The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Well, he did it.

    Obama has made himself judge, jury and executioner of an American citizen. Zero due process. Zero judicial review.

    The only reaction I can think of is a moment of silence. Not for al-Awlaki. But in memory of what used to be our constitution and the due-process of law.

    *sigh*

    Say what you will, but at times like these I take solace in Ron Paul.

    And in closing, recall the words of the Law Dean from UC Berkley, given in explanation why he advised President Obama not to look into potential war crimes.

    He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.

    “It must not,” I said.

    “It shouldn’t,” he said, and walked off.

    This is the man charged with educating the next generation in a profession that used to be dedicated to protecting and upholding the rule of law. Is it any wonder that the product of systemic educational complacence has no problem committing political murder?

    (originally posted at kgblogz).

    Comments

    I'm not crazy about the idea of remote executions, but I have two questions:

    I've seen Wanted: Dead or Alive posters with pictures of US citizens before, so is he really the first? Didn't the same thing happen to Bonnie & Clyde and Pretty Boy Floyd? Other than being overseas, how is al-Awlaki different?

    Does being a US Citizen give someone absolute immunity against being killed by US forces, even if he takes part in a war against the US? Suppose he was in a warship, shelling Newport News? Wouldn't you want them to fire back at him? Or suppose he was sitting at a computer, hacking into the DOD?

    Ideally we want it to be like action drama, where the agents get the drop on the bad guys and they have a chance to surrender, but that's only TV and movies.


    You surely can see the difference between repeatedly incarcerated Clyde Barrow robbing banks, gas stations and convenience stores and identified as shooting up people with a Browning automatic rifle, vs. a loud-mouthed cleric whose main sin is to encourage verbally people's irateness with US unrestrained acts against the Muslim world?

    Clyde Barrow presumably was indicted, dontcha think?

    Suppose Awlaki was in a warship? A drone? a handicapped wheelchair? a movie about children in Biafra? a small sweets shop in Piccadilly? Let's just suppose anything except that we don't have due process, and anyone denounced in the War on Terruh is guilty by decree.

    What exactly is the difference between Awlaki saying whatever he says and a typical conservative saying "bomb the Middle East into a glass parking lot"?


    You're conflating two questions. The first is that this is hardly the first time an American citizen has been killed rather than arrested, so I don't get the claim that this is something new. The second is that it seems pretty clear Awlaki was promoting and organizing 4GW against us, so how much due process can we afford against an enemy combatant?


    The issue is "killed extra-judicially", not just killed - no warrant, no charges, just "they're up to no good".

    Second, if it "seems pretty clear", Awlaki was organizing 4GW (not just spouting off), why don't we do a sealed indictment like we do with many drug lords and terrorists?

    Why if he was so dangerous did we miss so many chances to bring him to trial, like this one: "He was interviewed around September 2007 by two FBI agents with regard to the 9/11 attacks and other subjects, and John Negroponte, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, told Yemeni officials he did not object to al-Awlaki's detention.[44] His name was on a list of 100 prisoners whose release was sought by al-Qaeda-linked militants in Yemen.[53] After 18 months in a Yemeni prison, he was released on December 12, 2007, following the intercession of his tribe, an indication by the U.S. that it did not insist on his incarceration"

    We could have extradited him any time up to Dec 12, 2007 - did he turn into such a new bad egg at that time? Were his countless speeches and CDs much more mild until Dec 12, 2007? And even so, is it not possible within our ever-expanding laws to find at least 1 he could be secretly indicted by?

    To be fair, the Yemenis indicted him for 10 years for organizing armed gangs. That's still not a conviction, but at least it's a legal step to identifying something, to justifying pursuit & interception. How come we're so lazy?


    I dunno anymore.

    The guy in question was an asshole but so is Rush and Beckerhead!

    The two Americans I refer to did not blow up anything, but they have more than once requested their listeners to do so! Or at least demanded the death of some folks.

    Rush is a big fat lying bastard who will do anything for money and spends hours talking about the First Lady's butt!

    The problem that you point out is that the Executive Branch of the good ole US of A is making all the decisions with little or no input from the Judiciary Branch.

    So, the Executive Branch refuses to 'go after' the multibillion dollar corps who control trillions of dollars in this economy; refuses to prosecute those responsible for thousands upon thousands of lives--millions really.

    But it does its FEMA job and stalks those who would do our country harm.

    Make no mistake about it, I have no problem believing that these radical Muslim bastards conspired and continue to conspire to do us harm.

    However the American Jihadist made a choice to conspire against the USA in a foreign place.

    My conclusion.

    He would have been safer doing so on a radio station!

     


    kgb:

    I think donal asks the correct question, which is whether an American national that is engaging in acts of war against the United States is entitled to due process of law.  I don't think there's any question that Obama had the right to shoot first, second and third, assuming of course that the guy was doing more than just making videos and stuff.  


    YES!

    This arsehole went on TV and said:

    KILL AMERICANS!

    And this is how you do it!

    I aint gonna lay awake at nights on this one. Even if George w did it!


    Please define for me "Acts of war." If we can justify assassination of U.S. citizens, it seems to me it shouldn't be too difficult to get to a point we can eliminate political opposition by simply declaring them to be terrorists. No absolutes, buddy! Ain't allowed! EVERYTHING'S fair game, including you and me if the political winds should shift in the wrong direction against us.

    "They hate us for our Freedoms," declared Bush. We then set about waving the white flag of surrender by passing the implausibly named "Patriot Act." Crossing the threshold now into approving the targeted assassination of an American Citizen is a very big deal. Ten years after 9/11, the terrorists are still winning. Cowardly and disgusting, and I damn sure don't feel the least bit safer for any of it. Quite the contrary.


    Hi Sleepin?

    The murdered one (how else do I refer to him?) declared fucking war upon the US of A!

    He did so in a foreign country.

    I have seen the tapes; unless of course the tapes were satire stemming from Onion or Stewart!

