indictment of what the Government says he is.

[equaviator]

Ah yes, of course. Thanks

[equaviator]

Memo, shmemo. A creative comparison indeed, however unrealistic.

[grumpa]

Texas Ranger Frank Hamer who got Bonnie and Clyde told them to surrender only fired on them when they raised their weapons. Great article in this month’s NRA magazine.