President Obama defends "targeted killing" in Terrorism fight

[Liability]

Not only did the Obama Administration DEFEND the idea of a targeted killing of a terrorist cleric who has never been "tried" for anything, but --

in the first big round of Judicial review of that policy, the Obama Administration just WON in Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki's father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.

Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans. He also has been linked to last year's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas. He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans.

Administration officials have confirmed to The Associated Press that al-Awlaki is on a capture or kill list, although the Obama administration declined to confirm or deny it in court proceedings.

The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him. The suit also tried to force the government to disclose standards for determining whether U.S. citizens like his son, born in New Mexico, can be targeted for death.

Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president as he makes military decisions to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

* * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...P-US-Cleric-Lawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not only did the Obama Administration DEFEND the idea of a targeted killing of a terrorist cleric who has never been "tried" for anything, but --

in the first big round of Judicial review of that policy, the Obama Administration just WON in Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki's father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.

Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans. He also has been linked to last year's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas. He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans.

Administration officials have confirmed to The Associated Press that al-Awlaki is on a capture or kill list, although the Obama administration declined to confirm or deny it in court proceedings.

The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him. The suit also tried to force the government to disclose standards for determining whether U.S. citizens like his son, born in New Mexico, can be targeted for death.

Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president as he makes military decisions to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

* * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...P-US-Cleric-Lawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

Agreed.

 

[Kalam]

"Targeted killing" would be a marginal improvement over the current practice of indiscriminately bombing any region with a suspected Taliban presence.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This is a tricky one. Sets a pretty big precedent. Our President can now legally order hits on American Citizens or anyone else around the World. I'll have to look into this some more before i start cheerleading for it. It's more complicated than it seems.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The courts have just given the US president the power to kill dissidents and political opponents. I thought we got rid of that when we got rid of tyranny.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

AS LONG as they're obvious, confirmed terrorists like that one, kudos to Obama, for once.

 

[DiamondDave]

"Targeted killing" would be a marginal improvement over the current practice of indiscriminately bombing any region with a suspected Taliban presence.

That's hardly what is going on in reality.... but an idiot like you fully believes that if you say it enough, some gullible fuck will start believing you

 

[logical4u]

Not only did the Obama Administration DEFEND the idea of a targeted killing of a terrorist cleric who has never been "tried" for anything, but --

in the first big round of Judicial review of that policy, the Obama Administration just WON in Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki's father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.

Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans. He also has been linked to last year's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas. He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans.

Administration officials have confirmed to The Associated Press that al-Awlaki is on a capture or kill list, although the Obama administration declined to confirm or deny it in court proceedings.

The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him. The suit also tried to force the government to disclose standards for determining whether U.S. citizens like his son, born in New Mexico, can be targeted for death.

Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president as he makes military decisions to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

* * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...P-US-Cleric-Lawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

The police have to get a warrant. The President should need one, also.

 

[Kalam]

"Targeted killing" would be a marginal improvement over the current practice of indiscriminately bombing any region with a suspected Taliban presence.

That's hardly what is going on in reality.... but an idiot like you fully believes that if you say it enough, some gullible fuck will start believing you

Flatly denying something without any further explanation and calling me an "idiot" doesn't exactly prove whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[Two Thumbs]

hmm,

Part of me wants some kind of judicial action, since he's a citizen.
another part of me wants this POS dead and rotting under the Yemen sun.

We are not assasins. Sorry, I think we should fault to the higher standard and have Yemen hand this fuck over or capture him. Killing him only if he's foolish enough to resist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

AS LONG as they're obvious, confirmed terrorists like that one, kudos to Obama, for once.

So, as long as somebody somewhere confirms that they are terrorists you have no problem with the government murdering US citizens without a trial. Glad to know you are a strong supporter of individual rights and the Constitution.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"Targeted killing" would be a marginal improvement over the current practice of indiscriminately bombing any region with a suspected Taliban presence.

That's hardly what is going on in reality.... but an idiot like you fully believes that if you say it enough, some gullible fuck will start believing you

Flatly denying something without any further explanation and calling me an "idiot" doesn't exactly prove whatever point you're trying to make.

"Location: The Great Satan's nether regions"

That causes any one with any reason to doubt anything you say.

 

[DiamondDave]

"Targeted killing" would be a marginal improvement over the current practice of indiscriminately bombing any region with a suspected Taliban presence.

That's hardly what is going on in reality.... but an idiot like you fully believes that if you say it enough, some gullible fuck will start believing you

Flatly denying something without any further explanation and calling me an "idiot" doesn't exactly prove whatever point you're trying to make.

You're the one stating as fact that the policy is indiscriminate bombing.... show your undeniable proof, or shut the fuck up

I know of no policy that states this as fact, no matter if it were during Bush's terms or Obama's.... and there is no evidence that this is practice outside of the executive orders of the CIC

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

AS LONG as they're obvious, confirmed terrorists like that one, kudos to Obama, for once.