    Fuck you, I am in Yemen and fuck you, we should all kill you!

    Now I have attempted here to give an analogy to the idea that Rush and Beckerhead and others have done the same damn thing.

    You are not my president, I do not recognize you as my President, and I therefore hope my listeners kill you!

    But the murdered one went to Yemen to say all this.

    Fuck him.

    He is the enemy.

    Now we could get into arguments about Dresden and Hiroshima!

    How many innocents were killed there?

    Our nation is a nation just like all other nations.

    Hell, Pat Buchanan will go on and on about how we should have teamed with the NAZI's in WWII so that we could protect segregation in DC and the South under the law.

    Pat says that both 'parties' were happy with this situation until that commy MLK appeared on the scene.....

    Look

    We are a nation.

    We are stuck acting as a nation even though I personally believe that the Department of War took over most of our governmental duties a long time ago.

    The idiot, the Jahadist, the prick declared war upon the USA!

    Fuck him!

    Kill him!

    Frankly my dear, I do not give a damn!


    Richard I hereby nominate, judge, and award you the Tellin' It Like it Is Comment for this week. The comparison to Beckerhead and Rush was particularly well done!

    After George W. lied us into taking down an entire nation which presented no threat to us, got re-elected, and then due to the wonder of the American political process, was almost succeeded by another GOP war monger, I too find the case of the desert terrorist being flamed as not a case to lose sleep over.


    "I have lost much sleep over flamed dessert", said T.E. Lawrence, putting down his fork.


    HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!


    Hey SJ, long time.  I'm not sure what Bush's blustering has to do with any of this, except that personally I would trust Bush's judgment far less than Obama's.   But I do think I know about as much about constitutional law as Mr. Greenwald does.  He's just louder than I am--sometimes. :)

    I think "Act of War" is not susceptible to one clear definition, but I think a starting part is that if you are in a foreign country plotting to kill Americans or participating in acts for the purpose of killing Americans, or otherwise threatening the security of your neighbors and mine, you are engaging in an act of war.  If you read the article that kgb links to, there's the issue of whether there was "an imminent threat" here, and whether looking for a guy for 2 years or so can be seen as going after something that is imminent.  But if someone is participating and/or facilitating conduct that is designed to kill American citizens on an ongoing basis, then I believe as a matter of constitutional law there is no question that Obama had the right to kill this guy and make him dead.   In fact, I think he probably could have killed him twice to make sure that he never lifted another pinky to endanger the life of your neighbor's kid in the United States Navy or whatever.

    I guess I think the real issue is whether the Obama Administration has to disclose the basis upon which the victim was engaged in acts of war against this country such that the decision to kill him was justified.  I think that's a fair and necessary question.

    But on questions of due process, the question one first must ask is what process is due under the circumstances.  I think it's incorrect, and I think you would have to agree that under some circumstances it is justified and, indeed legal, to shoot first and ask questions later.   I'll tell you what--if Obama knew this guy was trying to kill my neighbors' kids in the armed forces, I'd pull the trigger myself if I could prevent this American from killing other Americans.  And, again, I think it would be constitutionally protected.

    In short, I think if there's a problem here, it's what information the Administration had, and how one goes about making that information public.   But the fact that George Bush may have acted ultra vires in terms of his constitutional authority does not divest all future presidents, including this president, of one iota of constitutional authority.

    Finally, to the extent that there is a dispute between say Ron Paul and a bunch of his congressional colleagues and the president, and that dispute ends up before the Supreme Court, chances are that the Court would end up invoking the "political question" doctrine and let the parties duke it out in the public arena for we the voters to decide the issue.   The constitutional limits of the various branches of government have always been and remain somewhat undefined.

    Bruce

     


    Greenwald is loud isn't he!

    hahahah


    So if you're in Israel advocating killing of civilians in Gaza, you should be targeted by drone strikes.

    Good to know you're on the side of reasonable now, Bruce - we could use more like you.

    Now if only Obama had targeted those guys who killed a Turkish-American floating free in international waters.


    I believe that Israel put the question of whether the killing of the eight people on the Turkish ship to an independent panel of the United Nations which, as in the case of Israel's own independent panel of jurists, were unanimous in determining that Israel had the right to board that ship under international law, although the United Nations' commission did find, curiously IMO, that while the Israeli soldiers had the right to engage in self defense because they did face a life-threatening situation, they used too much force.

    That is a question of international law, and the fact that one of the people whom the United Nations commission found was trying to kill Israeli kids who boarded the ship legally under international law was an American is irrelevant as a matter of law, and only material for making hay and taking shots.

    But let me say this Peracles, respectfully.  We're talking about the actions of an American president and whether he had the right under the constitution to kill this American without some sort of due process.  You assume above that all the guy did was make tapes.  I think if that is the case, you have a point.  But none of us has the right to invent the facts to prove our point.  

    Finally, I'm an American citizen just like, presumably, you are Peracles.   The fact that I defend the  State of Israel on this blog, sometimes under my real name, doesn't take away my right to discuss issues pertaining to the American people.  Respectfully, I find your pivot to what Israel did last May in response to my discussion of the American constitution to be curious and unsettling.   


    Bruce, why "unsettling"? Like many Jews, you're an American patriot who has a decent amount of sympathy and emotional investment in Israel.

    If I were talking to an Iranian American or Russian American or Japanese American or Congolese American, I would use different metaphors, no doubt.

    But certainly you can recognize that there's no lack of Israelis who've without discretion recommended killing Palestinians and other neighbors. Like, they're people in a tough hot spot, some with sense, some with little.

    And according to the pre-emptive strike against Awlaki, under certain circumstances Obama would be putting cross-hairs on their yarmulkes. 

    Regarding whether boarding the Turkish flotilla was "self-defense", well, if you go in for paranoia, anything can be proven.


    And past all the long paragraphs -

    did Obama try to get an indictment behind closed doors?

    Seems not.

    So he's a jackass, if not a criminal.

    We're better off laughing at and being strong against someone calling for our demise.

