-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Gary Johnson says in a statement on the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki:
I understand that laws may allow these decisions by the President and other officials in regard to al-Awlaki, and I do not in any way want to diminish the skill and dedication of our CIA and military. But, at the same time, it must not be overlooked - and thoughtfully examined - that our government targeted a U.S. citizen for death, and carried out that sentence on foreign soil. To my knowledge, that is a first, and a precedent that raises serious questions…
The world is very likely a better place without al-Awlaki in it, but let us not neglect to ask the tough questions this attack raises and about the laws that allowed it to be carried out.
Ron Paul has a much more intemperate reaction, while Mitt Romney and Rick Perry offer praise for the operation. But let’s take the opportunity to discuss those tough question that Johnson raises.
Anwar al-Awlaki was actively recruiting terrorists to attack the U.S. He was, in effect, a battlefield commander, and the operation to kill him was in that sense well-grounded in the laws of war — little different from Operation Vengeance, in which the US military targeted and killed Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during World War II. If Yamamoto had been an American-born traitor, Operation Vengeance would have been no less legitimate.
The difference, of course, is the nature of the war we’re in. There will be no Gyokuon-hōsō from al-Qaeda’s leadership officially ending hostilities. The power of the president to issue a kill order is extraordinary because it is open-ended. Under the circumstances, the ability to apply that power to an American citizen is indeed troubling.
It is also necessary. To forgo the opportunity to target a figure like Awlaki would be to abdicate the federal government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense. So how do we handle this dilemma? Congress might consider passing a law requiring the targeting of a U.S. citizen to be approved by some independent body, perhaps composed of Article III judges with lifetime tenure. More broadly, the president’s extaordinary powers (which are currently derived from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed on September 14, 2001) should be established under a legal authority that includes more formal oversight and sunset clauses to trigger periodic debate over whether such powers remain necessary as the years pass. Eli Lake sketched these ideas out a bit more in an excellent feature for Reason last year.
View all comments (61) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/30/the-awlaki-precedent
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Simon Templar| 9.30.11 @ 5:01PM
This is a ridiculous debate. This is war. He was a traitor, a known terrorist, he trained and aided and abetted the terrorist enemy. He belonged to an international organization dedicated to the destruction of the US and held high command in that organization. He was an outlaw.
This killing is also well grounded in international law and within our rights for self defense. This was not an assassination. It was a targeted killing that met specific criteria.
Kill Him.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.1.11 @ 10:29AM
For all of you Ron Paulites?
He opened his mouth, and, just like that, his Campaign was FINISHED.
And he was never heard from, again.
Simon Templar| 10.1.11 @ 3:34PM
Not sure what you are talking about. Are you refering to Ron Paul when you say "He opened his mouth...his campaign was finished?"
Clint| 10.2.11 @ 4:52PM
Oh Really !
"Poll: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney Right Behind Obama in Florida
Kevin Derby's blog | Posted: September 29, 2011 2:34 PM
A poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP), a firm with connections to prominent Democrats, found that President Barack Obama would have a fight to keep Florida in his column in 2012 as two Republican candidates -- former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas -- were right on his heels in the Sunshine State.
Obama led Romney by the skin of his teeth, taking 46 percent against the Republican who was right behind him with 45 percent. Obama led Paul by the same margin, beating the Texas congressman 45 percent to 44 percent."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Simon Templar| 9.30.11 @ 5:06PM
"Congress might consider passing a law requiring the targeting of a U.S. citizen to be approved by some independent body, perhaps composed of Article III judges with lifetime tenure."
-This is got to be the most ridiculous idea I have heard yet. Yeah, how does that usual work out? Gee, we have not politicized the war enough?
They can not even make a reasonable decision on Obamacare and you propose they make decisions on known, dangerous terrorist that are planning our destruction?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.30.11 @ 5:31PM
The entire concept is ridiculous. You don't need a warrant or further process to shoot an armed bank robber or home invader and you certainly shouldn't need any complicated legal process to kill any terrorist, America citizen or not.
In fact, to even bring it up smacks of liberalism.
Hook| 9.30.11 @ 5:58PM
If Bush killed him, it would sure be brought up, and I don't think what Mr. Tabin says is entirely without merit.
I believed Bin Laden should have been taken alive, but then Obama would have had to try him.
Hey, when is Gitmo closing?
