Obama administration authorizes killing US citizen

[classicman]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.


The C.I.A. has placed the American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki on a list for killing.

The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the approval of the National Security Council, required no judicial review.

“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”

Administration officials take the view that no legal or constitutional rights can protect Mr. Awlaki, a charismatic preacher who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States and who the C.I.A. believes is actively plotting violence. The attempted bombing of Times Square on May 1 is the latest of more than a dozen terrorist plots in the West that investigators believe were inspired in part by Mr. Awlaki’s rhetoric. “American citizenship doesn’t give you carte blanche to wage war against your own country,” said a counterterrorism official who discussed the classified program on condition of anonymity. “If you cast your lot with its enemies, you may well share their fate.”

President Obama, who campaigned for the presidency against George W. Bush-era interrogation and detention practices, has implicitly invited moral and legal scrutiny of his own policies.

Link

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

[Bullitt]

Seems he has effectively eliminated all ties to the US, which in my mind basically nullifies his citizenship and protections under US law. I completely agree with this: “American citizenship doesn’t give you carte blanche to wage war against your own country,” said a counterterrorism official who discussed the classified program on condition of anonymity. “If you cast your lot with its enemies, you may well share their fate.” If he actually ACTS to support terrorists who would target the US and its citizens/soldiers then why wouldn't he be up on the chopping block?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Squash him like a bug, just don't do it on US soil.
When (if) he's here, first lock him up... then squash him like a bug.

[Griff]

They need a judicial process of some sort though. You can't just have an Executive Branch Agency compiling lists of people to kill without a separate impartial clearance. We could be headed back into the bad old days of a rogue CIA creating up long term problems, which of course was Cheney's desire but hardly what Obama ran on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If any US citizen wants to play terrorist or soldier of fortune, out of the country, he/she are on their own. And if they are fighting us, while out of the country, they're the enemy, and fair game. If Anwar al-Awlaki feels he's being unjustly targeted, all he has to do is come home. I suspect he won't.

[squirell nutkin]

Nominally a citizen at best.

Your first amendment rights do not extend to promoting terrorism. Sorry.

[Clodfobble]

Especially since the Constitution specifically denotes "levying war" against the US as a definition of treason. They could convict him in absentia if they wanted to go through the motions.

[lookout123]

He's just misunderstood by some and persecuted by others. Poor guy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If he can't be prosecuted, then persecuted is next best... works for me.

[squirell nutkin]

I wonder if we could trace back to the source, the very first person, who set this whole "politcal correctness" "Let's not hurt anyone's feelings" wheel in motion.

Then we build a time machine, go back in time to when he or she is about to open their piehole and give a good swift kick in that place we don't love them anymore.

Then, maybe we wouldn't have any questions about what to do with numb nuts like him. Of course we'd need to come up with new things to talk about on the cellars.

[Flint]

You can't build a law-abiding society on a series of special instances or "just this once" scenarios. Things need to be defined so that they apply to EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation of the precedent you are setting. That is what makes this a creepy issue--do we want the government to be able to killl YOU or ME with impunity?

I know, I know..."but, but, this is different because" --right. Finish that sentence. You have to define HOW and WHY it is different and WHAT defines that, legally. Then, that needs to be written down and agreed upon by a body of the government that is accountable.

Once you have an official procedure that has been scrutinized and determined to be applicable and not stupidly worded, and it has been agreed upon and approved, then you have a real law. And then you can do something. This is how you do it....unless you are a bunch of dumb ƒucks.

[glatt]

Somehow the President has the authority to wage war without congress. See Vietnam as an example of this.

This is waging a war on terrorism. We're using drones to remotely kill specific individuals (and anyone unlucky enough to be standing near them) in Pakistan. This is exactly the same thing. Whether this sworn enemy of the US is a citizen or not has no relevance.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

"waging a war on terrorism"
"sworn enemy of the US"

These are nice emotional catch-phrases but what do they mean, in concrete terms?

A law-abiding society does not accept "make it up as you go along" as acceptable. If terrorists which present a real threat are using citizenship as a loophole, then we find a legal way to close that loophole and deal with the situation. This procedure should have clearly defined conditions which could cause any US citizen to have their right to exist revoked. If we don't recognize this as a fundamental right, then what the ƒuck. You can't say that being a US citizen has no relevance because that means it NEVER has any relevance.

[Cloud]

we kill traitors, don't we?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Cloud

we kill traitors, don't we?

Yes, and we have a defined procedure for that. A law-abiding society maintains stringently defined legal procedures and definitions.