    Didn't Israelis kick Nasser's ass despite all his posing?

    Instead we come off half-cocked, letting a little nothing cleric scare us into breaking the Constitution. How dreadful is that, Mr. Constitutional Lawyer President? I'm sure we could find some statements of Gandhi opposing occupation to justify a drone strike.


    But Peracles! Why should we worry at all about Obama - or ANY President - deciding behind closed doors for themselves who among us are enemies of the state deserving of being assassinated. We're at war! Makes me feel real warm and fuzzy and secure-like. Whatsamatter you? Why are you worried about this? Are you a communiss or something? (/snark)


    We're at war with Eastasia - why are we attacking Eurasia?


    Answer: Because all them -asias look alike?


    We have always been at war with oceania...


    We *are* oceania, you idiot ;-)


    Why, so we are.  Well then, a gram is better than a damn..(All those English dystopians get conflated for me, just like the supercontinents...)


    I don't understand this reply at all.   I just think it's entirely disconnected to the issue we've been discussing.   


    No, the question is about some radical spouting off about killing people from some group - nationality, ethnic, religious, whatever. 

    And that spouting off - typically called "speech", whether free or not, has resulted in an extra-judicial death sentence.

    Since there's a good amount of tension in Israel from Israelis bombing Muslims and Muslims bombing Israelis, I used that as an example - if some radically conservative Israeli says, "we should kill all the Palestinians", will he be arrested? Will he be put on international police list? Will he have a drone strike against him?

    If a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck goes on day after day about how someplace like Iran is horrid and needs to be bombed back to the stone age, and a hypocritical freak like Joe Lieberman supports their genocidal ravings, will we take any actions, judicial or extra-judicial? 

    The answer of course is decidedly not. Whether we call it "free speech" or "conforms to our accepted hate policy" or other excuse.

    Until someone comes up with a law that Al-Awlaki specifically broke (and is enforced for others), I'll contend this was a pretty sucky action. Don't know if it sucks more than our everyday actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but it's a different kind of suckiness that I'm sure they'll build on to great new offerings of bundled suckiness we hadn't imagined 10 years ago.


    "the question one first must ask is what process is due under the circumstances."

    - the obvious due process here would be some sort expatriation proceedings with, you know, lawyers involved, proceedings where someone needs to lay out the grounds for his loss of citizen's rights, and someone is able to defend him.

    But obviously too much effort all round. And, hey, if whoever's been elected president is cool with it, that should be good enough, right? Glad it's good enough for you now. Will be interested to see if that is still the case in 2013.

    I think the general worry here is - the current process is ... the president says so, that's why. Which kinda is the opposite of the rule of law, meseems.


    What happened to Army lieutenant Philip Nolan?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Without_a_Country


    Is the question one of law Obey, or is one of what you would do or what Obama should have done?  I was addressing the former as best I could.  Imagine that, because for some people, it's enough to pretend we're talking about the constitution when we're really concerned about something else.  Understandable, of course, but immaterial in response to the issue I understood was being posed by kgb, which was whether the president acted constitutionally.  Whether you would rather have lawyers and stuff  does not answer the question of constitutionality.  That said, I agree with you absolutely that there is a question of accountability which obviously is implicated by the president acting as he did.  I think I wrote that in my response to Sleepin above.


    Not sure how to answer that. I think it's a matter of law, and that the President should seek to adhere to the rule of law. So in this case we have the novel scenario of how to deal with targeting US citizens in war. That was never a problem as such before because in war between state actors you adhere to the statutes on the books concerning expatriation of citizens who act on behalf of some enemy state. Now with war involving non-state actors, similar proceedings should be made available but no one can be bothered to implement it. It's just inconvenient. And now we have de facto decided that we can dispense with anything resembling due process at all. Dunno if you want to class that as a constitutional issue per se, but it seems like the kind of issue the judiciary should intervene in.

    Aside from that, it would be nice to see those otherwise concerned about the imperial executive more generally not being so indifferent to the precedent this sets.


    It's not that hard to get an indictment. Can't they even fake that anymore?


    And believe "sealed indictment" is the one that lets them keep it secret for various needs.

    But guess that ain't good enough. Instead we have a sealed non-indictment. Ask no questions, move along.


    While this is a great topic to debate theoretically, I think you basically say the main important thing as to realities here:

    I think if there's a problem here, it's what information the Administration had, and how one goes about making that information public

    We don't know the whole story yet, and everyone's accusing or defending without all the facts. I will just point out a few examples that suggest possibilities.

    A reminder that this guy unapologetically confessed and also apparently sang like a bird about all kinds of stuff, not to get lenient treatment, but to brag:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad

    stuff like this Shahzad made contact over the internet with al-Awlaki, the Pakistani Taliban's Baitullah Mehsud (who was killed in a drone strike in 2009), and a web of jihadists, ABC News reported.[66][67] and we don't know what else.

    We know this guy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan

    corresponded with al-Awlaki asking for spiritual guidance on conducting violence against the U.S. military, but we don't know what else went on yet nor what he has been saying.

    We know this guy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

    talked a lot after apprehension, including about al-Awlaki's directions to him, but we don't know all the details.


    As to Samir Khan, here's a August, 2010 story suggesting there was a grand jury working on an indictment of him. So there could have been a sealed indictment or more, we don't know:

    Jihadist blogger thought to be creator of Al Qaeda website could be indicted on terrorism charges
    By Meena Hartenstein, Daily News, August, 2010

    A jihadist blogger accused of running an online how-to guide for Al Qaeda could be charged with terrorism very soon, sources say.

    A federal grand jury has started reviewing evidence against Samir Khan, a 24-year-old who ran a militant Islamic website out of his parents' basement and is now suspected of being behind the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire, NPR reports.

    Inspire, a 67-page mag published online in June....

    Authorities are now investigating if Khan actually left to join a terrorist group targeting Americans. They think he was recruited by Anwar al-Awlaki,....

