President Obama defends "targeted killing" in Terrorism fight

[Liability]

As someone who seems to be perpetually opposed to anything our leaders in Washington are doing for the last 6 years or so, I find myself somewhat fearful of the power this gives the most powerful man in the free world.

Immie

If you believe (I don't, just to be clear) that this is some new "power" or claimed authority, I believe you are naive.

In point of fact, I suspect that it's not just many of our past Presidents who have done this kind of thing, but the leaders of other nations do it and have done it, too.

It seems to me that the only difference in the last two Administrations is that somehow it seems to have become fodder for litigation.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that we have sanctioned enemies in the past. There is even that story about how President Clinton had Osama bin Laden virtually speaking "in the cross-hairs" but wouldn't "pull the trigger." I seriously doubt that was the first time any President got the call to "make the call" on whether to take out an enemy leader. The power or authority has been presumed to flow from the President's position as the Commander in Chief.

What is less explainable is how any of this is subject to a judicial branch imprimatur.

Here is an interesting look at the topic from 2006. Targeted Killings - Council on Foreign Relations

Believing/knowing that it goes on and supporting it are two very different things.

BTW Thanks for the link. I didn't read all of it, but I did scan it and found it helpful.

Immie

I may have misinterpreted your post. I thought you were reacting to this as though it's something new.

I understand your reluctance. It is a terrible power. In a more rational world, not only would we not resort to such things, we wouldn't need to even contemplate such things. But the world is actually a fairly dark and dangerous place in the international arena.

That said, I cannot imagine that we would have had any moral qualms (and I don't believe we should have had any such qualms) about assassinating Adolf Hitler during WWII if we had the shot at pulling it off. I say the same thing about the Osama bin Laden and the asswipes of al qaeda, today.

If we could capture him alive with no muss and no fuss, and extract from him every scrap of intel we needed, that would be preferable to killing him. But short of that, killing him outright is a perfectly fine alternative. We have recently "taken out" some of the other al qaeda operational honchos. Was doing so "wrong?" I don't see it that way.

 

[shintao]

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!

I would much prefer targeted killing of world leaders to starting wars that murder millions. What is a little sniping among old fiends to solve a quarrel, like having a Berlin Wall, or fucking up countries and people for ideals.

 

[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!

I would much prefer targeted killing of world leaders to starting wars that murder millions. What is a little sniping among old fiends to solve a quarrel, like having a Berlin Wall, or fucking up countries and people for ideals.

Hey shitnow:

We haven't "started" any wars that "murder [sic] millions [sic]."

The balance of your gibberish-laden post suggests that you are either high, drunk or just incapable of forming a coherent sentence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Who determines the definition of obvious here?

I have to disagree with other conservatives here. I do not extend kudos to the President on this one. The President ordering the assassination of a Muslim terrorist who happens to be an American citizen without a trial? What's next? Declaring a very strong political candidate to be an enemy of the state and then "targeting" him/her for elimination?

Did we just burn the Constitution or flush it down the toilet?

Immie

Of particular note for the "obvious" classification is that Al-Awlaki not only hasn't received a trial, indictment, or conviction necessary to impose the death penalty, he hasn't even been charged with anything.

All that is substantiated and proven available to the public is that he's engaged in speech advocating for attacks against Americans which, absolutely despicable as they are, are designated as protected speech. Hate groups and wannabe revolutionaries have been tried for similar calls to violence and the Supreme Court has found and upheld that it falls under free speech laws and advocacy alone is not criminal .

The only basis for the assertion that Al-Awlaki has moved on from mere advocacy to actual participation in terrorist plots is government claims to the press, almost always anonymous, which have been shown over the last 10 years to be inaccurate far more often than accurate (of all Gitmo detainees asserted to be terrorists for instance, more than 70% were found not to be and released upon even minimal judicial or military review).

Al-Awlaki may or may not be engaged in terrorism, but until it's proven in court or he's found on a battlefield, it is illegal to kill him and nothing more or less than assassination which is strictly prohibited.

