The ACLU is not pleased, but Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller says rightly: "It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism." Now if only they would speak honestly about what is the cause, motivation, and goal of most "terrorism" nowadays, we might be getting somewhere. "WH: lawsuit for cleric would reveal state secrets," by Pete Yost for Associated Press, September 25:
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be targeted for assassination under a U.S. government program.In a court filing, the Justice Department said that the issues in the case are for the executive branch of government to decide rather than the courts.
The department also said the case entails information that is protected by the military and state secrets privilege.
The courts have sufficient grounds to throw out the lawsuit without resorting to use of the state secrets privilege, the Justice Department said in its filing.
"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check."
Al-Awlaki's father, through the CCR and the ACLU, filed the case in federal court in Washington.
The father has demanded that the government disclose a wide variety of classified information which could harm U.S. national security, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement.
"It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism," said Miller....
The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit...
Rsools administration does a lot of that...Especially when it comes to keeping his real identity secret...
Awlaki is possibly the first American citizen to have the gov put an official hit out on him, without any due process at all...Awlaki may get what many believe is due him, but if a president has been set by Rasool Obama's edict, he is practicing the 'Divine Right of Kings', and anyone could be next...If that's not an abuse of presidential power, nothing is...
That this lawsuit even got as far as it did indicates the dire situation we're in.
*** Bukhari Vol 4 Bk 52 Nbr 220 ***
Mohammed said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror cast in the hearts of the enemy, and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: "Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures. Mohammed did not benefit by them."
I saw the director of the ACLU interviewed on TV just the other night. While he seemed quite pleased with himself and his organization, and while John Daly was only too happy to toss up low velocity marshmallows, a thought entered my mind, "This dude is decoupled from reality, and that makes him dangerous."
*** 18:31 ***
For them will be Gardens of Eternity (heaven, Jannah); beneath them rivers will flow; they will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold, and they will wear green garments of fine silk and heavy brocade: They will recline therein on raised thrones. How good the recompense! How beautiful a couch to recline on!
The treasures the lawyers over at the ACLU seek are socialism, globalism, secularism, and righteous racism, the new racism, le nouveau racisme, the hip and cool racism that feels so correct on the TV and in the classroom.
The treasures sought by the Moslem Activists -- and there tacit allies the "moderate Moslems" -- are quite different, and somewhat more sinister.
How did this father of Al-Awlaki get here? If he is not a citizen, expel him. If he is, find out just how he got in, and how he obtained citizenship, and then examine closely the oath he had to take,and see if he can be stripped of his citizenship because he could not possibly, at the time he took the oath (a permanent oath) or later, have meant it when he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Find out who, in our consulates abroad, are in charge of choosing those who will be given visas. The only people who are entitled to claim "refugee" status from Muslim lands are non-Muslims; they are the only ones who have a genuine fear of persecution. As for others who wish to come, the criteria should be changed to include the obvious:
1) who can best integrate into American society, taking care to keep out those whose minds are suffused, or can easily be re-suffused, with an ideology that makes them permanently hostile to the very idea of the nation-state, the legal and political institutions, of non-Muslims, and whose ideal, the Shari'a, flatly contradicts in both letter and spirit the Constitution of the United States
2) who possesses the skills -- not to be confused withmoney, for rich Arabs can buy their way here and that must not be permitted -- to contribute to the economy or at least not to very likely add to the already colossal burden on American taxpayers who support so many who clearly cannot fit in to an advanced industriall state. For a poster child of the problem, see the case of Zeituni Onyango, and note her sense of entitlement -- "you have an obligation to make me a citizen,"-- here: http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/29779.
Make Al-Awlaki's father and his remaining in this country, or his citizenship, the test case. It is a good one because no one in his right mind -- that excludes the current ACLU, not to be confused with the historic ACLU of a half-century ago -- could come to his defense, or be outraged by how we now, coming to our collective senses ("The Constitution is not a suicide pact"), are perfectly ready, willing, and above all able, to deal with the imperilments that that those who take Islam seriously present to non-Muslims not only here, but all over the world, and most especially in those lands where Tolerance and Diversity -- Denmark, the Netherlands -- were elevated practically to Articles of Belief, part of a new pan-Western post-Christian State Religion.