    Intelligence officials believe Khan accepted an invitation from al-Awlaki to come to Yemen.

    The grand jury is now deliberating whether there is enough evidence to charge Khan with "material support to a terrorist organization and conspiracy to commit murder overseas," sources close to the case told NPR.

    As the FBI closes in, several young Muslim men in Charlotte say they've been interviewed by federal agents and many have received subpoenas to appear in front of the grand jury.

    "They were asking for more information than would be reasonable for anyone to know about this guy," said Adam Azad, who told NPR that Khan was just an acquaintance he knew through their local mosque. "First of all, if Samir was going to go overseas to harm Americans overseas, he certainly wouldn't make those intentions public."

    Khan's family has refused to talk about him and sources say he lacked close ties in the Muslim community...

    Back to al-Awlaki, here's another American who communicated with him currently in the justice system, could be talking:

    http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/06/03/texas-grand-jury-indicts-man-who-e...

    There could be more like that, that was just a serendipitous finding on a quick search.

    And then there's things like all the strange goings on with him around 2002:

    http://hu1st.blogspot.com/2010/02/anwar-al-awlakis-2002-arrest-warrant.html

     


    We don't know the whole story yet, and everyone's accusing or defending without all the facts.

    This. There's a presumption of guilt here that Obama was improperly presuming guilt. I hate the whole "state secrets" thing, I really do. I would not be surprised to find out that Obama has abused it. (I don't keep up with all of the stuff aa has posted, but I wouldn't be surprised if aa himself has already given examples of it.) However, before we rush to judgment, maybe we should let the facts come in first. There'll be plenty of time to condemn him later, if it's warranted.


    MSNBC compiled a list:

    A list of plots in which Anwar al-Awlaki was thought by the US to have played a role, either directly or through his propaganda. Sept. 30, 2011

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44735709/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/


    I ran a check, and 2/3 of them had been to the U2 fan club site as well, and most of them frequented the known terrorist site, Wikipedia.

    Really, what a nonsense list.

    And if you follow Emptywheel or Glenn Greenwald and the continued FBI habit of breaking up "conspiracies" it started, you'll realize how much nonsense this is. 

    Imagine every day with have a new "known to be seeking yellowcake in Nigeria" revelation. Trust me. I'm with the CIA.


    Geez, sorry you find lists offensive or provocative. I kind of find them helpful, like um, making it easy to look up what Greenwald or Emptywheel or whoever you like to follow on such questions had to say about each case.


    I don't find lists ridiculous per se. Trying to make sense of this one, in terms of "did he done good or did he done bad?" is a complete trainwreck.

    There's so much missing.


    hey bslev, see the news, it's almost like you had inside info., one of your law school buddies or somethin'?

    wink


    LOL AA.  I didn't see this and responded below!  Could I be an anonymouse????? 

    wink


    Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Bruce.

    My concerns over this range far beyond the Constitutional or legal questions, which you  rightly point out are apparently open to interpretation.

    But consider that it isn't so long ago that such a notion of the overt and summary execution/assassination of a U.S. citizen by our military acting on orders of the President with extremely limited (if any!) due process would have been too incredible to even comprehend. Pre 9/11 you would not have even been able to sell a screenplay including such a scenario for reason that it would have been deemed too implausible. "We are the United States of America," we would have been told. "We just don't DO that kind of thing!"

    Now, define "summary" as a period of years (as you point out) and you aggravate what is already a pretty extreme descent into fascism. That's not hyperbole, but a well-considered noun to describe this development in the ongoing growth of our national security state.

    It's not unlike the argument in favor of the death penalty. People support the taking of a life in the circumstance of a John Wayne Gacy or Richard Speck or other wholly unsympathetic characters. Indeed, these are precisely the kind of characters "we" hope to eliminate via the death penalty. And to date, the Supreme Court has deemed such executions to be Constitutionally supported.

    But having embraced the notion of state-sponsored killing of capital criminals, we invited an incremental slide into a far more nebulous world where innocent, poor, unfortunate slobs (usually black; ALWAYS poor!) were caught up in this nightmare and were executed for reasons that lay far outside the public's licensure of the death penalty. Negligence, racism, classism, are only some of the reasons for which some (e.g Troy Davis; Todd Willingham; etc.) are condemned to death at the hands of the state. Do we sanction such killing of innocents? Certainly Not! But do we prevent the killing of such innocents? Well, no, we do not. Shit happens, people seem to say. Mistakes will be made. It's unfortunate, but what can we do?

    In the case of state-sponsored assassination of American citizens, I think the potential for abuse grows almost exponentially over the abuse we have seen in the "death penalty creep." Is there really any doubt that "political enemy of the state" will be added onto the list of reasons such assassinations will occur as we become accustomed to such official assassinations of fellow citizens? We already hear charges of "treason" leveled against ILWU workers on strike in Washington State. And many voices have been raised calling for the assassination of Julian Assange, and one doesn't get the sense that it would be any different if he were an American ex-pat instead of an Aussie. Once we step over the line that allows state-sponsored assassination of citizens for cause, do you really think the state will responsibly limit such activity in all circumstances? Or that the citizenry will stand tall against any abuse of the practice if it is in fact suspected that such assassinations are merely being used as a tool to eliminate political opposition?

    That last question prompts another interesting question as a response: At that point, who among us will be brave enough to raise a voice in complaint loud enough to effectively gain the attention of the assassins?


    who among us will be brave enough 

     

    Personally, I want to make it clear to anyone in charge who is listening, that I am a chickenshit punk, and they don't need to have any worries about me whatsoever, and It won't take reaching "that point" for me to learn that discretion is the better part of valor and what they do they do for all of our good and I won't make any trouble, officer, really. 


    Semantically;  Is “was justified” the same as “We caused it” ?

    From the link you provided

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/awlaki-killed-american-cl_n_988929.html

    Al-Awlaki Killing In Yemen Raises Constitutional Questions

    “al-Awlaki gradually came to believe that violence against the United States was justified.