The distinction between camps here is ultimately a very simple one: those who believe in the rule of law and those who don't.

Obviously, the broader implications of discarding the rule of law are far more consequential than just this case so people shouldn't be so quick to jump to a convenient but illegal solution without considering the ramifications. Do we really want to actively support the idea that the law shouldn't constrain government behavior? The danger from that is far worse than what any one alleged or real terrorist can do.

That is exactly the point. I would have no problem if someone who is not a part of the government killed this guy, but the idea that the president can order his death is abhorrent to me. It raises so many red flags and has so much potential for abuse that it should have Congress, and the public, up in arms.

 

[shintao]

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!



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

Kudos to the Obama Administration on this one!

I would much prefer targeted killing of world leaders to starting wars that murder millions. What is a little sniping among old friends to solve a quarrel, like having a Berlin Wall, or fucking up countries and people for ideals.

Hey shitnow:

We haven't "started" any wars that "murder [sic] millions [sic]."

The balance of your gibberish-laden post suggests that you are either high, drunk or just incapable of forming a coherent sentence.

That could be, I just feel if assassinating citizens is ok, whats wrong with assassinating world leaders and other government flunkies? Got a problem with that you sniveling little coward?

 

[shintao]

Who determines the definition of obvious here?

I have to disagree with other conservatives here. I do not extend kudos to the President on this one. The President ordering the assassination of a Muslim terrorist who happens to be an American citizen without a trial? What's next? Declaring a very strong political candidate to be an enemy of the state and then "targeting" him/her for elimination?

Did we just burn the Constitution or flush it down the toilet?

Immie

Of particular note for the "obvious" classification is that Al-Awlaki not only hasn't received a trial, indictment, or conviction necessary to impose the death penalty, he hasn't even been charged with anything.

All that is substantiated and proven available to the public is that he's engaged in speech advocating for attacks against Americans which, absolutely despicable as they are, are designated as protected speech. Hate groups and wannabe revolutionaries have been tried for similar calls to violence and the Supreme Court has found and upheld that it falls under free speech laws and advocacy alone is not criminal .

The only basis for the assertion that Al-Awlaki has moved on from mere advocacy to actual participation in terrorist plots is government claims to the press, almost always anonymous, which have been shown over the last 10 years to be inaccurate far more often than accurate (of all Gitmo detainees asserted to be terrorists for instance, more than 70% were found not to be and released upon even minimal judicial or military review).

Al-Awlaki may or may not be engaged in terrorism, but until it's proven in court or he's found on a battlefield, it is illegal to kill him and nothing more or less than assassination which is strictly prohibited.

The distinction between camps here is ultimately a very simple one: those who believe in the rule of law and those who don't.

Obviously, the broader implications of discarding the rule of law are far more consequential than just this case so people shouldn't be so quick to jump to a convenient but illegal solution without considering the ramifications. Do we really want to actively support the idea that the law shouldn't constrain government behavior? The danger from that is far worse than what any one alleged or real terrorist can do.

That is exactly the point. I would have no problem if someone who is not a part of the government killed this guy, but the idea that the president can order his death is abhorrent to me. It raises so many red flags and has so much potential for abuse that it should have Congress, and the public, up in arms.

How about my idea for an assassination squad run by the UN, to take out world leaders who have been bad or boring. Booth had a real good idea, just the wrong leader.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If Osama is on a battlefield (what part of the world is no longer a battlefield?) he is obviously gonna get shot.

But if he's caught in his three bedroom cave in the Mountains of Southern Jihadistan, eating his camel jerky for supper, then we can't just take his ass out?

Why not?

Because it is murder, and we, as a country, are better than that.

No. It's not "murder." Killing the head of an enemy nation or an enemy organization which happens to be at war with us is not "murder."

According to your definition, if we had issued a "hit" on Adolf Hitler himself during WWII, that would constitute "murder."

But that's not the way it works. That's not what it's called. Murder, by definition is the WRONGFUL taking of human life. There's nothing wrongful in that sense in killing this the enemy in time of war.