A diseased Tolerance, a mindless uncritical worship of Diversity -- the homogeneous Chinese, Koreans, Japanese apparently do not feel as we in the West do, and they will gain, inthe mighty contests to come, for not having to deal with Diversity so extreme that it leaches the cultural continuity out of a country, and makes in merely a geographic place, where the great business of living is only...business. Time for pieties to be re-examined, those pieties that got the entire Western world into the mess it is now in.
Preaching death to America, inspiring Muslims like Major Nidal Hasan to go out and murder 13 American Soldiers,the underwear bomber who tried to blow up an airliner that could have killed thousands, and somehow because he is an American Citizen he needs due process through the US Courts. Who the hell is going to arrest him? Whose going to serve a warrant for his arrest? Maybe an ACLU Attorney should go and see him in Yemen? Sorry but there is a slim chance of that. The legal system with all its legalize has nothing in place to deal with an Al Qeada Plotter who is unaccessible in Yemen? That's amazing.
And yet there was that moment when scrambling Airforce Jets could have taken out a commercial airliner full of innocent Americans on 9-11,-- or not because they all deserve Legal process in the US Courts --Pleeeaze!
Is there not enough evidence that Anwar al-Awlaki is a an enabler, and an architect of acts designed to kill Americans? The legal system should not give this dangerous human being any quarter in due process and he should not even be considered a citizen of America anymore.
How does the father make his living in the United States? Why is he here? What possible good can he bring to this country?
I agree with Hugh....
Me, too.
Well spoke. WE need immigration reform alright. The laws have to be overhauled.
A broad ranging sweep of FBI searches of professional "anti-war protestor" homes and offices in Minneapolis and Nashville yesterday morning promise to give the ACLU still more bidness in the Righteous Indignation Litigation Industry. The feds also plan to open grand juries into the matter in Michigan and North Carolina.
The FBI explained that they were investigating the links between Leftists (aka Globo-Socialists) in the U.S. with terror organizations in the Middle East. (Links to terrorists in Colombia was also mentioned, but almost certainly was not the principal reason for the raids.)
The Globo-Socialist activists, offended that their homes and offices were actually raided, counter that they only oppose American military intervention overseas. One suspect travelled to the "country of Palestine" with an international solidarity foundation.
Mick Kelly, whose home was searched, played a central role in the 2008 demonstrations at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul... the warrants cited a federal law making it a violation to provide or conspire to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The warrant for the raid on Kelly's apartment, in the 1800 block of Riverside Avenue, sought notebooks, address books, photos and maps of Kelly's travels to the Palestinian territories, Colombia and in the United States on behalf of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. It also sought materials on his personal finances and those of the group, on Kelly's "potential co-conspirators" and recruitment efforts for the group.
The warrant also sought any information about efforts to support FARC, a guerrilla organization in Colombia, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Hezbollah, the political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon.
*** 87:10 ***
He who fears will mind.
The Globo-Socialists are scary, but the Moslems are somewhat more scary cuz they're more experience and are impelled by the promise of Jannah.
The daze of trying to separate the global Jihad declared in 1996 and the ongoing struggle for the worker's paradise underway since 1848 are over.
They are in bed now, and they are active. This brings thousands of college professors under suspician as far as their loyalty and their intentions. After all:
1848 - 622 = 1,226 yrs of seniority to the darker side of the alliance.
Can the professors catch up? And what about our eager young students?
"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check."
What blank check?
This is an exceptional circumstance. Here we have a person who gained U.S. citizenship by accident of birth, who never cared about that citizenship, who had a father who failed to educate him as to the responsibilities of citizenship [and who now enables his terrorism], and who now from abroad wages war on the country of his birth. How does the ACLU regard this as a normal subject for judicial oversight?
Hugh Fitzgerald makes some good points concerning making a test case out of Al-Awlaki's father. The problem is that such a case would likely be lost because the U.S. judiciary is now so infatuated with its sense of supremacy over the elected branches.
