POTUS assassinates US citizens

[Dr.Who]

It changed when a Dem did it....convenient.

By the way, should we now invade Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the rest to get people for you?

I clearly stated that I would have opposed the Donald Vance situation back when Bush did it, if I had known about it. if you were to review old posts you would see that I opposed any illegal action against US citizens and pointed out repeatedly that the examples I saw at the time all involved non-US citizens. yes I have changed my mind about non-us citizens but that is hardly because of who is in power since Obama is not being accused of doing this to non-citizens.

I also clearly indicated that Bush was as guilty as Obama.

And no we should not just invade other countries every time to get a guy, even though both Bush and Obama have done this.

 

[Dr.Who]

He wasn't executed. He was killed in an act of war. A war he joined against us.

If he wanted the rights of a U.S. citizen, maybe he shouldn't have made war against the U.S., eh?

Do you have any evidence that what Awlaki did was an act of war and more importantly that the WH sees it that way?

And who can commit an act of war? Can a country? Can a foreign soldier? Can a US citizen? Certainly the Unabomber did not commit an act of war - it was domestic terrorism. Does the WH see terrorism as an act of war?

 

[BigRob]

Do you have any evidence that what Awlaki did was an act of war and more importantly that the WH sees it that way?

And who can commit an act of war? Can a country? Can a foreign soldier? Can a US citizen? Certainly the Unabomber did not commit an act of war - it was domestic terrorism. Does the WH see terrorism as an act of war?

The OLC memo that authorized killing him basically said if he could not be captured, he could be legally killed...in essence because US Intelligence stated he was taking part in the war between the US and Al Qaeda, and that the Yemeni government refused to take steps to stop him.

So, the whole questions seems to hinge on the idea of "could he be captured?" Without being involved in the planning of such a capture mission, it is impossible for any of us to determine that.

 

[Gipper]

The OLC memo that authorized killing him basically said if he could not be captured, he could be legally killed...in essence because US Intelligence stated he was taking part in the war between the US and Al Qaeda, and that the Yemeni government refused to take steps to stop him.

So, the whole questions seems to hinge on the idea of "could he be captured?" Without being involved in the planning of such a capture mission, it is impossible for any of us to determine that.

I do not believe it hinges on whether he could be captured or not. The administrations lawyers claim this is what it hinges on, but why believe them? Do you think an administration memo can authorize the killing of an American citizen?

The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.

But the document that laid out the administration’s justification — a roughly 50-page memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, completed around June 2010 — was described on the condition of anonymity by people who have read it.

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=3&hp

The memo allowing the murder of an American citizen should not be kept secret. It should be out in the open for all to see. The administration has yet to even discuss it's actions. All this secret activity is not right.

If an intelligence agency says you are involved in a war against the USA, you to can be murdered by your government. Is that the new precedent we must now accept?

 

[Dr.Who]

The OLC memo that authorized killing him basically said if he could not be captured, he could be legally killed...in essence because US Intelligence stated he was taking part in the war between the US and Al Qaeda, and that the Yemeni government refused to take steps to stop him.

So, the whole questions seems to hinge on the idea of "could he be captured?" Without being involved in the planning of such a capture mission, it is impossible for any of us to determine that.

I still think it may hinge in whether he was a foreign soldier or enemy combatant. If he were in fact just a US citizen, committing treason or terrorism or whatever, the fact that he could not be captured would not be so relevant.

Even then just being a part of a foreign army may not let the pres off the hook. Certainly if our army shoots into theirs and he gets killed he was either killed as a soldier or as colateral damage. But when our military targets him so specifically knowing that he is a US citizen one really has to wonder how strict that definition of just what is meant by "taking part".

 

[BigRob]

I do not believe it hinges on whether he could be captured or not. The administrations lawyers claim this is what it hinges on, but why believe them? Do you think an administration memo can authorize the killing of an American citizen?

I think a well backed up OLC conclusion on the issue makes it hard to argue against.

The memo allowing the murder of an American citizen should not be kept secret. It should be out in the open for all to see. The administration has yet to even discuss it's actions. All this secret activity is not right.

If an intelligence agency says you are involved in a war against the USA, you to can be murdered by your government. Is that the new precedent we must now accept?

The 1942 Ex Parte Quirin case dealing with Nazi saboteurs stated: "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of belligerency."

