Obama Targets US Citizen for 'Kill or Capture'

[Karmadillo]

Source: The Times

The Obama Administration has authorised the targeted killing of an American citizen in what is believed to be an unprecedented move in the War against Terror.

According to US media reports, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been linked to last November's attack on Fort Hood, Texas, and the failed Christmas day airline bomb plot, has been approved for capture or killing.

Mr Awlaki, who is in hiding in Yemen, is understood to have moved from encouraging attacks on the United States to participating in them directly, The New York Times reports.

He has been directly linked to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the US army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, and to Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, the Nigerian who tried to blow up a Detroit bound plane with a bomb in his underwear on Christmas Day.




Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7089899.ece

[Robb]

1. Well, good.

Although the "unprecedented" part that no one will get any credit for is announcing publicly the guy's fair game.

[rug]

2. The announcement is more PR than shrewd counterterrorism.

If this guy is now "terrorist Number One", I'm sure a global announcement is more effective than a covert operation to capture or murder him.

This is designed for domestic consumption, another calculated political move to garner support for military ends.

I feel much safer already.

[Robb]

8. He's hardly "terrorist Number One"

...and I don't think they're making that point; although you're correct, this is for domestic consumption, specifically the legal community.

[OnlinePoker]

34. It says it in the article

On Tuesday, Jane Harman, the chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security described Mr Awlaki as: “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist Number One in terms of threat against us.”

[Robb]

35. Well, that's fucking stupid then, I stand corrected.

Although Jane Harman held pom-poms for warrantless wiretapping, so who knows.

[sabrina 1]

79. There have been so many terrorists #1.

Al Zarqawi comes to mind. Later it was admitted by at least one General, that it was all propaganda to keep support for the war strong and to keep up the lie that Al Queda was in Iraq.

But aside from that, since when is it legal in the U.S. to order the assassination of anyone, without trial or even charges filed against them?

How easily we have slipped into accepting these things, mercenaries, assassinations, the rationalization.

As one German professor wrote after it was all over about how things escalated to the point of no return ~

'It happened incrementally' he said. 'With each new event that you felt uncomfortable about, you waited, for something so big that people would have to react. But that didn't happen. It was one thing at a time, and with each one, people became more accepting'.

Reading this thread, I was thinking how several years ago, there would have been outrage over the U.S. ordering assassinations like this. Now, we are discussing the technicalities, whether it is just for PR purposes or whatever.

We are well on the road to acceptance of crimes that should never be accepted. But, as that German professor said, after a while, you became afraid to voice your own feelings about these things, after a while, it was too late.'

[ixion]

3. change...not so much

just like old times. :(

[Jefferson23]

4. Well that's interesting, considering this was just released this morning too:

Not all terrorism: Obama tries to change subject

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 52 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document is still being written and is unlikely to be released for weeks, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document is the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, as with his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the U.S. talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo and promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terrorism and winning the war of ideas.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_terrorism_rhetoric

[Proletariatprincess]

5. I think this is horrible...a terrible precedent.

When is it ever good when a citizen can be executed without hearing or trial.
Hell, even ancient Roman citizens had more rights. Im outraged at this.

[Papa Boule]

58. Oh relax. This unchecked power will only be used for good. No matter who holds the office.

Right?

[hack89]

60. Is a trial in absentia adequate for your outrage?

or are you saying that he is untouchable until we find a way to arrest him and get him on American soil? What if that takes a long time? Do we just wait and hope no innocents die?

[aquart]

72. Obama agrees with John Yoo.

He believes he has the right to kill American citizens without arrest or trial or jury or anything but his say so. This is an outrageous precedent and once there is a precedent, there will be other cases that use that precedent.

So glad you're fine with this.

[hack89]

85. Please answer my question

is an American actively waging war against his fellow citizens untouchable if he can't be arrested and physically bought to America for trial? What's wrong with a trial in absentia?

Are you saying that you don't trust Obama to use this power judicially and wisely?

Don't put words in my mouth. I just hate simplistic knee jerk hyperbole - it makes rational discussion impossible.

[pocoloco]

6. "killing of an American citizen"

Not unprecedented, even on American soil, but the "War against Terror"
provides an additional excuse.

What is unprecedented is the admission that it is even considered.

[Robb]

9. Well, we wanted more openness in government.

Some sausage has worse ingredients than others, eh?