Hugh. The father of Anwar is Nasser al-Awlaki. He lived in the US decades ago and obtained a Ph. D. here. After that he went home. ITN(pbum)RC he is some kind of government official back in Yemen....
His father, Nasser al-Aulaqi distinguished himself in academia by graduating with a master’s degree in agriculture economics from New Mexico State University and eventually receiving his doctorate in the same study from the University of Nebraska.
In 1978 al-Awlaki’s family returned to Yemen where as an impressionable pre-teen / young adult al-Awlaki lived for 11 years
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-new-orleans/anwar-al-awlaki-portrait-of-an-american-traitor-and-sponsor-of-terror
....
So he is not here to kick out. Just saying.
And whatever is false in this is my error, may ZK protect protect us, if possible. And whatever is true in this is due to the ZK. An ZK probably knows. Who knows?
nabi ZK (pbum)
Aulaki is not some kind of anchor baby. He was born in New Mexico while his dad was studying for his masters degree. For sure he is a natural born, if highly criminal, citizen of the US. He was born here and grew up as a kid here in the US. Then he gone mohametan. That is why he is so dangerous.
nabi ZK (pbum)
Robert, the fact that the odious ACLU are leading the fight here should not distract us from the main issue: that the people cannot allow the Executive to be sole prosecutor, judge, and jury, especially in the case of an American citizen.
Read your Constitution: Article II, Section. 3: "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."
This requirement could probably be satisfied by testimony of two witnesses in, say, closed session of the intelligence committees, but for the Executive alone, without accountability to any other branch, to simply designate a citizen for killing--and this is not on a battlefield (or is the whole world a battlefield now?--where's the declaration of war?) is a complete overreach of government power.
Even more remarkable is that the ACLU /had to get permission/ from the Treasury Department (!) to even file the case, because their regulations prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions (including pro-bono representation) with individuals labeled by the Government as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist." Talked about a rigged system--label the guy, claim "national secrets" and you can do whatever you want.
Yes, al-Awlaki is probably guilty as hell, but do you really want your President to claim this much power? A Bernard Finel put it, "The dangers of the Obama position is that in a future crisis, it will form not the outer boundary of permissible action, but rather the inner boundary. Killing citizens without a trial will be normal, and think about the extreme cases." Think that's absurd? Before 9/11, I would have, too.
Look, we're in a fight for our lives with the Jihadists, but it's also vital to hold our government accountable, especially when it's in the hands of the current clowns. The Jihadists aren't the only threat to our precious Liberties.
Oops, that's Article III
To even regard, never mind respect, this request with, "saying it would reveal state secrets" is bending good faith a bit far.
Of course, our fault is in targeting him by name. He could be named as an instigator harbored within the enemy ranks, without the drama. That should have been kept within the "need to know" of only those operting in a specific theater.
It would suit our efforts to support the Yemeni troops in finding and finalizing his career in some dust-pit.
When indiginous forces gain success through our counsel it does us a world of good. (Better than a Space Shiek at NASA).
(Afghanistan may be an example of not husbanding the post-Soviet success, and AQAP could see that error repeated.)
The big question that I have is why has this intelligence operation become a 'news item'in the first place ? Why id the US administration saying anything about al-Awlaki at all ? What is the bloody purpose of that ?
The big question that I have is why has this intelligence operation become a 'news item'in the first place ? Why is the US administration saying anything about the al-Awlaki operation at all ? What is the bloody purpose of that ? To make sure everyone knows if they screw it up ?
No kidding, Hugh.
Gotta side with the administration on this one, or more precisely the CIA, since I think Obama has no real understanding of the CIA's mission and is just along for the ride.
Presumably a network of informants has been developed to infiltrate AQ in Yemen and its links to the wider AQ organization. Exposing these links in a civilian court would potentially jeopardize this program and result in the drying up of sources of information needed to thwart their terrorist plots.
Alarmed, would you have link/links about the FBI sweep? It sounds like at least someone in the government is doing its job in the background, in spite of the blowhard Leftist political appointees in the administration who get all the face time in the MSM.
No sir, you are wrong.
The U.S. Constitutional provisions that you cite apply to criminal defendants. To be a criminal defendant one must either be in custody or be located where an arrest is possible.