     

    Is the US going to put Tony Bennett on a hit list?

    Tony Bennett On 9/11: 'They Flew The Plane In, But We Caused It'

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/tony-bennett-911_n_971972.html

     

    Is it safe to say "Obama should face a primary challenger" ? I hope thats not misconstrued as me against the establishment?


    RESISTANCE: For Christ's sake you are not leveling your discontent from Yemen!

    The guy who levels his discontent from Yemen is a goddamnable traitor!

    What do I know?


    I agree Richard,.....but I'm always afraid of the slippery slopes.

     


    Slippery slopes…

    If we put murderers in jail, then we can put thieves in jail. If we put thieves in jail, then we can put drug dealers in jail. If we put drug dealers in jail, then we can put drug users in jail. If we put drug users in jail, then we can put speeders (as in the traffic violation, I'm not repeating myself) in jail. If we put speeders in jail, we can put everyone in jail, because we've all broken a rule at one time or another.

    I love slippery slopes.


    The problem with the "slippery slope" argument is the same as the "guilt by association" one. If something's not bad in and of itself, then it doesn't become bad because of what it might lead to. If someone's not bad in and of himself, then he doesn't become bad because he has an associate who is.


    Medicinal marijuana is the slippery slope because it leads to other drugs"? 


    My understanding is that when his father attempted to get a court order baring his extra-judicial killing, our government declared that their evidence was all top secret and even letting the judge see it before making a decision, and to otherwise keep it secret, would harm our national security.  Sorry, said the gov', you will just have to take our word for it that he needs killin'.

     How many times have they taken a shot at him and missed but killed others? How many extra-judicial free shots that kill innocents should we justify just because the head guy, the current Decider, is now a member of our team? Maybe we should just nuke the lot of them and let God sort 'em out.

     My personal take on this little aspect of life its own-self is that sometimes you have to take a chance or two if you intend to maintain a society which respects the rule of law and that demonstrates that it has a collective conscience. To that end, a little consistency by members of that society when it comes to holding their own team accountable might make it easier to hold the other team, those despicable bad guys, accountable as well.


    Yeah, well, all the suckers in DC are drinking from the same pig trough full of money, so it's not surprising they all look the same, and all the supporters have trouble telling the difference.

    4 legs good, 2 legs better. Anyone been up to the farmer's house lately? Seems hooch is back on the menu.


    Well said! Thanks!


    Are you acquainted with anyone who was murdered by the red hands of this creep? I was.

    What about HIS rights? What about the victims rights, the ones murdered by this fucking no-class murderer? 

    Hello? Any one concerned about their civil rights to NOT BE MURDERED for nop goddamn reason other than they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Since when have we Americans been queasy about stopping mass murderers? When?

    How very "enlightened" of you all. I'd like to see what you'd say to my friends grandkids. "Well, gee, sure the guy that murdered your grandpa was a murdering creep, but jeez, we'd much rather he was free to murder more grandpas and dads and moms then be judged by those who know the extent of his crimes and make the world safer for innocents."

    Izzarite? Gonna feel superior now?

    Thanks, this blog, and it's parent, have opened my eyes to how self-righteous liberalism is downright stupid and ugly.

    Enjoy the company you keep. They could give two shits about you.


    Here comes the anonymice already:

    The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

    The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

    “What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration....

    (That was fast, must be someone involved who gets the internet tubes.)


    Thanks AA.  This is an excellent overview of the legal issues, including what was considered in the lawsuit brought by al-Aulaqi's father, which was dismissed under the "political question" doctrine I referred to above.  

    What I find particularly compelling is that even the ACLU, which represented al-Aulaqi's father in his lawsuit, acknowledges that the government would have the constitutional right to kill al-Aulaqi if he were an imminent threat; the ACLU questioned the evidence that the government presented and claimed it was inadequate.  The government, on the other hand, claimed that there was evidence that they had to keep secret.  

    It's healthy to question the government's motives, of course, and I understand those who are uncomfortable whenever the government claims it needs to keep certain things confidential.   But I don't think it's credible to take the position that the government cannot ever keep things confidential when the information relates to the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen.


    "I don't think it's credible to take the position that the government cannot ever keep things confidential when the information relates to the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen."

    Seriously? Keeping secrets even from the judiciary? Seriously?

    Then again, I guess I get your point. I would hate to stand in the way of the bullet targeted at me by some despot who decided it was my turn to die. I mean, we all gotta do our part for the GWOT, right?

    Yeegads! Bunch of cowards who keep surrendering to the terrorists. What's next? Seriously! Just how far do we go in surrendering America to "save" her from the bogeyman?


    Bruce: PLEASE tell me I misread this somehow. Or that you misunderstood and were not responding to an assertion that the Executive should not need to submit to full and transparent oversight of the judiciary in these matters of "extra-judicial killing." Were you being facetious? This is simply an unbelievable statement coming from anyone who doesn't embrace full-throated fascism. WOW!


    You did misread me.  I am incredibly concerned about how to balance the need for secrecy, at times, and trusting the Executive to make the decision.  I think that's the point I made in my initial post to you. 


    But again, I believe you argue as plausible the case wherein a President just MIGHT be able to assume such powers of assassin and do so while avoiding nettlesome judicial oversight and review. I would argue as JR does that this is absolute star chamber insanity. To even consider such nonsense as a topic worthy for discussion shows just how far down the rabbit hole we have gone in pursuit of the "terrists." Tea Party, indeed! I stand by my initial contention: 10 years after 9/11, the terrorists are still winning.


    I understand and don't mean to ignore that genuine concern by any conceivable stretch of the imagination.   You and I don't know the facts, and that, I've said, is a real problem.  But everything I understand about the United States Constitution, and I've studied and applied it frequently and extensively for the past 25-30 years, leads me to reject the blanket notion that war has to be defined in a certain linear way in order to justify actions by the president to thwart acts of war against the United States.