[Wizard777]

7. How do we get Bush & Cheney on this list?

[superconnected]

48. Or even Bin Laden.

[Jefferson23]

10. Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

By Glenn Greenwald


(updated below)

In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations.

Continue reading
Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:


The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .


remainder in full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations/index.html

[TwilightGardener]

11. Chickenshit's hiding out in Yemen, acting as an enemy of our country, targeting civilians.

Wow, I'm really gonna cry when they take him out. Not.

[cliffordu]

12. Yep. Martyr the little fucker.

[TwilightGardener]

13. I understand the impulse to be concerned for an individual's rights, especially

here on DU. That is noble. I, however, am not that noble. At some point, people have to acknowledge that this man, by all reports, wants us dead in a fireball or hail of bullets. He's trying to kill us, and we are worried that he might be deprived of due process?

[cliffordu]

14. Anyone actively participating in the killing of US citizens needs to go.

it's just like they're standing in my kitchen with a gun.

[bitchkitty]

16. Ha! Read what you just wrote

In a thread about authorizing the killing of a US citizen, you're all for killing the US citizen, for killing US citizens.

I am not opposed to them going after this guy, it's just that the irony struck me.

[cliffordu]

22. Yep. acts of war, murder and all that.

My philosophy is to live and let live. Start with the murders and you gotta get out of the gene pool.

Not as a deterrence, just bookkeeping.

[Heywood J]

68. So you're all for finding (for example) murderers on the street

and blowing them away without trial? How exactly does that not make you a murderer? Where would you stop the practice - teabaggers, rapists, armed robbers, assaults?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin, who faced an enemy far more dangerous than this)

[cliffordu]

109. Kinda reaching a bit with the ben franklin quote aren't ya??

And where did I ever say anything about not handing out due process?

Kinda specious, really.

But your point is prolly more important to your politically pure self image than what I actually said.

:shrug:

[SpartanDem]

111. I forget my right to wage war against my country

[bitchkitty]

17. Ha! Read what you just wrote

In a thread about authorizing the killing of a US citizen, you're all for killing the US citizen, for killing US citizens.

I am not opposed to them going after this guy, it's just that the irony struck me.

[ixion]

18. Yeah, who needs the Rule of Law

when you have a gun, right? :eyes:

[cliffordu]

29. That's exactly right.

Brave new world.

[ixion]

32. wheeeeeee!

:nuke:

[Akoto]

15. I have no problem with this particular case.

This fellow has turned against his country, and what's more, he's now directly involving himself in terrorist attacks aimed at civilians. Take him down before he convinces another idiot kid to strap explosives to himself for "martyrdom."

[ixion]

19. yeah, who needs that pesky Due Process

when you can just whack'em like in the Sopranos. :eyes:

[Akoto]

23. Sorry, but in this case ...

He, like many in his new circle, is backed up by connections and money. He'll be thoroughly protected, to the point that assassination probably would be necessary. If ever it should come down to capture, I suspect he would sooner martyr himself. Why? As far as I can tell by his actions, he's an unrepentant nut.

[ixion]

25. Without the Rule of Law, it's all mafia

and the assassination by a US taxpayer-paid assassin is no different than a mob thug.

Zip. Zilch. Nada.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. "...in this case..."

But what about the precident it sets for the NEXT case?

Because, you know, our government has NEVER EVER tried to falsely "link" people they either didn't want around or were being demonized to rachet up the fear factor. :eyes:

[liberation]

42. The whole point of having a rule of law is that a) no one is above it, and b) there are no exception

For example, what if I consider you to be an "unrepentant dangerous fool" should I be entitled to kill you. After all, hey... it is "self evident" to me what a monumentally dangerous person anyone who does not understand a basic concept of our country, such as the rule of law, is to our society at large.


See, funny things happen when we take your "logic" to its ultimate consequences. This country has gone through far graver dangers and threats than the supposedly terrorism coming our way from a bunch of two bit goat herders, without having to surrender its basic core principles. What a bunch of chickenshits this society has become.

[Pavulon]

82. What did Lincoln do with Habeas corpus(nt)

[hack89]

107. So what about those areas of the world where American rule of law

can't reach? He is hiding in Yemen - you really think he will be extradited? Do you think we have the right to go get him regardless of what the local government? Or is is untouchable - free to aid and associate with terrorist with no danger of harm?