When someone like al-Awlaki appears on the scene he is in another league. He is beyond a criminal, in the scope and reach of criminal law. He is an enemy combatant, regardless of the fact that he holds U.S. citizenship.
Had the reasoning you make been applied during the U.S. Civil War, the Union would not have survived.
Believe me, if George Washington could have blown the sloop out of the Hudson river that carried Benedict Arnold away from West Point as he defected, he would have done so. It was war. I fail to see how a Predator attack on al-Awlaki would be any different.
For what it might be worth, the Left is going batsh*t crazy over this action by the Obama administration. See the comments on the story over at Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/obama-state-secrets_n_739114.html
I am in agreement with your viewpoint that al-Awlaki should NOT be considered a criminal defendant, specifically that his location and citizenship status are immaterial. He has conspired against his own country (an act of treason), and given aid to the enemy in time of war (al-Qaeda in Yemen). He is a traitor and should be tried as an enemy combatant. This may be possible to do in absentia.
His father, if not a U.S. citizen as zonie kafir informs, has no standing to bring any lawsuit in our courts. To allow him access to the U.S. system of jurisprudence is a travesty.
I thought the CIA used to send assassins to take care of people like this reprehensible beast. I couldn't believe they announced their intentions to kill him and assumed it was a smoke screen to conceal their apathy about terrorism in general. Why did they publicize this and warn him that he was a marked man? He is in a cozy safe house or mosque, churing out the videos for U-Tube. With such expansive powers and authority, seems like they could take him off of U-Tube.
Out goes the conspiracy that Obama is somehow in cahoots with Muslim terrorists.
"The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be targeted for assassination under a U.S. government program."
Actually scratch that, right wing extremists are known for their stubborn ignorance to the obvious.
I agree with Hugh. We should deport all Muslim because that would creat less terrorism. As would the expansion of Israel into Palestine, Serbia into Bosnia, and India into Kashmir.
I observe we have acquired a new Mohammedtroll, ladies and gentlemen.
To be frank: I have come to the conclusion that 1. stopping the migration of Muslims into all lands that currently have a majority of non-Muslims and 2. deporting *into* dar al Islam all Muslims from majority-nonMuslim countries (where they currently form a sullen, dangerous, treacherous and perpetually-aggressive minority) would indeed make life for the non-Muslims, in those countries, much more peaceful and pleasant, all things considered.
The jihad from *outside* would, of course, not stop; but it would be a whole lot easier to repel jihadist assaults launched against the lands of the non-Muslims, if there were no large and aggressive Muslim Fifth Column resident deep behind non-Muslim lines, from which assassins could be perpetually recruited and among whom they could 'disappear'.
Although our Mohammedtroll seems to think that 'terrorism' (i.e violent acts of jihad terror) would increase, if Judea and Samaria - ancestrally part of eretz Israel, by the way, and chock full of ancient Hebrew/ Jewish sacred sites - were firmly declared to be part of the modern state of Israel (and, of course, at the same time, all Muslims were evicted from every part of Israeli territory - the Arab/ised Christians remaining if they chose and provided they were willing to swear loyalty to the state of Israel and to stop acting as janissaries for the jihadis [who despise them]), or if India declared flatly that, once and for all, Kashmir is (as is historically correct) indissolubly part of India, and proceeded to evict into Pakistan all Muslims resident in Kashmir and the Pandits and other non-Muslims (most of whom the Muslims violently drove out, while constantly attacking those who remained)...I don't think so. I think the jihad would, in the long run, decrease; because such an unapologetic and strategically-deployed display of non-Muslim power and resolve would serve notice upon the Muslims that things had changed: that all the old tricks weren't going to work any more.
A small correction.
For "if India declared flatly that, once and for all, Kashmir is (as is historically correct) indissolubly part of India, and proceeded to evict into Pakistan all Muslims resident in Kashmir and the Pandits and other non-Muslims (most of whom the Muslims violently drove out, while constantly attacking those who remained)"
read "if India declared flatly that, once and for all, Kashmir is (as is historically correct) indissolubly part of India, and proceeded to evict into Pakistan all Muslims resident in Kashmir while encouraging back *into* Kashmir the Pandits and other Kashmiri non-Muslims (most of whom the Muslims violently drove out, while constantly attacking those who remained)"...