The WSJ commented as well:

Yet the Authorization for Military Force Against Terrorists adopted by Congress a week after 9/11 (on a 420-1 vote in the House and 98-0 in the Senate) gives the President broad authority to use force against "those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

Though Awlaki and other newer al Qaeda recruits didn't plan 9/11, they can lawfully be targeted under the "associated forces" doctrine well understood under the laws of war. The U.S. used that doctrine to attack the military of Vichy France in North Africa during World War II, for example, though Congress had declared war against Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. The Obama Administration's own March 13, 2009 redefinition of who is an "enemy combatant" includes a specific reference to "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities" against the U.S. or its allies.

Long story short, the courts seem to come down on the side that this action is legal under these circumstances in the past, and the OLC memo indicated it was specifically tailored to this case, and is not a new precedent in any manner.

 

[BigRob]

I still think it may hinge in whether he was a foreign soldier or enemy combatant. If he were in fact just a US citizen, committing treason or terrorism or whatever, the fact that he could not be captured would not be so relevant.

Maybe, that is what the OLC memo seemed to argue.

Even then just being a part of a foreign army may not let the pres off the hook. Certainly if our army shoots into theirs and he gets killed he was either killed as a soldier or as colateral damage. But when our military targets him so specifically knowing that he is a US citizen one really has to wonder how strict that definition of just what is meant by "taking part".

I don't know how it would be defined exactly, but he certainly seems to have actively taken part in various plots etc.

 

[Gipper]

I think a well backed up OLC conclusion on the issue makes it hard to argue against.



The 1942 Ex Parte Quirin case dealing with Nazi saboteurs stated: "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of belligerency."

The WSJ commented as well:


Long story short, the courts seem to come down on the side that this action is legal under these circumstances in the past, and the indicated it was specifically tailored to this case, and is not a new precedent in any manner.

How do we know the OLC conclusion is 'well backed up' when the administration will not release it to the public?

You cite the Nazi case, but it is not pertinent. Those Nazis were tried, convicted, and executed. Hardly the same thing as a drone kill. Of course citizenship does not relive one of the consequences. But, that ruling in the Nazi case does not grant a sitting president the power to order an execution of an American citizen.

Again, the American people need to see this memo and its legality needs to be tested by legal scholars and Congress.

 

[Openmind]

How do we know the OLC conclusion is 'well backed up' when the administration will not release it to the public?

You cite the Nazi case, but it is not pertinent. Those Nazis were tried, convicted, and executed. Hardly the same thing as a drone kill. Of course citizenship does not relive one of the consequences. But, that ruling in the Nazi case does not grant a sitting president the power to order an execution of an American citizen.

Again, the American people need to see this memo and its legality needs to be tested by legal scholars and Congress.

Obviously not IF it is a Democratic President!

You are such a fake!

 

[BigRob]

How do we know the OLC conclusion is 'well backed up' when the administration will not release it to the public?

You cite the Nazi case, but it is not pertinent. Those Nazis were tried, convicted, and executed. Hardly the same thing as a drone kill. Of course citizenship does not relive one of the consequences. But, that ruling in the Nazi case does not grant a sitting president the power to order an execution of an American citizen.

Again, the American people need to see this memo and its legality needs to be tested by legal scholars and Congress.

Just to clarify, then I can give you a better answer, your main disagreement here is that he was simply an American citizen correct? Not that the drone attacks themselves are illegal?

 

[Gipper]

Just to clarify, then I can give you a better answer, your main disagreement here is that he was simply an American citizen correct? Not that the drone attacks themselves are illegal?

Yes.

As an American citizen, he should have received American due process. He should have been tried in absentia and then killed. I have no problem with our military killing the enemy including Americans who have taken up arms against their country. It just needs to be done properly.

Also, the memo needs to be presented to the public. A memo claiming to allow the assassination of Americans should be public. Don't you think? The fact that it is not only creates suspicion.

Hey, why was bododie banned?

 

[dogtowner]

As an American citizen, he should have received American due process. He should have been tried in absentia and then killed. I have no problem with our military killing the enemy including Americans who have taken up arms against their country. It just needs to be done properly.

Also, the memo needs to be presented to the public. A memo claiming to allow the assassination of Americans should be public. Don't you think? The fact that it is not only creates suspicion.

Sounds reasonable

 

[Dr.Who]

Maybe, that is what the OLC memo seemed to argue.



I don't know how it would be defined exactly, but he certainly seems to have actively taken part in various plots etc.

When I first started this thread I had read an article that had said he was not guilty of anything more than fund raising. As time goes by I see that I was mislead.

Clearly the pres needs to give US citizens due process according to the const. Clearly he can wage war against the enemy, not domestic terrorists, without the need for due process. When a US citizen is in fact part of a foreign enemy then his role as commander in chief would seem to make it a given that due process was not expected in the writing of the const in this kind of case.