Reid Smith| 9.30.11 @ 6:05PM
Bravo, John.
beebop| 9.30.11 @ 6:11PM
Rush wondered outloud why oh why the first sentence of each news cast (and written article) included "American born." He felt it was to say "hey, we grow terrorists, too." I feel that it was to mitigate the lash back from the nonviolent Muslims worldwide. The suggestion being that since he was an American there could not possibly be the same consideration if he had been a proper mid-eastern type. Not one word from Yemen about the attack on their soil?
Ted Thomas | 9.30.11 @ 6:13PM
For all of you who imagine we can put this decision off, remember all the shoulder-fired rockets that somebody lost track of in Libya in the last few months. If/when one of those takes out an American jetliner, what kind of pressure will the govt. face to drastically step up the drone war? Furthermore, privately built and funded drones are on the horizon- none that carry Hellfire missiles, but how about C4 packages with a cell-phone detonator attached that can be dropped on a house or car?
The skies will soon be more dangerous for all types of guys, good and bad. We need a better defined way to decide how & when Americans get vaporized.
Sean| 9.30.11 @ 6:27PM
You mean the ones in Libya where we are now allied to AQ?
Sean| 9.30.11 @ 6:32PM
Everything about al-Awlaki is suspicious. First he is invited to eat at the Pentagon. Then he turns into Al Qaeda. Then he is linked to the underwear bomber. Who is let on a plane without a passport accompanied by a sharply dressed Indian. When the plane land another man that looks Indian is reported by passengers to be arrested. This is denied by officials. Also he is reportedly killed I believe in 2010.
Quartermaster| 9.30.11 @ 6:53PM
I think it is right to be disturbed by the killing of Awlaki. We have crossed a line, just as the north crossed one with deliberately making war on civilians in Georgia and the western valley of Virginia.
Unlike the war of Northern Aggression, this killing was called for. We don't have to like it, but refusing to do so would have been dereliction of duty.
pdaly| 10.1.11 @ 10:47AM
Not sure why you bring up the US Civil War, but perhaps the North was trying 'to bring democracy to the people', you know the brown people formerly known as slaves. ;-)
Dai Alanye | 10.2.11 @ 4:40PM
George Washington tried to abduct "American-born" Benedict Arnold from the British, and if successful would have hanged him.
Did Washington "cross a line?"
WilliamR| 9.30.11 @ 7:12PM
A Dark Day for the Constitution: American Killed By Drone Strike
http://www.theamericanconserva.....ne-strike/
Solo| 9.30.11 @ 9:28PM
Nah....not a dark day for the Constitution.
"Letters of Marque". The Founders weren't pussies. They were pragmatists. Pirates...terrorists.....
Semantics!
fetoau| 9.30.11 @ 10:00PM
Unless someone can explain the difference between now and when we had "wanted - dead or alive" posters, I don't know why this would be considered a precedent.
Seems to me "wanted dead or alive" fits Awlaki and the results of this incident just fine.
beebop| 10.1.11 @ 6:37PM
This is a freedom of speech issue. You can say what you want so long as you haven't committed a crime. I have a real problem with this as a precedent -- as I do any time the government tries to plough new ground. I don't like it one little bit.
Bob K.| 10.1.11 @ 8:41AM
None of this debating would be necessary if congress would declare war instead of giving power like this to the executive and washing their hands of it.
Clint| 10.1.11 @ 9:38AM
That's Right Bob.
Congress Has Allowed The Executive Branch To Usurp Their Responsibilities.
pdaly| 10.1.11 @ 10:14AM
Please update the debate: "Two" Americans were killed with that drone strike. Both were assassinated at Obama's request.
Americans are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
Neither American (above) was ever indicted. In fact the US tried and failed to obtain a grand jury indictment for each of the above men. Thus neither American was ever convicted of any crime. (Yes, we are being told by the media that the men were "linked" to al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, but what does "linked" mean? What is the proof the Americans are imminent threats to America?
Oh, that's right. It's all top secret. "Trust me," says the government.
Americans are now assassinated on the president's say so (or by underlings he designates).
Address the following facts when trying to deny this was an extra-judicial assassination of two Americans:
al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed in a car on a road in Yemen, not on a battlefield.
The US is not at war with Yemen.
Imminent threat to the US was what, exactly? Imminent threat is a requirement in any self defense argument.
No indictments for either man.
US Constitution is a limit on the power of government, to reign in the power and prevent exactly this kind of pre-1776 despotic claim of judge, jury, and executioner by a single man.
This killing is about US government's overreach, not about the possible (and unproved) criminal plans/thoughts/beliefs of the two Americans.