Your comments regarding the Constitution are on target!
Doesn't anyone remember the National Security Court created to vet problems of state secrets hindering prosecutions? I am no fan of an ACLU that weighs all cases of civil rights violations against its own extreme left-wing political agenda.
When you ignore the judiciary for right-wing presidents, you open the door for left-wing presidents. The dubious nomination of Harriet Myers (by 'Dubya' himself) made Obama's nominees' confirmations a foregone conclusion.
Congratulations! The United States in the 21st century has had its Supreme Court transformed from a panel of brilliant jurists to a panel of political ideologues with law licenses. The proof is their outright refusal to grant writs of certiorari (accept appeals) by independent and third-party candidates being thrown off the ballot by their fellow Democrats and Republicans.
Who is ultimately responsible for the citizens' loss of their government to the moneyed interests, within and without the United States? We, the citizens, are! By refusing to get involved in our government because we didn't have the time (but had the time for entertainment pursuits) we have thrown our liberty away! Most of us are still oblivious to it, absorbed with sports, the arts, gambling, gamboling and many other pursuits worth less.
Is anyone here slightly concerned that we've just given Obama the authority to order the assassination of anyone in the world and he has no obligation to justify his decision because he can just invoke a "state secret."
There's a trade off here. Our founders earned us some freedoms under the law. We can yield them all in order to protect ourselves from outsiders. Feels good today, but what about our children? They'll have to live with a government that doesn't grant them as much by way of freedom. Why don't we take our chances with the terrorists today and retain freedom?
Here's what Churchill said at the height of WWII with bombs reigning down on Britain. Mind you, he's not talking about assassinating citizens. He's merely talking about imprisoning them.
"You might however consider whether you should not unfold as a background the great privilege of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist." Winston Churchill in a telegram by Churchill from Cairo, Egypt to Home Secretary Herbert Morrison (1943-11-21)
I agree with you, SusanP, but past democratic administrations have emasculated the black ops side of the CIA. What about the Mossad? Shouldn't they join in and just take the guy out? They're so very good at that type of "procedure".
If the Mossad were to 'join in', they'd take a lot of our enemies out. So, let 'em.
I'm not concerned. WE are not giving Obama the power to kill U.S. citizens.
It is the U.S. Constitution that gives the president - any president, Bush, Obama, and those to come later, regardless of their politics - the power to engage in acts of war against anyone - U.S. citizen or not - who engages in war against the United States. Simple. The only legal issue is whether the Senate needs to declare war or not: we should declare war more often than we do, but we definitely do not need to do so against non-state actors.
Any attempt to weaken or remove this power from the Presidency will weaken the Constitution and harm the country.
All of the legal strictures cited on this thread in opposition to targeting al-Awlaki [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, etc] date from the Cold War. The Cold War was an anomalous world war. The U.S. and the USSR had no direct economic reason for conflict (it was pure ideology), engaged in no direct arms race but one (ICBMs), came into direct conflict only during intelligence operations (overflights, etc), and fought mainly through proxies (the exceptional "theaters" being Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, in each of which only one side officially fought).
As world wars go, the Cold War was the most terrifying - due to the size of the opposing nuclear arsenals - and the most leisurely. The U.S. could afford to create a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to protect liberties by controlling domestic surveillance.
The only similarity between the Cold War and today is the issue of ideology (or more accurately, theology). Islamic actions against the West are direct in arms buildup (Iran and likely Pakistan), and direct in conflict (terror attacks and military responses). Arguably these legal strictures are now obsolescent and require replacement; in situations for which they were not designed and which require immediate response they may be ignored.
Just to show how hollow the argument against attacking al-Awlaki is, let's approach it from the other side. Does Federal statute grant the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court the power to issue a writ allowing the president to kill a U.S. citizen, in any circumstance outside of a death sentence imposed by a jury of his peers? No, it doesn't. No court has that power. The Presidency alone inherently has the power to attack him, the only valid counterargument being that this is not truly a war.