    I also understand that given what happened with George Bush as president, it makes it more difficult to fathom this kind of action.   But everything I know about the United States Constitution also leads me to categorically reject the notion that an American citizen is necessarily entitled to a trial if he is engaged in acts of war against the United States.  And there lays a dilemma, that I acknowledge and have no definitive answer to.


    I think the ACLU has it right:

    The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent.

    That's not the same as saying the government never has such an authority, just that it should be very limited, just as a policeman can shoot a suspect when there's imminent risk but can't when the suspect is merely running away (unless there's reason to believe the suspect would pose a significant lethal risk should s/he get away).


    I agree with you that the ACLU's position seems to be correct, which is the same position that I've been asserting, except that the ACLU seems to believe that the circumstances of this incident did not meet the test of "imminent risk.  But the ACLU's position is different, on a grand scale, than the argument of the original blogger, and different than that of the "absolutist" position taken in good faith by many people in this thread.  

     


    And I think that is my point Atheist. Just as it is with the death penalty. Very limited authority. Splitting hairs to extend this authority, presumably to make things more convenient for the state to act against its enemies, gets us into really troubling territory. Targeted assassinations of American citizens as a tactical tool of "warfare" is most certainly a step too far!


    I think we should all agree that this is "troubling" territory SJ, and I really do understand that. 


    William Calley, you were shabby did...we need you to come out of retirement and destroy the constitution in order to save it...only you have the touch.


      But I don't think it's credible to take the position that the government cannot ever keep things confidential when the information relates to the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen

    This is straight Star Chamber bullshit!

    Or Dirty Harry/Magnum Force, if you prefer the modern version of the lawless executive.

    This is the kind of issue that blends crisp black and pristine white into a murky gray.  There are no easy answers, and I'm not ready to condemn or applaud anybody for this killing.  I don't know enough about the inner workings or the information in hand.

    My problem is with the term "American citizen".  This man may have been born here but at the time of his death he was neither an American nor a citizen.  He disavowed both -- his own choice -- and clearly worked to do us harm.

      If the merits of the case are to be argued, it seems to me the key point is no longer that he has the same rights as any other citizen here.  Strip that from the argument and what do you have left?  He moved to a country friendly to terrorists and joined a terrorist organization.  He rose in the ranks high enough to be considered a leader.  He publicly declared a Jihad against America.  Other, lesser terrorists looked up to him and attempted to carry out what they regarded as directions from him to kill U.S. citizens.

    He gave up his birthright without hesitation.  He despised everything we stand for and rubbed our noses in it.  He was not a citizen by any stretch.  


    Not a citizen by any stretch? Because Ramona defines previously undisclosed parameters of citizenship and has determined that it is so?

    Tune in tomorrow when Glen Beck gets to offer his qualifiers for what defines "citizenship."

    This is truly horrifying, that people I admire think they can define who qualifies and has "earned" American citizenship; that they in fact hold such crackpot ideas to be "self-evident."

    I wonder if Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol believe Bradley Manning has "earned" his citizenship rights yet? Is it possible that Jared Loughner still retains his citizenship after all the hatred and horror he visited upon the country? I suppose Terry McVeigh should have been summarily executed, right? How about Daniel Ellsburg? The Hay Market anarchists? Big Bill Haywood? They all hated their country, right? They were all commonly convicted (sometimes in a court of law, even!) of crimes against the empire. Should they have been able to maintain any claim on their citizenship? Wouldn't it have been neater and easier to just make a grease spot out of them, scumbags that they were? Did they deserve due process or Constitutional Rights? Guess it really depends on whether the Prez thinks so or not, eh?

    This is truly appalling. You have me questioning the notion of whether I wish to retain or renounce my own citizenship, such is my disgust with the pack of cowards I see declaring the state to be their religion, and their own liberty to be its property. 


    Not knowing the details of the case or case law, the uninformed (on my part) research I've done has led me to agree with you. This piece sums it up nicely. To me, the open question remains, "Was this extra-judicial?", or was the judicial process sealed? The more I'm reading up on this, the more it seems it was purely extra-judicial. I'm still hoping to find out otherwise, but it does seem that Obama is continuing the process of reaffirming Bush's illegal policies. It's very disappointing.


    And again, Atheist, you get to the real nub of the issue. It would seem that these "extra-judicial" killings are just that. The argument is made that the Executive retains a right to exercise this assassin's authority without any oversight or review from the judiciary. In the interest of national security, there are things that must remain secret (even from a judge) but which serve to give the Executive Branch carte blanche justification to commit virtually any action they desire.

    You'll just have to trust them on that, ok? Such unchecked power will never be abused. Honest! And so what if it is? What do YOU have to worry about? Are you a communiss, or something?

    Maybe we should just retire the judiciary altogether. Save us some money. Call it a deficit reduction.


    For what it's worth, I didn't want to agree with you (nothing personal, just that I hate being disappointed by Obama). I had a bias while I was doing my research. I was looking for valid justification that he wasn't a citizen. I found none, and did find the opposite.


    Don't make this personal, Sleepin.  You've made your opinions known without me ever coming back at you, accusing you of being some sort of phony, misguided expert on a subject.  Appalling?  Horrifying? For suggesting that we might just stop calling him a bona fide American citizen?  Give me a break. 

    It's not a question of "earning" citizenship, more to the point, he had denounced it.  He chose to be a terrorist against our country.  The issue for you all seems to be that we can't do to a citizen what we might consider acceptable punishment for a foreign terrorist bent on destroying us.

    I'm questioning the misuse of those two words:  American citizen.  He wasn't one, and if he were still alive I'm guessing he would be the first to set you straight about it.


    Do you know whether US citizens were ever renditioned, tortured or waterboarded?

    If so, did they ever live long enough to bring their US torturers to trial or is that a State Secret? 

    You know what they say about witnesses?


    Stay on topic, Resistance.  This is not an answer to the questions I posed.


    Well excuse me, but you went to some length making a biased opinion. 