[hack89]

61. So do we invade Yemen, kidnap him and smuggle him back to America for his trial?

I don't think that extradition is an option.

[earcandle]

20. What happened to trials before killing someone? Is Kissinger targeted for capture or killing? Or

Bush or Cheney?  They committed more crimes than this person
has and more people died. 

I don't get it how we became a nation of leaders who authorize
killing others before a trial.
I am shocked at how barbaric we have become to justify our war
chest. 

[hack89]

64. He will have a trial if captured

if an American has taken up arms against his fellow citizens and he is beyond the reach of the law what other option is there? Do you propose we simply wait years if necessary until he is physically arrested and on American soil? What if he is responsible for Americans in the meantime?

Would you accept a trial in absentia?

[NFL80]

21. First they went after Awlaki...

[msanthrope]

106. Good. Hopefully Bin Laden's next. n/t

[SnakeEyes]

24. When did DU become hawkish?

[ixion]

26. Nov-2008

That's when.

[Mari333]

102. yep. sickening, isnt it.

[ixion]

105. yep, it is...

very unimpressive, in my opinion.

[treestar]

121. Black and white thinking

There is still such a thing as defending ourselves. Bush may have exaggerated the need. But we'd have expected his administration to go after this guy, too.

If one is against the indiscriminate bombing and "war" which takes in more people than the terrorists, what is wrong with zeroing in on the terrorists?

This thread is full of posts that leave us with just letting this guy do whatever he wants to kill people until he can be arrested as if the US has jurisdiction on the entire planet.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. For many here, when a "D" got into office ---

for others, it's when a African-American got into office, and for many, it is when Obama got into office.

War is Peace, baby. Haven't you heard?

[xsquid]

38. +1 nt

[The Northerner]

89. +1

[New Dawn]

113. Bingo.

Sad, but true.

[treestar]

122. Simply not true

With a D in office we know we will not be dragged into further unnecessary wars that kill civilians indiscriminately. We never wanted to just expose our neck to the terrorists. We still expect them to be hunted down. And always did.

You are not only against the wars but against doing anything against Al Qaeda unless they can be arrested and tried. And noncitizens should have the same chance as citizens. We don't have the right to kill foreigners without trial either.

[Cronus Protagonist]

52. 9/11/2001

I remember it well. I was lucky to have weathered it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. I do not like this.

I am a big fan of justice -- as in the judicial system. This makes government sanctioned assasination legitimate, and it could be used in the future to take out any American who a particular administration finds a nuisance. They could "link" any American citizen who is causing "trouble" (environmentalist. labor organizer, human rights worker, whistleblower) to some a terrorist group, and have that "trouble" officially, legally go away.

I do not like this at all.

[Robb]

33. It's not a tenuous link at all.

This is not even new ground being covered. Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution.

The guy's been on video for years calling for the overthrow of the government that he was born under, cheering US deaths and raising money to produce more.

The slippery slope starts a long time after this guy, IMO.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

45. Way to completely miss the point.

There may appear to be cause in this instance, but what about the NEXT time? What about under another Bush-type administration that is completely willng to fabricate evidence to suit their purposes? What happens to that American citizen that is offically, legally targeted for assassination under those circumstances?

[Robb]

47. No, it's completely the point.

You want to argue slippery slope stuff, you've got to have a situation that could go either way. This ain't one.

[fasttense]

66. You just described your average tea-bagger

"The guy's been on video for years calling for the overthrow of the government that he was born under, cheering US deaths and raising money to produce more."

So, if President Obama sends his hit squad to kill off their leaders, like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, you wont have any problems with it? Then, to make him look like a centrist, President Obama will send the hit squad to murder a few Union Leaders. You know, just so he looks like he's killing people from both sides.

We've slipped on that slope all the way down to a dictatorship.

[Robb]

86. Silly comparison.

And unless I missed a Congressional vote somewhere, your slope hasn't even begun.

[fasttense]

118. Silly response.

Unless I missed a Congressional vote on this hit squad, it looks like a dictatorship, it walks like a dictatorship and sounds like a dictatorship.

Ignorance is bliss.

[pocoloco]

41. Are you so naive as to think this hasn't been happening??

And for a long time.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. No, I am not naive enough to think that.

But now it becomes offical, government sanctioned assassination of an American citizen.

