FOX: U.S. Born Terror Boss Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed

[twa]

Firing the shot is less material in this case than who authorized it imo

According to the legal justifications publicized by the administration both the military and CIA could be separately authorized to do so.

If ya want to get past elementary ya are gonna have to raise the ante....both are running ops in Yemen(and of course have been) and of course co-ordinating actions.

not sure what your point is.

[SnyderShrugged]

I suggest you read your history, Look up the first and second Barbary wars, "war" was not formally declared. We have a long history of not declaring war and using military force. To say that the founding fathers never intended this is false because they used it also. Additionally the supreme court has affirmed that there does not need to be a "formal declaration of war", that's just something that people have made up.

---------- Post added October-2nd-2011 at 01:10 PM ----------

If you are working with a country or organization that we have declared war on then you forfeit your due process. We are not going to stop making war just becuase and American is on the other side. Now if you get captured then yeah I can see trying you as a traitor and hanging you from the neck until dead, but if you are on the battle field, and get popped so be it.

Funny you should mention looking up history, because I did, and guess what? The military action against the Barbary pirates was constitutional, and not a declared war. This was done through the use of Letters of marque and reprisal, which had they been employed in this scenario, we wouldnt even have a thread to discuss constitutionality

---------- Post added October-3rd-2011 at 12:59 PM ----------

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."

Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "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."

Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?

[Redskins Diehard]

Firing the shot is less material in this case than who authorized it imo

According to the legal justifications publicized by the administration both the military and CIA could be separately authorized to do so.

If ya want to get past elementary ya are gonna have to raise the ante....both are running ops in Yemen(and of course have been) and of course co-ordinating actions.

not sure what your point is.

It is so hard to take someone that uses "ya" seriously but I will try. Who is chosen to fire the shot and to command operations is VERY significant. Because the 2 organizations that are being used interchangeably derive their authorities from very different places. Title 10 and Title 50 of the US code are good places to start. As is Executive Order 12333 and all of the follow ons that go along with it.

The only legal justification I have seen so far is that we have a list that we won't tell you who is on or how they got there. But we are going to kill them(and are getting more and more proficient at it).

As I have mentioned a couple of times in this thread. Tracking him down was awesome. And we are better off without him actively influencing(he never was a trainer, or planner) other people to kill Americans. It bears repeating I think that the not only was he never convicted of actually doing that. But the most prominent terrorists that he has inspired also haven't been convicted of anything. I just think it is a significant step that the President can say "kill that American" and it happens.

[twa]

YA want a conviction before a military or CIA strike and you have trouble taking me seriously?

I'm sure you understand it takes more than the President simply saying kill him,so why phrase it that way?

[Redskins Diehard]

YA want a conviction before a military or CIA strike and you have trouble taking me seriously?

I'm sure you understand it takes more than the President simply saying kill him,so why phrase it that way?

What does it take? I'm sure I understand a lot. Not so sure what everyone else understands and how that stacks up to what they think they understand.

[Drew_Fl]

bump for statement from Khan's family (one of the American citizens killed).

The Charlotte family of Samir Khan, the al-Qaida propagandist killed in a U.S. drone strike Friday, ended its silence Wednesday night.

In a statement, the family cast the 25-year-old Khan as a "law abiding" U.S. citizen who was assassinated by an American government that has not "contacted us with any news about the recovery of our son's remains (or) offered us any condolences."

"As a result," the family added, "we feel appalled by the indifference shown to us by our government."

Khan's family moved to Charlotte from New York in 2004. A year later, while a student at Central Piedmont Community College, the young Khan started a radical blog, which he wrote in the basement of his family's home in northeast Charlotte.

A few years ago, after media reports exposed his controversial blog, Khan moved to Yemen to produce "Inspire," an English-language magazine for al-Qaida. The magazine, which appeared online, ran articles such as "How to Build a Bomb in Your Mom's Kitchen." In one early edition, Khan wrote that "I am proud to be a traitor to America."

On Friday, he was killed along with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

In the statement, Khah's family asserted that he "never broke any law and was never implicated in any crime." Echoing some civil libertarians, who have questioned the decision to kill Khan and al-Awlaki -- both U.S. citizens -- the Khan family also raised these issues:

"Was this style of execution the only solution? Why couldn’t there have been a capture and trial? Where is the justice? As we mourn our son, we must ask these questions."

The family's statement was released through Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte. It was Hough who arranged two attempted "interventions" in his Charlotte home, where he and Khan's father, Zafar Khan, gathered with local Muslim leaders in an attempt to convince the young Khan -- prior to this exodus to Yemen -- to abandon his radical rhetoric.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/05/2667207/khans-family-condemns-us-drone.html#ixzz1Zy1hKpfC

---------- Post added October-5th-2011 at 09:10 PM ----------

I don't feel that bad for Khan himself, but i feel terrible for his family. He turned his back on them, and they must feel like the gov't did the same.

Since he was never charged with anything, it's not a good feeling knowing our gov't is just blasting American citizens to pieces all over the globe anytime they want. I feel the family makes a good point about that.

If they did that to him, they can do it to anyone and no one would know the difference.

[twa]

If they did that to him, they can do it to anyone and no one would know the difference.

What part of joining the enemy do they not grasp?

Condolences?

[SnyderShrugged]

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

more at link

[Drew_Fl]

What part of joining the enemy do they not grasp?

Condolences?

According to this quote from the news article in the 2nd page of this thread:

The online magazine published seven issues offering articles on making crude bombs and how to fire AK-47 assault rifles. U.S. intelligence officials have said that Khan — who was from North Carolina — was not directly responsible for targeting Americans.

All he ever did was publish an extremist magazine that teaches crude bomb making and how to fire an AK, both of which you can find from google. He was also an American and that entitles him to free speech during his time in the USA.