John Duncan| 10.1.11 @ 10:17AM
I agree that this is an issue that requires a discussion. The Constitution certainly gives room for such a decision. However, I agree in creating a federal statute that authorizes such a panel. The judges' lifetime appointment would help de-politicize their decisions, and Congress could eliminate the panel if awry. A future President Zero might use even less discretion to eliminate an opponent who happens to be overseas, perhaps doing business or providing humanitarian aid. Could "O" eliminate me on a trip to N. Sudan building orphanages or smuggling Bibles? Think it through. This needs oversight. Tomorrow, the inconceivable becomes reality.
pdaly| 10.1.11 @ 10:24AM
Here is an excellent summary by a lawer, blogging as 'bmaz' at Emptywheel.com
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011.....an-awlaki/
Also pay attention to Mary's comments (she is also a lawyer):
"Absolute necessity is tied to imminent threat. Right now, the necessity issue they are using ties to the 2009 underwear bombing and is based on information that no one ever got an opportunity to contest and which was affirmatively withheld from a court and from an advocate for Awlaki – that doesn’t stack as process. But for Khan, they don’t even claim that he was involved in anything other than the editing the magazine."
and
"AQAP isn’t AQ and Awlaki wasn’t even a blip on the radar when the 911 bombing took place and the AUMF associated with that bombing was issued."
pdaly| 10.1.11 @ 10:27AM
correction: blogging at www.Emptywheel.net
John Duncan| 10.1.11 @ 10:28AM
One more thing: this fellow was undoubtedly traitorous scum responsible for the deaths of many Americans. He most definitely deserved it. That is not the issue. As mentioned by a previous poster, he clearly met the moral criteria for the death of a terrorist, even more a traitor. The issue is the President authorizing the targeted death of an American citizen without accountability or oversight. We don't have "Dead or Alive" posters anymore, and rightly so. I don't want due process for this scumbag because he deserves it. I want due process for this scumbag, because I deserve it. I don't want politically active Americans overseas assasinated by our government. This guy was terrorist scum, but if endorsed without restraint, it could be used as a tool of a would-be despot. Criteria is fine; let's codify it, and let it be overseen by the citizens who are subject to it.
John Duncan| 10.1.11 @ 10:59AM
Ok, this is really the last thing. I agree with the above poster in that this was no war zone. I still feel it is Constitutionally permissible though should be subject to oversight and accountability.
Terrorist organizations are far more than criminal enterprises. t/f: No jury needed. However, they are far less than nation-states, and exist with the unsaid approval of host states. t/f: No war zone needed.
This is a war on terror, far more akin to fictional SPECTRE than Japan or even N. Viet Nam. As for Khan, "Tough luck!" It is a great message to enablers: "Don't hang out with our enemies. Bad things happen around them." I feel no remorse for him.
pdaly| 10.1.11 @ 11:04AM
Then you are agreeing to allow foreign governments into our borders to kill Americans that those foreign governments just "know" are terrorists to their sovereign causes.
We are all terrorists to someone whom has a different agenda than us. Remember, the US is leading the way stating it doesn't have to prove one's terrorist designation.
apnep | 10.1.11 @ 11:11AM
John Duncan, I'm with you.
Jim| 10.1.11 @ 12:00PM
"The power of the president to issue a kill order is extraordinary because it is open-ended." Quite a statement, that. The only thing in the Constitution that applies are Letters of Marque and Reprisal, Article I, Section 8. Congress shall have the power to "...to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Ron Paul suggested using this power after September 11th instead of using full scale, undeclared wars. If Obama wants to execute someone like this, he should follow the law and get congress to pass one. If he doesn't it is just another example of gangster government.
Sean| 10.1.11 @ 4:36PM
Yes this should be Congress's responsibility not the Presidents. In a case like this that the government wants to kill a specific American over seas Congress needs to pass a letter of Marque and Reprisal. Remember that the Obama administration sees returning vets and average Americans as more of a threat than Muslims. you can see this in their ads where the terrorist suspect is always white and their reports to law enforcement.
John Duncan| 10.1.11 @ 12:00PM
For some reason, I didn't see my last post. Forgive me if this duplicates.
Your reply makes my point, so I want to follow the thought. (The Yemeni govt. is currently not loving the terrorists, but that, as we have seen, fluctuates.) If we’ve wrongfully made a military attack on Yemen, let Yemen declare war on us. (Read on.)