[frylock]

30. smoke em out!

bring em on! ... can't get fooled again.

[frylock]

36. can we expect radical clerics like sean hannity or glen beck to be targeted for assassination?

[Xenotime]

93. Hmmmmm..

[MilesColtrane]

37. Summary execution was wrong when Bush's CIA did it.

And, it's still wrong.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. Seems pretty damned simple to me.

But, clearly, what the fuck do I know.

[Papa Boule]

63. Sigh. You just don't get it. It's never wrong when our guy does it.

Besides, think of the exciting movie and Saturday morning TV show potential here. "Executive Branch Death Team, activate!"

[treestar]

123. It is not summary execution

If he can be captured and tried, wonderful, if he gets away, shoot at him.

Like Bonnie and Clyde. They weren't summarily executed. They could not be let go to kill others, either.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberation]

40. The 5th amendment is the least of my worries regarding Obama's understanding of the constitution

If Obama's administration is indeed pushing for state sanctioned assassinations. Then, he seems to be a lawyer completely unaware of the whole due process of law that we have had going in this country since its inception.

This is a very very very very very very troubling development, for the supposedly "changealicious and hopetastic" great Dem hype.

If we can invade countries at will, and kill our "enemies of the sate" with a similar arbitrary abandon... we're no longer any different from the "evil" regimes we claim to be fighting. This was most definitively not the "change" I was expecting to see.

[Robb]

44. How broad is your definition of assassination?

Let's examine the spectrum. Targeting a compound full of soldiers, in part because you believe there are officers there, isn't assassination.

How is targeting an Al Qaeda leader surrounded by bodyguards any different?

[liberation]

62. My definition of assassination is pretty narrow. Your projection exercise is not, however

The US killing people without due process, esp. our citizens, is in no other terms an assassination. You can play all sorts of semantic games if you want. But then it is you who is trying to stretch the meaning, not me.

But hey, if "state sanctioned murder" sounds more palatable to you, by all means...


I just find it mighty hypocritical, to see policies which would have been utterly unacceptable under Bush... being not only accepted, but justified and supported just because the party affiliation of the president happened to change recently.

We can either have a rule of law, or not. You decide, if you think that not having a rule of law is better... then again, suit yourself. Good luck trying to make an actual logical argument for that position. Because, whether you like to recognize it or not (probably you do not like bad PR) that is exactly what you are proposing if you are sanctioning the US government to be able to kill our citizens without any due process.

[hack89]

65. So killing al-Queda terrorist is murder?

our only option is to capture them, bring them to America and try them? They are completely untouchable until then?

Do you then support the violation of countries' sovereignty to capture them? Or if Yemen or Sudan says no we have no choice but to recognize the sanctuary they have been given?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

74. Are they citizens of the United States?

[Pavulon]

81. Is he in the US? Maybe he will just show up to superior court

or maybe yemen will extradite him... not to promising. Maybe all those shot at fort hood will rise from the dead on easter morn.

He earned the ticket, he should expect it to get stamped.

[hack89]

99. Stop avoiding the real issue

We are not talking about Americans that are in America or any country that is willing to extradite him. In those cases they will be arrested - very simple.

But, do you maintain that an American actively waging war against his fellow citizens is untouchable if he can't be arrested and physically bought to America for trial? What if he is hiding somewhere where the rule of law doesn't exist or where some country is knowingly giving him sanctuary? Do you support America's right to go get him and arrest him if the country he is hiding in refuses to extradite him?

[Robb]

80. Straw man. It's got nothing to do with party.

And if you want to talk about rule of law, there's plenty to support shooting at this guy in particular, and people like him in general.

The rest of your post is just silly, and I don't believe you even believe it yourself. :D

[Iowa]

59. +1

[aquart]

73. And that is what I feared most.

That not impeaching Bush would force us into impeaching the Democrat, because our candidate was going to inherit Bush's power intact and unchallenged, and nobody gives back power.

Not to worry, though. The precedent of not impeaching Bush makes it impossible to impeach any President for any reason.

[Mari333]

49. more chest thumping adolescent machismo prick waving for right wing votes

it never ends.

[lonestarlib]

50. Obama continues to outbush Dubya.

Disturbing--even Timothy McVeigh got his day in court.