    "It's not a question of "earning" citizenship, more to the point, he had denounced it.  He chose to be a terrorist against our country.  The issue for you all seems to be that we can't do to a citizen what we might consider acceptable punishment for a foreign terrorist bent on destroying us.

    If he was a victim of our overzealous renditions, or a victim of HIS country of origins allowing and in some cases, participatory in allowing foreign governments to do the dirty work. What was that American controlled Iraqi prison, where US military personal (London) took pictures and tormented the accused?

    It might get to motive of why he became a  "terrorist" maybe why he denounced American tactics.

    The issue for you all seems to be that we can't do to a citizen what we might consider acceptable punishment for a foreign terrorist bent on destroying us.

    That Ramona gets right at the heart of the problem, as SJ stated;  WE don't want our government, to do to us, what IT HAS done to foreign citizens as punishment.

    Do onto others, as you would have them do onto you, has been abandoned as our moral creed, why should we expect a better treatment than what we have given to others. 

    Why wouldn't we expect so called "Terrorists" to condemn our conduct

    They don't hate us for our beliefs, they hate us for our hypocrisy.


    Phony? Absolutely not! I truly admire your perspectives and your intellect and, yes, even your heart, Ramona.

    Misguided? Well, yes. And for all the reasons I state. American citizen. He was one. By legal definition. And all the bluster and hatred and calumny in the world ain't going to change that fact.

    At the very least, if we are to have a productive discussion we have to at least deal with terms as they are defined, not just make shit up as we go along. We can argue the circumstance under which a President MIGHT have the authority to target a citizen for assassination, but we don't win a "free pass" in the discussion by declaring our own inventive definition of terms such as "citizen." That is pretty well-defined in our Constitution. And that's good enough for me.


    Citizen as constitutionally defined?  Fair enough, since there is no evidence that he took legal steps to get out from under that tag.  The gray area for me is in his own denunciation of his citizenship to become a foreign-based terrorist working against his birth country.  He ceases to be a citizen on his own terms, but we refuse to accept those terms.

    Beyond that, you would be wrong to read anything more into what I've said.  Because I've seen no clear-cut proof of anything yet, I won't get into the drone strike or lack of judicial balance, or whether or not Obama is an assassin. 

     

     


    Citizen as constitutionally defined:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 

    and

    Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.


    queen of hearts: " verdict first trial afterwards"

    Sigh. I should have known better than to drop by.

    Now instead of spending my tomorrow making applesauce and figuring out what summery stuff should go into the back of my closet and what wintery stuff should make its way up front, I'm going to be looking up exactly who this character was and why he did or did not have to be dispatched despite, or perhaps because of, having a father who loved him enough to sue someone on his behalf.

    Occasionally, Titans of Awareness, I curse you.


     why he did or did not have to be dispatched

    He talked hella shit.  That is, apparently, a capital offense if you have people who think what you say is convincing.

    I better shut up.


    Or at least be careful about your choice of convincees.


    Nah, nobody listens to me.


    I was listening to you Jolly, till you confessed you were a chickenshit and you weren't even renditioned.


    Yeah, but he went back for waterboarding 3 times voluntarily - makes him a hero in my eyes. (even though it's cause he thought they meant "nude water poling")


    When it comes to death from the sky, I believe in preemptively punking out--I wouldn't even want them to mistake me for a guy who needs a predator up his ass, because they obviously shoot first and have the "trial" afterwords.

     

    Also, "rendition" is way to close to "rendered" for my tastes.  Isn't there a contemporary head of state in one of the 'stans who has a human sized fry-cooker on premises?


    It's  Usbekistan, and apparently the boiling is simple water, not oil.  

     


    Well that's comforting


    This is the nightmare of the militarization of policing writ large--when do we fly drones over LA, and if not, why not.

    What doctrine makes the use of death from above permissible in Yemen during a state of non war, but excludes it from being used on a bunch of troublesome crips or bloods or Maratrucha Salvatore, or what have you

    The drones already fly over Juarez, do they not?


    If drones begin to fly over LA, the country will dissolve into civil war. Waging "disproportional" war requires being out of reach of the combatant.

    One of the ironies of the war on "terror" is that extraordinary measures have been sanctioned because they have been deemed safe. Violence can be rained upon a particular group without serious consequence because that group doesn't have the resources to actually fight us. They can only attempt to pull off spectacular criminal acts.

    While the matter of rights, whether of citizens of established states or of some cipher in Guantanamo, is at center of all such executive decisions, the decisions are bad policy because they weaken the instrument of State. Extra-judicial responses to crime turn conflicts into gang wars. 

     


    Extra-judicial responses to crime turn conflicts into gang wars.

    Yes! I agree. But the problems always come in when it is an already-formed violent gang committing crime, if they are a gang that is smart enough to probe for loopholes of your laws, or weaknesses in enforcement, like the Mafia. Legislatures have to keep up with them and change the laws.

    And then there is the complicating habit of criminals using civilian "hostages," where few find it troubling or controversial if "due process" happens to get whacked, the hostage is saved and the hostage taker is assassinated without a trial. You know what I am getting at here.

    But yes, for this reason, I tend to sympathize with ideas that don't give a terrorist gang any of the honors of being treated as a nation state or a even an valid ideological movement. It's all about the crime. Peaceful gangs aren't the problem unless you're into social engineering.


    The need for inventive legislation is crucial. In regards to Islamist militants, that would involve an international effort to develop law being made in conjunction with changes here that don't undermine our system of rights. Organized criminals like the Mafia are difficult to eliminate because they get involved with how things get done on a local level. Groups like al Qaeda have none of that kind of power in the U. S. So much of the consternation over how to address these new kind of warriors is self inflicted. The previous definition of who was a prisoner of war was articulated through an agreement amongst states. The debate in the U. S. since nine eleven have all been tortured efforts to resolve the matter by talking to ourselves earnestly.