No, murder is the illegal taking of life. Targeting a foreign head of state during war is assassination, and is prohibited under the Hague convention, which the US has signed. Since treaties automatically become US law that makes such an act illegal under US law also. That makes the targeting of US citizens an illegal act, not to mention how the constitution makes it illegal all by itself.

 

[QUENTIN]

It's also worth nothing that, with only few exceptions, those who advocate for illegal assassination are the same people who've advocated for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless surveillance, the aggressively ramped up excursion in Afghanistan, torture, secret prisons, rendition, Gitmo, indefinite detention without trial, massive bombings in sovereign countries we're not at war with, etc.

In other words, those who've been wrong about everything in the War on Terror and support counterproductive lawlessness reflexively. There's nothing new to see here in the reactions, they're just again standing behind the latest policy that will exacerbate our problems and the threat against us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do I agree that the US should assassinate enemy leaders? No.

Am I surprised? No.

This would be far from the first time.

One of the few things Reagan did right was to try and make sure it never happened again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of particular note for the "obvious" classification is that Al-Awlaki not only hasn't received a trial, indictment, or conviction necessary to impose the death penalty, he hasn't even been charged with anything.

All that is substantiated and proven available to the public is that he's engaged in speech advocating for attacks against Americans which, absolutely despicable as they are, are designated as protected speech. Hate groups and wannabe revolutionaries have been tried for similar calls to violence and the Supreme Court has found and upheld that it falls under free speech laws and advocacy alone is not criminal .

The only basis for the assertion that Al-Awlaki has moved on from mere advocacy to actual participation in terrorist plots is government claims to the press, almost always anonymous, which have been shown over the last 10 years to be inaccurate far more often than accurate (of all Gitmo detainees asserted to be terrorists for instance, more than 70% were found not to be and released upon even minimal judicial or military review).

Al-Awlaki may or may not be engaged in terrorism, but until it's proven in court or he's found on a battlefield, it is illegal to kill him and nothing more or less than assassination which is strictly prohibited.

The distinction between camps here is ultimately a very simple one: those who believe in the rule of law and those who don't.

Obviously, the broader implications of discarding the rule of law are far more consequential than just this case so people shouldn't be so quick to jump to a convenient but illegal solution without considering the ramifications. Do we really want to actively support the idea that the law shouldn't constrain government behavior? The danger from that is far worse than what any one alleged or real terrorist can do.

That is exactly the point. I would have no problem if someone who is not a part of the government killed this guy, but the idea that the president can order his death is abhorrent to me. It raises so many red flags and has so much potential for abuse that it should have Congress, and the public, up in arms.

How about my idea for an assassination squad run by the UN, to take out world leaders who have been bad or boring. Booth had a real good idea, just the wrong leader.

You want the UN, an organization that is willing to put Iran on the commission for women's rights, to set up an assassination squad and target people they don't like? How could that possibly be a good idea?

 

[QUENTIN]

Foreign leaders we illegally assassinated, tried to assassinate, or helped overthrow led to Iran, Congo, Chile, Guatemala, Cuba, Chad, Liberia... hell, half of South America, Indochina, and a decent portion of the worst hellholes in Africa being what they are or were.

Hasn't exactly worked out for us. Really seem like a strategy to continue?

And it's not that this is the first time such a thing has happened. It's that this is the first attempt to legitimize assassination and make it an "acceptable" policy, to actually give government the "right" to just assassinate people at will.

 

[Father Time]

Fifth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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."

Hooray for shredding our freedoms in the name of security </sarcasm>

 

[shintao]

That is exactly the point. I would have no problem if someone who is not a part of the government killed this guy, but the idea that the president can order his death is abhorrent to me. It raises so many red flags and has so much potential for abuse that it should have Congress, and the public, up in arms.

How about my idea for an assassination squad run by the UN, to take out world leaders who have been bad or boring. Booth had a real good idea, just the wrong leader.