[Xenotime]

51. I overheard Rush talking about this on the radio now...

[DebbieCDC]

53. This is no surprise to those of us who had our eyes opened months ago

Same bushco bullshit -- nicer package.

So many on DU spit out this kool-aid when Dumbya was peddling it, but now they guzzle it like the finest wine because a "democrat" is offering it. I don't know if it's sad or disgusting.

[hughee99]

54. The government authorizing the killing of a US citizen without due process...

What could possibly go wrong here?

[mvd]

88. I agree.

Arrest is ok, but not killing, unless he attacks the people who arrest him. And every effort should be made to bring him to trial. Just like what usually happens to suspected criminals. If that makes me a leftist, so be it.

[jobwithout]

95. But its a democrat doing it

That makes it inherently ok.

:edited for spelling

[sui generis]

55. I kind of see how it would work

You are participating directly in violence against US targets, your citizenship does not give you special protections.

The slippery 40 acres for me is who gets to define whether you are considered a terrorist, prove whether what they "understood" to be true is ACTUALLY true, and where are the check and balances to prevent abuse of that system? Are there blanket rules? Is this a warrant based (in both the literal and the figurative sense of the word "warrant") system?

Are there restrictions on issuing those warrants for domestic soil? What about for people who are already in custody on foreign soil?

Presumably such a warrant removes all subsequent human and civil rights . . . .

I see how it would work, and I don't like it.

[h9socialist]

56. Not to burst anyone's outrage bubble, but . . .

. . . wouldn't John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson kinda figure this to be just business as usual???

[mbperrin]

57. And those were proud moments, yah?

Actually, no.

If we don't have the time or will to try folks, let's just sell hunting licenses and heal the deficit.

Say $2500 for a 30 day window to kill anyone who is annoying, dangerous, ugly, or whatever - after all, offending someone is the new standard for death without further ado.

Lessee, must be about 180 million Americans above the age of 18 who hate somebody. At $2500 a pop, that's about $450 billion a YEAR in revenue to the government, and what a boost to the funeral industry as well!

Yeah, this could be good, AND we get to shut down those expensive prisons, saving even more!

[h9socialist]

67. With that Lone Star flag I am having difficulty making out if you're serious or facetious

[mbperrin]

70. I have the same trouble all the time with politicians, don't you?

Like when they promise to "reform" finances, and then proceed to give trillions in cash and guarantees to failed banks so that they can in turn give themselves big bonuses.

[h9socialist]

75. Depends on the politician, and the course of history . . .

Usually it's businessmen I can't stand!

[mbperrin]

84. True, and these days, the same folks are often both.

Most I wouldn't trust to manage a 7-11, but there they are, "creating their own reality."

Ayn Rand worshipers. Blah.

[h9socialist]

114. Ayn Rand was a . . .

. . . cynical, loveless old bitch! She rejected both socialism and religion, and had the opinion that life was simply a collection of selfish motivations. And she gave the world Alan Greenspan. What I am trying to say is that she didn't have a decent, humane impulse or motivation in her -- the world is better off without that sort of neurosis.

[mbperrin]

117. Yep nt

[SpartanDem]

71. The guy is an AQ terrorist

so if a we drop a bomb on some camp and we happen to kill him he has it coming. I find it unbelieveable people are ok with him planning and lauching attacks against the country overseas, but if want to drop a bomb on him then we're the bad guys.

[sui generis]

77. We're not the bad guys. We're just no better than the bad guys.

"has it coming" is a wee bit scary since unilateral government actions tend not to have recourse, even in the event of an erroneous action, and anyway you'd be dead.

It's not about the individual so much as about the principle, and changing our nation's principles to "give it to" an individual cheapens what we stand for.

There was a time when our beloved DHS believed that any liberal who ended up on the no-fly list had it coming, with no way to get you off that list or find out how you got on it to begin with.

Are there other methods that have more controlled consequences? You bet there are, but Obama supported this one, which is and should be disturbing.

I don't really believe the man is a whole lot brighter than GWB when it comes to understanding consequence, just has a better PR team.

[mountainvue]

76. He doesn't get a trial?

[Pavulon]

78. Lets send dawg the bounty hunter over there to yemen to get him.

he did not steal razor blades from walmart, so no he does not get to go to night court.

[ManiacJoe]

90. Yes, if he surrenders.

If he chooses to resist, he probably will not make it to the court house.