Tom, who says citizen Awlaki is engaged in war against the U.S.? That's the problem--it's just the Executive's word, and no one else is allowed to contest it or examine it, because of "state secrets" (a creepy term used by the former Soviet Union).
Under ordinary circumstances I would agree that the Executive has wide latitude to prosecute war. Yet here have an undeclared "war" of indeterminate length against an enemy who doesn't represent a state or wear a uniform--the situation is ripe for abuse and notching the "normal" line closer to tyranny.
Essentially, they are saying, "trust us, this is war and we have a system." Well, I'm sorry, I don't trust them. Not any of them. They've already proven that they don't give a damn about the Constitution or citizen rule. And they also have proven they don't really understand the nature of the enemy or know how and where to fight him.
The one thing they DO know how to do is grab more and more power here at home. They will keep slow-boiling the frog. And that's how dictatorship will happen here if we let them.
I've got to agree with Swami and Merchant (and Churchill)on this one. The Fifth Amendment is quite clear; it proscribes the Federal Government from: "No person shall be...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" Due process in capital cases against US citizens requires a US court to adjudicate the treason (or waging war, or incitement to murder, or other Federal crimes). Tom's point re the Civil War is inapposite because Lincoln never issued such an "assassination" order; merely that Federal troops assert Federal control over all areas in rebellion by force of arms, if necessary. I really HATE to agree with the ACLU, but NO president should have the authority to order the killing of a US citizen without judicial review. This is a very slippery slope. Why didn't Obama merely follow normal Federal Procedure and take his case to a Grand Jury, obtain a Warrant and order his capture? If he resists, any Federal officer serving the warrant would be justified in defending him/her-self.
"Tom's point re the Civil War is inapposite because Lincoln never issued such an "assassination" order..."
But that wasn't my point.
"...merely that Federal troops assert Federal control over all areas in rebellion by force of arms, if necessary."
Thank you, that was my point. Hundreds of thousands of Confederates - U.S. citizens in active war against the U.S. government - were killed by military force under presidential order and occasionally without Congressional authorization. They were killed without regard to their constitutional rights, without due process of law, and without judicial oversight. It was a war. It is the fact of war that determines the proper response by government as much as any legalities.
Would they have been "assassinated" if the opposing Union soldiers knew their names? Arguably so. Would knowing or not knowing their names legally make a difference in the actions of the Union soldiers? Obviously not.
Also, adoption of the view that al-Awlaki cannot be individually targeted introduces inconsistencies. Can bin Laden be individually targeted? No one has yet to say no. If yes, what then if the two are found to be rooming together? Is bin Laden now off limits? If the answer is yes, that is an unreasonable operational restriction. If no, why would al-Awlaki be off limits elsewhere?
"...Why didn't Obama merely follow normal Federal Procedure and take his case to a Grand Jury, obtain a Warrant and order his capture? If he resists, any Federal officer serving the warrant would be justified in defending him/her-self."
Because the only Federal officers who can reach him are military, and military officers lack the authority to execute arrest warrants from civil courts. And if military actions alone can reach him, why choose methods that are more likely to get U.S. personnel killed? A Predator is just fine.
I have two other comments to bring up.
First, regarding the Cold War. The actions of the U.S. government to assassinate people like Fidel Castro were simply illegal. As I mentioned above, there was no direct conflict underway. The Cold War only became legally a war for the U.S. in Korea and Vietnam.
Second, up until now we have been discussing the legality of wartime assassination. What hasn't been discussed is the prudence of wartime assassination.
Most of the time, assassination is imprudent. The targets are usually not worth the effort, or might be replaced with someone worse. Your point about Lincoln is actually a good one in a different way. Lincoln had the legal power to order wartime assassinations, but it is doubtful he would have ordered one had he had the capability. He knew that the Confederate leadership were not monsters (aside from slave holding) and that the war effort would be hurt by assassinations. It is easy to imagine that Lincoln, if so tempted, would have reminded himself of their shared values and would have hoped they lived for a postwar reconciliation.
I personally am not a big fan of making top priority of an al-Awlaki assassination because it takes focus away from other deserving targets. But as long as he is active in war against the U.S he remains a legal target.