Then everyone knows the rules. It's subtle, but these non-state terrorists rely on the confusion by non-state war. It's that simple. Yemen won't declare war. Not so much b/c they are afraid of us, but b/c it will not serve their purpose or the terrorists. The Yemenis (or any other terrorist enabling nation) would destroy their own country and the terrorists lose their haven. For what? Moral authority? Ha!
Now to use your argument, let's turn the tables. Let Yemen (or any other terrorist enabling nation) make a military attack on "terrorists" we are "hosting". We will declare war. Why would we be willing to defend our terrorist guests with a declaration of war? Because we don't have any.
There is no “equivalency” argument here. They host terrorists and we don't. It's that simple. Who cares about their perspective? They can "feel" we host terrorists, but we don't. Period.
We don’t owe other nations “due process”. Other nations don’t have “Constitutional” rights. Nations exercise foreign relations. Declaration of war is just a tool of foreign relations. Usually the threat of war is enough, but it loses its potency if you aren’t willing to use it. The terrorist enabling nations don’t play by any recognized rules of civilization. What if French “terrorists” attacked the U.S.? Because the DGSE would kick their (three letter word for backside). Why? Because France, as a nation and society understands that 1) terrorism is immoral, and 2) war is terrible. Coincidentally (or not), we only have this problem with jihadist nations. What don’t they understand?
pdaly| 10.1.11 @ 12:27PM
John Duncan, I think you are getting confused.
The US government operates at home and abroad under its own law, US constitutional law--well at least it is supposed to).
Therefore, we accord the same constitutional protections to US citizens and non US citizens alike--except voting in a US election.
The "war on terror" as we have been discussing is eroding those rights for US citizens and nonUS citizens alike. So the discussion of right and wrong is becoming unfortunately murky for most Americans.
What do you mean American does not have terrorists? What about the two Americans we just killed? They were "terrorists" --if you believe our government's admission that that was why they killed al-Awlaki. Will their deaths be added to the American body count or to the other side's?
And "who" defines when someone is or is not a terrorist is the whole point. We need an open legal, nonpolitical area (ie, courts with evidence of proof, juries, etc).
You could say our government is labelling as terrorists people who aim to kill "innocents."
But Al Qaeda rhetoric does not claim to kill innocents. When they aim to kill civilians, they claim Americans are responsible for their government's actions.
In their minds, all Americans are guilty. They kill "guilty people"--no trial of course which is my whole point. We are acting the same way now.
"No worse than the terrorists."-- Now that would be a great rallying cry for American exceptionalism.
We are better than that.
Rights for all.
Civilian trials for those accused.
No tyrants in our beloved country.
Solo| 10.1.11 @ 4:15PM
You're on the edge of hysterics, "Pdaly".
The Constitution is not being violated.
Whether it be terrorists, enemy combatants or "Pirates", the Chief Executive has the Constitutional authority to order them to be "interdicted" if they represent a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States.
No one is going to order a Drone Strike against you for smuggling bibles in the Sudan. "Da Gubmit" isn't going to wait until you go on vacation to Cancun and then sent in Seal Team Six to give you the "Hearts & Minds" treatment.
Get over yourself!
What do you expect the government to do: Send him a Summons to appear before a Grand Jury?
The first responsibility of the President is to "protect and defend" the United States.
By both Constitutional Law and legislative statute, the President is granted broad powers in order to accomplish this goal.
The Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. Something Ron Paul and his mindless minions would be wise to learn.
John Duncan| 10.1.11 @ 5:00PM
At some point, I was giving your arguments the credibility of sincerity. Now you are deliberately crossing arguments. Are you saying that al-Awlaki was a terrorist operating in the safe haven of the United States? Once again, you make my point for me. He was not operating here because he couldn't. Neither could he have filled his area of responsibility in France or Germany or even Russia. So I say again, if we are harboring terrorists using our nation as a base of operations, if there is a nation who has suffered at the hands of our state sanctioned terrorists let them make a military attack. They won't because we don't have any.
I believe the confusion is yours. If I am in error, it is assuming you are acknowledging some fundamental truths. One of these truths is that we are at war. It is a war unlike our previous wars. It is with global jihadist organizations that are ostensibly independent of nation states. Yet it is a war, nonetheless. There were American citizens fighting in Hitler's armies. We didn't read them their rights before we shot them. Don't be absurd. Now that we have disposed of that issue, please don't make the argument that al-Awlaki was a non-combatant. Goebbels was a non-combatant, too, and we would have shot him in downtown Berlin (an early non-combat zone) if we could have.