[msanthrope]

103. Precisely. He has the choice to surrender, and face trial. n/t

[wildbilln864]

83. K&R! nt

[Pavulon]

87. Maybe the the video will hit wikileaks. And it can be debated

if killing this guy was worth killing the guy driving him around when they both explode out the windows of a toyota hilux truck...

This is a war, people are going to die.

[jobwithout]

91. War Crime.

The Fourth Geneva Convention outlaws targeting civilians. Tell me how is this not in violation!

[Xenotime]

92. It's not because this guy is an enemy of the state.

[jobwithout]

94. Ummm no

The Treaty doesnt make an exception for "enemy of the state." Otherwise we could declare everyone in a particular country an enemy of the state and slaughter them.

[frylock]

97. based on what evidence?!

seriously, what fucking evidence are you basing this on?

[Xenotime]

110. Talk to President Obama, not me. I just support his decision.

[frylock]

116. honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes..

Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

[harun]

115. Posts like this are the last remaining thread that keeps me still

tied to DU.

Thank you. Your logic and reason are appreciated.

[Robb]

98. Easy, he's not a civilian. nt

[hack89]

100. Not if he is actively aiding and associating with know terrorists

are you saying that al-Qaeda aren't valid military targets?

[IndianaGreen]

96. Who will be the next American citizen to be assassinated?

First they said that only foreign terrorists would be held as enemy combatants. Then came José Padilla, an American citizen. Then they said that only foreign terrorists would be targeted for assassination. Now comes Anwar al-Awlaki.

Little by little we have become an outlaw country in which the President holds powers that would have rivaled that of the Russian Tsars.

We are no more safer under a Democratic President than we were under a Republican President for as long as the Constitution remains an obstacle to overcome, and our hard-won civil liberties can be set aside by a Presidential whim.

We are less free and safe today than we were yesterday!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 7, 2010
4:44 PM

Obama Administration Reportedly Authorizes Targeted Killing Of U.S. Citizen

More Information Needed On Legal Standards For Targeting Americans, Says ACLU

NEW YORK - April 7 - According to news reports today, the Obama administration has approved the targeted killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a United States citizen who is believed to be located in Yemen, far from any active hostilities. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the government to make more details about the targeted killing program available to the public. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the government to make more details about the targeted killing program available to the public.

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today's report raises serious questions about the legal standards that govern targeted killings. The American public deserves to know what standard the government uses and how much evidence is required when it decides, in the name of self-defense or otherwise, to place U.S. citizens on a kill list. In order to assess the moral, legal and strategic implications of the program, the public also needs information about how the program is overseen and what its consequences are in terms of civilian casualties."

In March, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas and related information. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties, internal oversight and safeguards and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

More information on the ACLU's predator drone FOIA lawsuit is available here: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-seeks-information-predator-drone-program

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/07-14

[Festivito]

101. Wanted dead or alive... is unprecedented? Are we sure?

Perhaps when narrowed to only the war on terror and only a specified American citizen. Is that it?

[msanthrope]

104. Mr. Awlaki always has the option of surrendering himself to the World Court

at the Hague, or to the UN directly.

But if he thinks hiding out in Yemen is gonna save his ass, he's wrong.

[newspeak]

108. Some DUers probably remember the discussion we had

about certain provisions of the Patriot Act while * was in office. Concerns that the government can strip US citizenship away from an individual that they deem as an enemy of the state. They can strip your citizenship and there goes your rights-a right to a trial. At the time, many here were concerned, especially with the sociopathic mentality of the past administration. And, what we questioned was that the administration could deem that liberals or tea partiers might be an enemy of the state. Just saying it is a slippery slope--and tonight had a former CIA agent on the show about this and he said it's not the right way to do it and it is unprecedented. Maybe he's incorrect--who knows?

[msanthrope]

112. Kindly cite the provision of the Patriot Act you refer to. n/t

[onenote]

119. what part of "or capture" do people here not understand

when the police are sent out to arrest a suspected murderer, they usually have the authority to kill or capture that person.

[treestar]

124. All they understand is that they are looking for a reason to be outraged

[The abyss]

120. Gee if this guy qualifies for liquidation....

Then where does “Adam Pearlman” fit in? AKA: Adam Gadahn.

Probably depends upon which chapter of "al qaeda" they claim membership?

Sponsored or un-sponsored chapter. :sarcasm: ?