"...who says citizen Awlaki is engaged in war against the U.S.? That's the problem--it's just the Executive's word, and no one else is allowed to contest it or examine it"
Not true. Congress approved military action - war without the name - against al-Qaeda after 9/11. Due to his actions both before and after 9/11, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a member of al-Qaeda. It is not "just" the Executive's word.
One more comment. The several posters on this thread with whom I have taken issue are not regular posters and basically repeat the same talking points.
One point that repeats involves the ACLU: "..the odious ACLU..", "I am no fan of an ACLU that...", "I really HATE to agree with the ACLU, but.."
I don't believe it.
Another point is they all mention "judicial review". I have pointed out that there is no power given to any U.S. Court by constitution or statute to conduct such a review. They are just making up this "review", it exists in law only as their wistful thinking.
These posters have avoided replying to this point.
The reason why is that they are advocating lawfare against the U.S. They are trying to use al-Awlaki's citizenship as a wedge for the courts to unconstitutionally abrogate war making powers unto themselves, as they first did in the Hamadi decision. They know the courts lack this authority, that Congress will never give it to them, and as in Hamadi they simply are looking for an excuse to give themselves that authority. They want this authority so they can shackle the political branches and reduce their ability to declare and wage war as demanded by the democratic process. They want to hobble our ability to defend ourselves.
Tom -
1. I resent the insinuation that I am some kind of troll. The ACLU is anti-religious freedom, especially the free exercise clause of the first amendment. It is an organization that ordinarily does not act in my best interests but unfortunately they are on the right side of this issue. I don't care if you "believe it" or not. This is an important issue and I felt compelled to comment. You seem to feel that whatever the government does is OK as long as they reassure you that they're following the rules. But the Constitution provides for checks, even on a President in wartime.
2. I understand the difference between the war powers of the President and his powers in civil matters. I stated clearly that "if" this is war then the President has broad latitude. Moreover, I have never called for judicial review, I called for legislative review per Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. The House and Senate intelligence committees routinely handle classified and could handle it in this case. The Congress needs to grow a pair and assert their authority to make a formal Declaration of War, which according to one of your comments above, you agree with.
3. That the Executive can act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner simply by claiming national security is totally unacceptable in the case of a sovereign citizen.
4. "Due to his actions...he has proven beyond a reasonable doubt..." Again, according to whom? How do you know this? What you read in the news? Don't make me laugh.
5. "The reason why the are advocating lawfare..." Of course, Islamists and their sympathizers are trying to use this as a wedge to judicialize the war against al Qaeda. Fine, assume they are. But this is a single unique albeit important case. Somehow you have magically divined my motives, and conclude that I want to "shackle the political branches..." No, I want to shackle useful idiots such as yourself that would cede all of our sovereign rights as citizens to the Federal government without even knowing if what they are telling you is true.
Taking a half hour to present evidence to someone outside of the Executive branch is not an undue burden on the President, but Presidents are loath to concede any power to the other branches. That's the point. If we sovereigns don't regain control of our government soon then it's over for us--we've done al Qaeda's work for them. Many would argue that we're already there, seeing that you are only too willing to carry the Executive's water on this and leave the messy part to them.
Arms Merchant:
1.a. Actually, I like the ACLU. Just not on most church-state issues, or on granting illegal enemy combatants rights beyond that given by treaty, or a few other matters. I'd join it myself if they would cut the baloney.
1.b. As far as the constitutional checks on Presidential power in wartime is concerned, of course they exist, they are very limited, and they are entirely under Congress. The Courts have no power, and they repeatedly ruled so up until the Hamadi case.
2.a. "If" this is a war? Of course it is! Three thousand plus civilian casualties dwarfs Pearl Harbor. And regarding the issue of "declaring" war, yes, it would have been better had the Senate declared war on Afghanistan for harboring al_Qaeda, but there is a long established history of nation states executing war on illegal [non-nation-state] actors such as pirates without declarations. Remember the Barbary Pirates? Same principle. Looking for some legal loophole to say it's not a war is something I find odious, though in your case I'll pass: I don't think you have thought it through.