My question is, how far removed from the people who are "directly targeting Americans" do you have to be before the gov't cannot rationalize that you were a "militant" and just blow you to oblivion without any due process?

This is what makes me uncomfortable about the situation.

edit: i'm not trying to say the gov't was wrong for carrying out the operation, i'm just unsure of how to justify this with my principals.

[PeterMP]

All he ever did was publish an extremist magazine that teaches crude bomb making and how to fire an AK, both of which you can find from google. He was also an American and that entitles him to free speech during his time in the USA.

I'll point out that the Constitution doesn't place any limits based on where he is. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court would rule, but it is easy to read the Constitution as limiting the US federal governments right to restrict free speech no matter what country he was living in.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Doesn't say only if you are currently residing in the US.

[Drew_Fl]

I'll point out that the Constitution doesn't place any limits based on where he is. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court would rule, but it is easy to read the Constitution as limiting the US federal governments right to restrict free speech no matter what country he was living in.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Doesn't say only if you are currently residing in the US.

thanks for posting that. i was unsure if that was correct or not so i just left it as while "in the USA".

[twa]

Since when is 'directly targeting Americans' the critical factor?

Simply being in the same vehicle as someone on the kill list can be bad for your health,much less being part of a organization we are currently fighting.

Condolences

[sacase]

I'll point out that the Constitution doesn't place any limits based on where he is. I'm not sure how the Supreme Court would rule, but it is easy to read the Constitution as limiting the US federal governments right to restrict free speech no matter what country he was living in.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Doesn't say only if you are currently residing in the US.

Its not about being in the US or out of the US. Its the fact that you are actively a part of a group the US government is at war with and you have now become a legitimate military target.

[PeterMP]

Its not about being in the US or out of the US. Its the fact that you are actively a part of a group the US government is at war with and you have now become a legitimate military target.

You really believe that if he were living in VA that the Supreme Court would okay dropping a bomb on him?

Was every communist a "legitimate" military target during the Korean conflict?

[sacase]

You really believe that if he were living in VA that the Supreme Court would okay dropping a bomb on him?

Was every communist a "legitimate" military target during the Korean conflict?

No because since was domestic we have the ability to use law enforcement resources on him. But it doesn't matter because he was overseas participating with a terrorist organization that we are at war with. Let's stick the the fact of this case, not some what if's.

[Dan T.]

You really believe that if he were living in VA that the Supreme Court would okay dropping a bomb on him?

Was every communist a "legitimate" military target during the Korean conflict?

Espousing anti-American ideology is one thing. Actively working to kill Americans is another.

[PeterMP]

No because since was domestic we have the ability to use law enforcement resources on him. But it doesn't matter because he was overseas participating with a terrorist organization that we are at war with. Let's stick the the fact of this case, not some what if's.

You said, it didn't matter if he was in the country or not. I responded directly to your post.

---------- Post added October-6th-2011 at 03:32 PM ----------

Espousing anti-American ideology is one thing. Actively working to kill Americans is another.

Where is the evidence that he actively worked to kill Americans? Who gets to decide if the evidence is "good"? Why?

[Dan T.]

You said, it didn't matter if he was in the country or not. I responded directly to your post.

---------- Post added October-6th-2011 at 03:32 PM ----------

Where is the evidence that he actively worked to kill Americans? Who gets to decide if the evidence is "good"? Why?

I've seen plenty of evidence of Al-Queda actively working to kill Americans. Haven't you?

[PeterMP]

I've seen plenty of evidence of Al-Queda actively working to kill Americans. Haven't you?

So every member of Al Qeada is a legitimate target of war? Who decides who is a member of al Qeada and who isn't?

We're talking about this guy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan

Was he a member of Al Qeada?

Or was he friends with a guy that was a member of al Qeada?

[Dan T.]

So every member of Al Qeada is a legitimate target of war? Who decides who is a member of al Qeada and who isn't?

We're talking about this guy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan

Was he a member of Al Qeada?

Or was he friends with a guy that was a member of al Qeada?

I am not overly concerned about the targeting of either Anwar Al-Awaki or Samir Khan. Both espoused being sworn enemies of the U.S. and both worked actively with Al-Queda to target and kill American citizens.

[PeterMP]

I am not overly concerned about the targeting of either Anwar Al-Awaki or Samir Khan. Both espoused being sworn enemies of the U.S. and both worked actively with Al-Queda to target and kill American citizens.

So we should kill everybody that is the enemy of the US?

Where is the evidence supporting the rest of your statement?

During the 1950s, was every communist a legitimate war target?

[Drew_Fl]

So every member of Al Qeada is a legitimate target of war? Who decides who is a member of al Qeada and who isn't?

We're talking about this guy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan

Was he a member of Al Qeada?

Or was he friends with a guy that was a member of al Qeada?

These are exactly the same questions I've been asking myself since I've been following this.

[twa]

Khan was not the target was he?

He did make the mistake of being with someone with a clearly existing kill order on their head...as well as other mistakes in judgement

I'll consider him a bonus,the legal types will probably settle for collateral damage

[PeterMP]

Khan was not the target was he?

He did make the mistake of being with someone with a clearly existing kill order on their head...as well as other mistakes in judgement

I'll consider him a bonus,the legal types will probably settle for collateral damage

So if the US "accidently" kills you, that's okay?

[twa]

So if the US "accidently" kills you, that's okay?

I would go with incidental,bad **** happens when bullets or bombs start flying

But yes it is generally accepted that in military(or paramilitary) strikes there will be loss of life besides the target

I listed before a military policy allowing up to 10 civilians simply to bomb a drug lab....certainly a high value target would allow for collateral damage.

His survivors are entitled to sue for damages if they can present a compelling case ,we pay off family fairly regularly.