As the first poster noted, kill him. He clearly meets any moral criteria, and for an American supporting armed effort against us, legal criteria, as well. This is not a subversive citizen aiding our enemies in secret from a hidden lair in a Chicago basement. There is no need to call the FBI. This is an American openly fighting for the enemy. Just because he's important and we know his name, doesn't mean he's not subject to death by combat. If an American citizen was in a Taliban assault force against an American position in Afghanistan, do we try the soldier that shoots him? Do we allow the family to sue the government for denying him due process? Sorry, it's combat. We didn't shoot him at a cocktail party at the UN building.
Clearly, the action was justified by the individual and the circumstances. The real problem is abuse of this in the future. This was not an abuse. What has happened is that we have discovered a legitimate act of government that could be dangerously abused. Let us, therefore, do exactly what we have successfully done for 200 years of such disoveries: create a statutory scheme to prevent future abuse. You seem to take the position that any act of this type is inherently wrong. My position is that 1) it can be ok under certain circumstances, 2)that those circumstances were present here, but 3) we need a statutory scheme to codify those circumstances and provide oversight of their use in order to prevent political assasination of American citizens. (Are you saying this was a political assasination or police misconduct?) I'm not proposing that we deny due process. I'm proposing we create a new process to deal with a new problem.
Lastly, it is impossible to take anyone seriously who gives weight to, or even expresses a need to entertain, jihadist claims that all Americans are justifiable targets. "We're just like they are!" No we are not. We don't need a court decision to know it or sanction defending our own. This bizarre need to put the American people on trial is inexplicable. You are proposing nothing less. Americans did not take down the WTC. It wasn't the Swedes, the Turks (right?), or anyone else other than the terrorists. We know who they are and they are at war with us. You don't give trials to enemies at war. You defeat them.
Now I am embarrassed to admit that I have been successfully trolled. Go play somewhere else.
Kingofthenet| 10.1.11 @ 5:14PM
D.A. Rufus Buckley: Do you think men who kills Americans should be free in 10 years?
Carl Lee Hailey: No sir.
D.A. Rufus Buckley: Do you think two men who kill Americans should be free in 10 years?
Carl Lee Hailey: No, sir.
D.A. Rufus Buckley: Do you think two men who hang a child should be free in 10 years?
Carl Lee Hailey: No.
D.A. Rufus Buckley: Well what do you think should happen? What would be a fair sentence?
Jake Tyler Brigance: Objection!
D.A. Rufus Buckley: Do you think they should deserve to die?
Jake Tyler Brigance: Don't answer that Carl Lee!
D.A. Rufus Buckley: Do you think they should deserve to die?
Carl Lee Hailey: Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell!
Martin Owens| 10.1.11 @ 5:56PM
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The " war on terror" will not be over until every no good murdering bastard like bin Laden and Awlaki are either dead or too scared to attack us. Including their apologists and enablers over here.
This is a matter of life and death. Fire for effect.
Martin Owens| 10.1.11 @ 5:57PM
oops that should be " is dead".
Kingofthenet| 10.1.11 @ 7:29PM
OK, From now on here is what we do, for these traitorous Scum, we can have The President write on the side of the Hellfires in magic marker "You Citizenship is hereby Revoked" , Happy Now?
Warrior | 10.1.11 @ 11:53PM
Weren't you liberals screaming for the trials of Bush, Cheney and CIA agents for enhanced interrogation techniques? Weren't you liberals screaming from every angle on how the wars were illegal and needed to be stopped?
Now it's all just one big party for you liberals when we invade a country in which war has not been declared and mind you not interrogate anyone or fail to read them their rights, just blow them up. So if water boarding a terrorist is criminal in your liberal world, just what is blowing up a terrorist?
Clint| 10.1.11 @ 10:52PM
The Constitution Is Not A Sometimes Pact.
Congress Has Allowed The Executive Branch To Usurp Their Responsibilities.
Occam's Tool| 10.2.11 @ 12:47AM
Well, considering that it was an act of fate that kept me from being a colleague of Nidal Hassan's ( I had ACCEPTED a job offer from Fort Hood's Department of Psychiatry, Darnell Medical Center when the job offer came through in Minnesota), and thus would be dead today except for an act of fate, I'm glad Obama killed this bastard. I wish we had captured him and made him listen to Obama's or Ron Paul's speeches for hours on end (which would have broken him quickly), but I'm glad he's dead.