You want the UN, an organization that is willing to put Iran on the commission for women's rights, to set up an assassination squad and target people they don't like? How could that possibly be a good idea?

Hmm.
1.Stop Wars and the senseless slaughter of troops and civilians.
2.Stop human rights abuses like tortured, rape, murder of Earthlings.
3.Ensure our World leaders walk on egg shells.

Sounds dog gone good to me. The squad would only activate when say 80% of the nations voted to take out some leader. It would be publicly announced. The leader would be given 60 days to clean up his act or die. And his top 20 leaders/generals would be on that list as well. So if he failed to clean up, 1 of the 20 might take him out before the deadline, to save their own ass and maybe assume power. But overall, it is to stop human abuse, stop waring against other countries.

Ohh, damn! This might be against any further American aggressive Capitalist Empire building for greed and fortune and plunder. Hoist the yard arm matey!

 

[shintao]

Foreign leaders we illegally assassinated, tried to assassinate, or helped overthrow led to Iran, Congo, Chile, Guatemala, Cuba, Chad, Liberia... hell, half of South America, Indochina, and a decent portion of the worst hellholes in Africa being what they are or were.

Hasn't exactly worked out for us. Really seem like a strategy to continue?

And it's not that this is the first time such a thing has happened. It's that this is the first attempt to legitimize assassination and make it an "acceptable" policy, to actually give government the "right" to just assassinate people at will.

Well, if you haven't done anything wrong,......if you haven't got anything to hide,.... why do you care? They won't be coming after you anyway, so what is the big deal? These terrorists are just collateral damage, people that have killed Americans and our allies.

Hmm, I think I got that right, cept, you are either with us on this, or our enemy, and against the United States of America. Make up your mind, you chose who you will stand with, the terrorists or us Moral Americans, their is no middle ground.

OK, that is all.

 

[Agit8r]

"He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans."

At a certain point, you have to say that a person has given up their citizenship

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's interesting that those people whose freedom was most affected by their unfortunate proximity to 9-11 are usually the most willing to give it up, or worse yet, advocate allowing fewer of the consitutional protections that they take for granted to their fellow citizens. If they, the terrorists, have succeeded this easily by scaring you enough that some of you are OK with the opinion of the OP then it's obvious the constitution never mattered to you very much anyway.

 

[Kalam]

"He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans."

At a certain point, you have to say that a person has given up their citizenship

Per which law, amendment, or Supreme Court precedent?

 

[Agit8r]

"He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans."

At a certain point, you have to say that a person has given up their citizenship

Per which law, amendment, or Supreme Court precedent?

the following generals were certainly targeted on the battlefield. It could hardly be said that targeting them violated their rights, having been born citizens of the U.S.