So, as long as somebody somewhere confirms that they are terrorists you have no problem with the government murdering US citizens without a trial. Glad to know you are a strong supporter of individual rights and the Constitution.

I am indeed, thanks. Are you seriously denying this man is a terrorist? I support it in this instance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

AS LONG as they're obvious, confirmed terrorists like that one, kudos to Obama, for once.

So, as long as somebody somewhere confirms that they are terrorists you have no problem with the government murdering US citizens without a trial. Glad to know you are a strong supporter of individual rights and the Constitution.

I am indeed, thanks. Are you seriously denying this man is a terrorist? I support it in this instance.

I am seriously denying that this man was given due process before being put on a kill list. In case you missed it, that is unconstitutional.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Liability]

"Targeted killing" would be a marginal improvement over the current practice of indiscriminately bombing any region with a suspected Taliban presence.

There is, of course, no such "practice."

 

[Kalam]

That's hardly what is going on in reality.... but an idiot like you fully believes that if you say it enough, some gullible fuck will start believing you

Flatly denying something without any further explanation and calling me an "idiot" doesn't exactly prove whatever point you're trying to make.

"Location: The Great Satan's nether regions"

That causes any one with any reason to doubt anything you say.

Anyone with any reason tends to doubt everything that everyone says. If you're asking me to back up my claims of indiscriminate bombing, I'll be happy to do so.

My "location" info is sarcastic, by the way.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

So, as long as somebody somewhere confirms that they are terrorists you have no problem with the government murdering US citizens without a trial. Glad to know you are a strong supporter of individual rights and the Constitution.

I am indeed, thanks. Are you seriously denying this man is a terrorist? I support it in this instance.

I am seriously denying that this man was given due process before being put on a kill list. In case you missed it, that is unconstitutional.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If someone wants to try that demon in a MILITARY court, fine. So you're 1 of those wacko pussies who wants U.S. civilian rights for terrorists?

Not cool.

 

[Liability]

Not only did the Obama Administration DEFEND the idea of a targeted killing of a terrorist cleric who has never been "tried" for anything, but --

in the first big round of Judicial review of that policy, the Obama Administration just WON in Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki's father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.

Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans. He also has been linked to last year's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas. He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans.

Administration officials have confirmed to The Associated Press that al-Awlaki is on a capture or kill list, although the Obama administration declined to confirm or deny it in court proceedings.

The cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him. The suit also tried to force the government to disclose standards for determining whether U.S. citizens like his son, born in New Mexico, can be targeted for death.

Administration officials argued the court has no legal authority to review the president as he makes military decisions to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.

* * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...P-US-Cleric-Lawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

The police have to get a warrant. The President should need one, also.

That would be an interesting "warrant." I wonder what you'd call it?

Would it be a Death Warrant? Or would it be an Execution Warrant?

It would be interesting to then have the Execution Warrant Executed, entailing the Execution of the person named on the warrant. Would it be referred to the Department of Redundancy Department?

The PURPOSE of a Warrant, by the way, is not to get a Judge to permit something final. It is to get a judge to authorize LAW ENFORCEMENT efforts that might otherwise transgress the 4th amendment. This allows for Judicial Review after the Execution of the Search Warrant, for example. But, by contrast, after an Execution Warrant, there aren't going to be any judicial proceedings because when the Execution Warrant is Executed, the person named will be kind of dead.

And the whole notion is kind of silly anyway. What possible purpose is served by having the Judicial Branch implicated in such a unilateral and final determination? You don't trust the person charged under the Constitution with the responsibility of being the Commander in Chief. But if you can get some mere judge to agree with the President, then everything will be just ducky?

I tell you what. If the President gets word that Osama bin Pigfucker is within reach of one of our snipers or drones (for a brief opening in the window of time), I personally don't WANT him (or her) to ask a Judge for "mother may I?" permission to sanction Osama.

I also agree with LibocalypseNow's expression of serious concern (post 2 in this thread). This whole thing is kinda sordid and potentially ugly ESPECIALLY if the person being "sanctioned" is a U.S. Citizen. But even so, it is not an area entrusted to the Judicial Branch.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The more I think about this, the more disturbed I become by it.

We now have a precedence set that the President of the United States of America can assasinate a citizen w/o due process.

Is it ok b/c the guys an asshole that connected to terrorism?

Granted, I think this guy is guilty and needs to be fertilizer, but it is simply wrong to kill assasinate a citizen.

Do we start hunting down non-citizens? How about citizness that might be problems, b/c they fit some profile.

No, this is wrong, and is against the Constitution for a reason.

America is the "Beakon of Light" that so many followed to our shores to get away from crap like this.