I'm fairly certain that the Senate and House Intelligence Committees was notified of this fellow's position on the list. (I remember having a conversation with Malcolm Wallop's daughter on this topic of oversight when I was in college---she was a classmate of mine at TCU--she knew considerable non-classified knowledge on how it works, like my kids know considerable knowledge of what it's like to be a psychiatrist.)
I note that Michele Bachmann, who is on the House Intelligence Committee (unlike Paul) is not commenting on this.
Warrior | 10.2.11 @ 10:56AM
The problem I have with all this is simple. Either your at war or you are not. We are cheering over one target which does nothing to bring the "war on terror" any closer to its conclusion. War needs to be fought in a scorched earth capacity. Destroy the enemy and anyone or anything that supports it with extreme prejudice. Ten years have elapsed and we are now actively involved in at least five countries and yet we are really no closer to the end. If we would be talking about the poppy fields in terms of half-life and when it could be inhabited again, if Tora Bora were just a smoking pile of rubble where caves once existed and if there were a crater the size of the pentagon where Bin Laden was held up we probably wouldn't need to worry too much about groups of radical muslims threatening our country.
Clint| 10.2.11 @ 11:34AM
Smoke This Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic,Tool Job.
" Poll: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney Right Behind Obama in Florida
Kevin Derby's blog | Posted: September 29, 2011 2:34 PM
A poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP), a firm with connections to prominent Democrats, found that President Barack Obama would have a fight to keep Florida in his column in 2012 as two Republican candidates -- former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas -- were right on his heels in the Sunshine State.
Obama led Romney by the skin of his teeth, taking 46 percent against the Republican who was right behind him with 45 percent. Obama led Paul by the same margin, beating the Texas congressman 45 percent to 44 percent "
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
pdaly| 10.2.11 @ 12:12PM
Solo, you wrote "The first responsibility of the President is to "protect and defend" the United States.
By both Constitutional Law and legislative statute, the President is granted broad powers in order to accomplish this goal."
I don't disagree that the President protects America and Americans, but you are probably aware that the Oath of Office mentions nothing with those words. The oath DOES explicitly state that the President preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION.
Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
pdaly| 10.2.11 @ 12:55PM
John Duncan,
We agree that the government can and probably will abuse this new power to kill American citizens without due process. This is the most important point.
We diverge here. You say that al-Awlaki's assassination is justified. Where do you get your confidence in this case? I want the judiciary involved when labelling someone "guilty" or a "terrorist". Otherwise we are left with the Orwellian scenario of the daily Two Minutes Hate brought to us by our government.
I believe the Obama Administration failed to provide American Al-Awlaki due process (as well as the second American blown up in the missile strike)--regardless of whether Al-Awlaki was a horrible citizen of America or this earth.
I bring up the Al Qaeda mentality, because they too feel justified in killing based on emotion, without going through the legal niceties. Why do we hate terrorists? They kill innocent people.
You want to say Al-Awlaki is not innocent. I am willing to agree after a judicial process.
If Awlaki was on the Afghanistan battlefield shooting at our troops, then this discussion is unnecessary. We would be justified in shooting him.
You have not commented on the articles I linked to. I would think a " troll" wouldn't bother to provide such.
pdaly| 10.2.11 @ 1:04PM
I don't know whether Awlaki travelled in and out of the US, so I did not suggest that he was operating out of the US. I do think you should ask whether his death is listed as an American death in the war on terror. Doing so may require creating a separate category: American terrorist.
You are correct that we don't hear about American terrorist groups. In American we have "violent extremists" and "Lone wolf" terrorists.
I believe this terminology is preferable as we use the legal system to deal with the death and destruction that they have caused.
Timothy McVeigh (1995 Oklahoma City bombing, 168 killed) with at least Terry Nichols conspiring with him
Eric Rubert Rudolph (1990s, targeting abortion clinics, gay nightclubs, 1996 Olympics in Atlanta; killed at least 3, injured at least 150)
Buford O. Furrow, Jr. member of Aryan Nations (1999 attacked Jewish daycare in LA, killed one injured 5)
According to the Anti-Defamation League
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_u.....em=curtis, several Americans preach hate, violence, and recommend the Lone Wolf method of terrorism.
“A leading proponent of "lone wolf " activism, Curtis [white supremacist Alex Curtis of San Diego] encouraged fellow racists to act alone in committing violent crimes so that they would not incriminate others. He called for the elimination of nonwhites by "whatever means necessary" and promoted assassination, illegal drug sales and biological warfare as useful strategies."