2.b. "I have never called for judicial review". No, you are right, you haven't. All of the other posters who agree with you did.
2.c. So you want Congress to have the power to grant approval to a Predator attack on al-Awlaki? Isn't that a bill of attainder? As so isn't that unconstitutional? The only other approach is the legislative veto, which is also unconstitutional. What if the president informs the intelligence committees of his decision, the committees object, and he ignores them? I think that short of impeachment you have no legal or constitutional recourse. Tell me why I am wrong, besides saying it ought to be so?
3. There are always exceptions. If a "sovereign citizen" were to break into my home in the dead of night I am entitled to defend myself to the extent allowed by law. In extremis I would appear to critics as "prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner simply by claiming domicile security". Would they be right? Would my act be illegal just because he is a "sovereign citizen"? The government is allowed by law, as confirmed by Civil War precedent and by the Ex Parte Quirin case (1942), to wage war against U.S. citizens engaged in war against it. That's another exception.
4. Go ahead and laugh. Laugh at the emails to the Fort Hood shooter. Laugh at the contacts with the underpants bomber. Laugh at al-Awlaki's meetings with some of the 9/11 hijackers. Are these all fabrications? I don't think so. I don't think, based on their postings, that the majority of contributors here think so. I'm pretty sure Robert Spencer doesn't think so, since the jihad is above all about war. I'd bet that scores of millions of literate Americans don't think so. If you doubt these reports, then I think you are not being reasonable.
5. "No, I want to shackle useful idiots such as yourself that would cede all of our sovereign rights as citizens to the Federal government without even knowing if what they are telling you is true."
Let me tell you something I've never posted anywhere. I had a relative who was in the national security establishment. He and his buddies ran a covert op that got shut down, and one of them went rouge and continued it. The rest of them fell over each other to get their info to the Federal prosecutors. They didn't do it out of fear, some of them (my relative included) had previously almost died in the service of their country. They did it out of patriotism, because they believed in their country, in the Constitution, and in the rule of law. Going rouge was offensive to them, and the answer was not assassination, but prosecution.
They gave me an earful on the illegalities in the Iran-Contra scandal too. They had no respect for Secord or Ollie North.
The majority of Americans, in and out of government, in and out of national intelligence or the military, are honest, loyal, and law abiding citizens. Yes, many politicians lie, or at least fudge the truth, and a few - too many lately - lie a lot. Yes, I can cite dozens of individual cases that are end runs around the Constitution. But fundamentally, the idea that the U.S. government cannot be trusted in some way that is beyond the citizen oversight necessary in 1810 or 1910, that somehow the Constitution is a dead letter because the apparatus is entirely corrupt, is a fantasy.
I have little doubt my relative, were he still alive, and his buddies would approve of targeting al-Awlaki for the legal reasons I have stated.
If al-Awlaki surrenders and is then assassinated, I'll join you in condemning the action of the U.S. government. That would be illegal, even if he were not a citizen. He has not surrendered and he continues to serve al-Qaeda, which is at war with the United States and indeed the entire non-Muslin world. He need not be targeted above his cohorts - I personally think doing so is an operational, but not legal mistake - and in that sense I can also agree with you. But given the unusual circumstances he has no immunity from attack.
Arms Merchant:
"But fundamentally, the idea that the U.S. government cannot be trusted in some way that is beyond the citizen oversight necessary in 1810 or 1910, that somehow the Constitution is a dead letter because the apparatus is entirely corrupt, is a fantasy."
In reading this I think that it is a bit tangential and it seems to imply more than I mean.
I meant to say that the skepticism historically shown by the U.S. citizenry is all that is necessary to safeguard civil rights. I am NOT in favor of "without even knowing if what they are telling you is true"
And as far as "whatever the government does is OK as long as they reassure you that they're following the rules." the fact is I KNOW that the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, Treaties to which the U.S. is a party, and all pre-Hamadi Supreme Court decisions back what I write. Those are the rules. Now, what is "OK" can be a different story, since politics and perceptions come into play. On this level al-Awlaki may very well not be worth the trouble. Just don't tell me what the law is, because I know.