General Albert Sydney Johnston Killed at Shiloh.
Lieutenant-General Thomas J. Jackson Killed at Chancellorsville.
Lieutenant-General Leonidas Polk , Killed at Pine Mountain.
Lieutenant-General Ambrose P. Hill, Killed at Fall of Petersburg.
Major-General William D. Pender Killed at Gettysburg.
Major-General J. E. B. Stewart, Killed at Yellow Tavern.
Major-General W. H. Walker, Killed at Atlanta.
Major-General Robert E. Rodes, Killed at Opequon.
Major-General Stephen D. Ramseur, Killed at Cedar Creek.
Major-General Patrick R. Cleburne, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General John Pegram, Killed at Hatcher's Run.
Brigadier-General Robert S. Garnett Killed at Cheat Mountain.
Brigadier-General Barnard E. Bee, Killed at First Bull Run.
Brigadier-General Francis S. Bartow, Killed at First Bull Run.
Brigadier-General Felix K. Zollicoffer, Killed at Mill Springs.
Brigadier-General Ben. McCulloch, Killed at Pea Ridge.
Brigadier-General James Mcintosh, Killed at Pea Ridge
Brigadier-General William Y. Slack, Killed at Pea Ridge.
Brigadier-General Adley H. Gladden, Killed at Shiloh.
Brigadier-General Robert Hatton, Killed at Fair Oaks.
Brigadier-General Turner Ashby, Killed at Harrisonburg.
Brigadier-General Richard Griffith, Killed at Savage Station.
Brigadier-General Charles S. Winder, Killed at Cedar Mountain.
Brigadier-General Samuel Garland, Jr, Killed at South Mountain.
Brigadier-General George B. Anderson, Killed at Antietam.
Brigadier-General L. O'B. Branch, Killed at Antietam.
Brigadier-General William E. Starke, Killed at Antietam.
Brigadier-General Henry Little, Killed at Iuka.
Brigadier-General Thomas R. Cobb, Killed at Fredericksburg.
Brigadier-General Maxcy Gregg, Killed at Fredericksburg.
Brigadier-General James E. Rains, Killed at Stone's River.
Brigadier-General Roger W. Hanson, Killed at Stone's River.
Brigadier-General E. D. Tracy, Killed at Port Gibson.
Brigadier-General E. F. Paxton, Killed at Chancellorsville.
Brigadier-General Lloyd Tilghman, Killed at Champion's Hill.
Brigadier-General Martin E. Green, Killed at Vicksburg.
Brigadier-General William Barksdale, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General Lewis Armistead, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General Richard B. Garnett, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General Paul J. Semmes, Killed at Gettysburg.
Brigadier-General J. J. Pettigrew, Killed at Falling Waters.
Brigadier-General Preston Smith , Killed at Chickamauga.
Brigadier-General Benjamin H. Helm, Killed at Chickamauga.
Brigadier-General James Deshler, Killed at Chickamauga.
Brigadier-General Carnot Posey, Killed at Bristoe Station.
Brigadier-General Alfred Mouton, Killed at Sabine Cross Roads.
Brigadier. General Thomas Green, Killed at Pleasant Hill.
Brigadier-General W. R. Scurry, Killed at Jenkins Ferry.
Brigadier-General John M. Jones, Killed at Wilderness.
Brigadier-General Micah Jenkins, Killed at Wilderness.
Brigadier-General L. A. Stafford, Killed at Wilderness.
Brigadier-General Abner Perrin, Killed at Spotsylvania.
Brigadier-General Julius Daniel, Killed at Spotsylvania.
Brigadier-General James B. Gordon, Killed at Yellow Tavern.
Brigadier-General George Doles, Killed at Bethesda Church.
Brigadier-General W. E. Jones, Killed at Piedmont.
Brigadier-General C. H. Stevens, Killed at Peach Tree Creek.
Brigadier-General Samuel Benton, Killed at Ezra Church.
Brigadier-General John R. Chambliss, Jr, Killed at Deep Bottom.
Brigadier-General J. C. Saunders, Killed at Weldon Railroad.
Brigadier-General Robert H. Anderson, Killed at Jonesboro.
Brigadier-General John Morgan, Killed at Greenville, Tenn.
Brigadier-General Archibald C. Godwin, Killed at Opequon.
Brigadier-General John Dunnovant, Killed at Vaughn Road.
Brigadier-General John Gregg " Darbytown Road.
Brigadier-General Stephen Elliott, Jr., Killed at Petersburg.
Brigadier-General Victor J. Girardey, Killed at Petersburg.
Brigadier-General Archibald Gracie, Jr. Killed at Petersb'g Trenches.
Brigadier-General John Adams, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General Oscar F. Strahl, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General S. R. Gist, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General H. B. Granberry, Killed at Franklin.
Brigadier-General James Dearing, Killed at High Bridge.


Source Confederate Generals Killed In The Civil War

 

[Kalam]

the following generals were certainly targeted on the battlefield.

That's sort of an important distinction...

 

[shintao]

"He is believed to be hiding in Yemen and has issued videos online repeatedly calling for Muslims to kill Americans."

At a certain point, you have to say that a person has given up their citizenship

Hmm, why doesn't America give up his citizenship for him? Tell Yemen to make him a citizen of their country or face reprisals. Does that help?