“[Tom] Metzger [of Indiana] pushes a fierce brand of anti-Semitic, racist and anti-immigrant invective and has been widely acknowledged as the principal mentor of the neo-Nazi skinhead movement in America from the mid-1980s through the 1990s. In 1990, an Oregon jury rendered a $12.5 million judgment against Metzger and his son for inciting the murder of an Ethiopian immigrant by neo-Nazi skinheads.”
"Ideology: Blend of white supremacy and Third Position; anti-Semitism; advocates violence; the “lone wolf” or “leaderless resistance” model of activism."
pdaly| 10.2.11 @ 1:24PM
WRT Constitution following the flag, I guess I made bigger claims than justified. That discussion hinged on what constitutional protections nonUS citizens are entitled, a moot point for Awlaki or Samir Khan, who are Americans--presumably entitled to full Constitutional protections.
To make sure that readers know that non-citizens are covered by the US Constitution, however, I have excerpted the following Gleen Greenwald article
http://politics.salon.com/2010/02/01/collins_5/
"[T]he U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush, which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans. The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What’s more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices — and, indeed, not even the Bush administration — argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens. That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim.
What divided the Boumediene Court was the question of whether foreigners held by the U.S. military outside of the U.S. (as opposed to inside the U.S.) enjoy Constitutional protections. They debated how Guantanamo should be viewed in that regard (as foreign soil or something else). But not even the 4 dissenting judges believed — as Susan Collins and other claim — that Constitutional rights only extend to Americans. To the contrary, Justice Scalia, in his scathing dissent, approvingly quoted Justice Jackson in conceding that foreigners detained inside the U.S. are protected by the Constitution."
Kingofthenet| 10.2.11 @ 6:55PM
Awlaki wasn't blown to bits in Chicago, he was in a lawless area of Yemen, unable to be reasonably arrested, he was a self acknowledged leader in an enemy organization we are at war with. What if instead he had served in the Nazi SS, would we even be having a discussion? The only difference is he would be wearing a snazzy uniform while committing atrocities. It makes NO difference if he is/was a trigger man or Operations planner, in fact the later is far more dangerous than a simple cannon-fodder Suicide bomber. There is NO precedent set here.
pdaly| 10.2.11 @ 7:49PM
Kinofthenet,
You are mistaken about Awlaki and correct about the Nazi SS.
In the case of war with Germany, our Congress HAD declared war against an enemy that included the Nazi SS, and the battlefield for that war was well-defined.
In the case of Awlaki, both scenarios of the Executive Branch alone or the Executive Branch with the support of the Legislative branch is constitutionally barred from killing American citizens, despite what you might think.
From emptywheel.net posting http://www.emptywheel.net/2011.....ets-today/
see comment by lawyer "Mary" @15:
"I keep returning to this, but the Executive branch does not have bill of attainder powers to extra-judicially execute citizens, because it’s “too hard” to use the judicial process.
If the [sic 'they'] can justify based on laws of war – then do that, but the AUMF doesn’t cover Awlaki with AQAP in Yemen who enters the fray pretty damn late. So the “due process” argument that the US President can issue kill orders for US citizens that it suspects of wrongdoing because rendition and extradition are too hard in some foreign countries is bull. It’s why we have a constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder – there are always situations where operating judicially is “hard” but the Executive branch and the Executive branch and Legislative branch combined are prohibited from sidestepping the judicial process to enact pains, penalties and punishments an [sic] suspected wrongdoers. That’s a prohibition on the power, period. Not a recognition that the power springs from emptiness anyplace where extradition and rendition are “hard.” Some rights are situationally compromised – but the ability of the Executive to subject a citizen to death isn’t. There’s a constitutional prohibition – an express statement that the power does not exist in the Executive or in the Executive and the Legislature combined. argh."
Kingofthenet| 10.2.11 @ 9:21PM
The President is Commander in Chief, he was given a declaration of War by Congress in the form of Authorization for the Use of Military Force, are you saying that can ONLY be used against foreign al-Qaeda members? Ok than we were targeting his foreign driver,he was acceptable 'collateral' damage, happy now?
pdaly| 10.2.11 @ 10:47PM
I direct you back to this Mary quote I enclosed in my entry above:
"the AUMF doesn’t cover Awlaki with AQAP in Yemen who enters the fray pretty damn late."
pdaly| 10.2.11 @ 9:43PM
You effectively stated targeting and extra-judicially assassinating an American citizen was no big deal, "No precedent set here."
You are mistaken.
Changing the topic is one way to avoid that realization.
Here is blogger emptywheel on this topic:
emptywheel 10/01/2011
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011.....egitimacy/
“As [Harvard Law School professor and former Bush OLC lawyer] Goldsmith’s own rationalization for the legality of this attack makes clear, the attack is only legal if Yemen consents OR is unable OR unwilling (leaving aside the question of imminence, which at least DiFi and Chambliss were honest enough to mention). So too must the attack distinguish between a civilian–perhaps someone engaging in First Amendment protected speech, however loathsome–and someone who is truly operational.
And while the government may well have been able to prove all those things with Awlaki (though probably not the imminence bit Goldsmith ignores), it chose not to.
It had the opportunity to do so, and chose not to avail itself of that opportunity.”
DLB| 10.3.11 @ 6:40AM
Wasn't Osama bin Laden a "civilian" as well? Essentially you are arguing for a pre-911 view of terrorism, as a crime rather than an act of war.
Pelligrino| 10.2.11 @ 10:51PM
I believe that this helps in a certain way that is not being discussed so much. It loudly -- once again -- informs these muslim jihadist safe haven countries (Pakistan, UAE, Saudi, Yemen, Indonesia, Sudan, Somalia) that a) we know the hunted operative is within your borders, b) we're going to be more 'active' in your country -- doing things.
It may be as limited as just more satellite overpasses or more electronic eavesdropping. Or it may be much, much more active.
And it won't cease until we've "bagged" our man.
This should be unsettling for these countries. As it should be. Yemen -- basket case of failure that it is -- needs to know that cavorting with jihadists brings eventual consequences. Not just meddling, of a sort. Economit, trade, aid, etc. The whole gamut of possibilities.
And if there is some collatoral damage, well, why was your country hosting a wanted man?
The long arm of the law reaches there, too.
beebop2| 10.3.11 @ 5:38AM
I find it amazing that someone who won the Nobel Peace prize can authorize the death of an unindicted American citizen. But hey, that's just me.
DLB| 10.3.11 @ 6:34AM
Why do we need yet another law every time something "controversial" happens?
And this wasn't a "bill of attainder". We are at war with Al Qaeda. We don't have to get an "indictment" to kill people who are at war with us. This is no different than if an American citizen had gone to Europe and joined the German army in WW II.
rendite| 10.3.11 @ 12:09PM
Yet former Chicago professor and bomber Bill what's his name? lives on. Bill...Ayers. Interesting. That's right. The Weather Underground alum. And his wife. Wonder what that bomber old prof is thinking right now?
pdaly| 10.3.11 @ 6:36PM
(Pertinent to the false claim "We're at war. We can kill American Awlaki without due process.")
Question: If the President declares a US Citizen an ‘enemy combatant’ – does that enemy combatant lose the protections of his rights as a Citizen?
Mary's answer:
No. Someone has to actually be – fact based – a combatant to end up being covered under the laws of war as a combatant. If they are a uniformed member of an entity against whom the US Congress has declared war, they can be taken as a POW on or off an active battlefield. If they are not uniformed, but they are an actual combatant (Milligan, for example, was blowing things up himself) and they are captured on an active battlefield (defined by the US courts to mean a place where US troops are actively engaged in battle and no courts are open and operating) then they can be subjected to a different kind of commission, a commission of necessity established based on the lack of an operating judicial system with jurisdiction. If the are an actual combatant but not a member of an entity against whom the US Congress has declared war (and AQAP, created in 2009, isn’t such an entity) and they are not on what the US courts called a battlefield and what Goldsmith /Brennan are NOW redefining as a “hot” battlefield (so as to still use “battlefield” rationale on locales that are otherwise excluded from the legal definition of battlefield) then they can still be subject of a capture (or kill) operation if they pose an imminent threat of danger to “the US” (i.e., it is an “absolute necessity” for self defense purposes to kill them).
The last such act would still be an act of belligerency/war (using military assest to kill someone in foreign country with whom we are not at war) absent the consent of that country to our military action within their borders. Although now Goldsmith is apparently positing that instead of consent being an additive element that is needed to keep the action legal within the country-in-question’s borders, it is a stand alone basis for legalizing the killing of an American by their government (i.e., Goldsmith is saying that if a country gives consent, there doesn’t need to be the imminent threat, even as he and Brennan and Hayden have re-defined imminent).
yisong| 10.25.11 @ 8:46PM
Slewing bearing is also called slewing bearing, some people called: rotary support, swing support.