    The chief purpose of the group who attacked us is to have us acknowledge them as worthy opponents and our response to the attacks did exactly that. On the level of war, it was a very weak response, despite the impressive use of force to deliver the blow. Not weak because we failed to wipe out a lot of people but because we convinced a huge group of people that we are in a gang war with them.

    I do know what you are getting at about using force in emerging circumstances. But events happen in a context. In keeping with the focus I am trying to put on state power, I am reminded of Rumsfeld, who in a moment of Faustian reflection, wondered if we could eliminate terrorists faster than they could reproduce. It was not like the answer to that question impinged on the integrity of the policy he was carrying out or that there were any alternatives. 

     


    Like gang war, .........stay in you own turf.

    Don't come to our hood.

    "Don't tell them, Karzai's brother can have opium farms and theirs get destroyed.

    They didn't want the Russian cartel interfering, they sure as heck don't need the US cartel moving in.  

    Get back to your own hood.


    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 be deprived of life,..., without due process of law; 

     

    What part of this is giving you trouble, you who bay for the boy's blood?

     

    *ie, you can shoot deserters who are in your own army.


    Maybe the State Secret that has been kept form reviewers.

    When he was imprisoned maybe he was renditioned and tortured at the behest of the US?

    They didn't deprive him of life,

    Sort of like when they waterboard you, you only think your going to die.

    Maybe he wishes his tormentors were dead.  

    So much hate begets more hate.


     

    If we abandon due process, in capital cases, yet, what have we left?

    "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" 

     

    Thomas More

     


    That is just a beautiful quote.

    Really, thank you!


    Actually, I'm not sure if he said it or if it comes straight from the play (Man for all seasons...)  I hope it's a real quote.


    I don't care, and I am too tired to find out right now.

    But whether it was written by a guy who wished to 'play right' (like More) or by a playwright, I do not care!


    Thank you for this, JR! This quote was in fact on my mind when I asked the variation of the question: "Upon establishing the precedent of state-sponsored killing of American citizens, whom among us will be brave enough to ever raise our voice against the assassin?"

    I remember first seeing this play ("A Man for All Seasons") as a movie starring Paul Schofield. I was barely in my teens, and far too cool to be caught crying at a movie. Yet, I wept at the scene you outline here, overcome by the audacity and irrefutable logic of the argument while understanding the consequences of embracing it in this circumstance. And then I wept even more at the scene at the Tower of London where Sir Thomas gathers his wife in his arms as she scolds him. "Why, I've married a lion!" he declares as she is pulled from him to never see him again. I cry even now just thinking about it.

    Anyone who has never had the experience of the play or the movie would do well to rent it and enjoy. It is as powerful as art can be, with potential to even change your life.


    "A Man for All Seasons."

    Is downloading now.  It will be #2 for my afternoon double-feature.


    That is a beautiful quote, JR.


    Since the plot of the play has come into view, I wish to reiterate to any representative of the drone force who might be monitoring, that I am not that kind of hard ass, and I will swear to any fuckin' thing before I get my head chopped off, or whatever.

    Because I'm just like the kids in Leviticus (the one's who survive the one they snuff for talking back--they square up right quick--if they are killing citizens for what comes outta their mouths, I'm not talkin' any kinda shit.)


    Arrest and imprisonment

    Debs' speeches against the Wilson administration and the war earned the undying enmity of President Woodrow Wilson, who later called Debs a "traitor to his country."[31] On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with 10 counts of sedition

    Debs was sentenced on November 18, 1918 to ten years in prison. He was also disenfranchised for life.[1] Debs presented what has been called his best-remembered statement at his sentencing hearing:[34]………. the Court found he still had the intention and effect of obstructing the draft and military recruitment. Among other things, the Court cited Debs' praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. ……………The President and his Attorney General both believed that public opinion opposed clemency and that releasing Debs could strengthen Wilson's opponents in the debate over the ratification of the peace treaty.

    At one point Wilson wrote: "While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines sniping, attacking, and denouncing them....This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration."

    A White House statement summarized the administration's view of Debs' case: "There is no question of his guilt....He was by no means as rabid and outspoken in his expressions as many others, and but for his prominence and the resulting far-reaching effect of his words, very probably might not have received the sentence he did. He is an old man, not strong physically. He is a man of much personal charm and impressive personality, which qualifications make him a dangerous man calculated to mislead the unthinking and affording excuse for those with criminal intent."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs


    And the reason you are bringing this up?

    1) Debs was arrested and tried. al-Awlaki was not. And I believe the latter is the controversy, here, no? This is not a controversy about unfair or politicized trials. Actually, one significant debate about the al-Awlaki case is that a realistic solution for advocates for affording him civilian due process would be to have a politicized show trial without him present. Especially since the assassination order had already been challenged in court, it's not like it was a secret.

    2) Debs wasn't publicly advocating mass murder of fellow citizens and plotting mass murder of his fellow citizens in pursuit of a holy war against his country's policies.

    3) If you're trying to suggest a slippery slope, i.e., next up, they'll be assassinating Debs types, I would just point out the American plotters associated with al-Awlaki are being tried in the courts, not being assassinated.

     


    American plotters associated with al-Awlaki

    Actually, there was another American standing right next to him, whose dust and his now mingle.

    He was (wait for it....) a blogger.


    I am corrected.

    I noticed a point of extreme interest on that in the WaPo anonymice article I posted above. The reporter implied he was told an "unintended collateral damage" argument on Kahn getting hit. And I thought: that's odd that they would apply a different argument from al-Awlaki on because of the story I found about the grand jury looking to indict Samir Kahn. (And I didn't have time to check for any further on that, whether there was a report of an indictment.)

    If they were basing their decision on propaganda effect alone, Kahn was no slacker compared to al-Awlaki. Saying he was collateral would suggest they were not basing their decision on propaganda effect alone, as only just the other day Kahn was advocating as the official al Qaeda defender of the 9/11 operation.

    But really, I am not ready to take that one anonymouse article as elucidating the adminuistration's full argument yet, it seems to based on like a 5 minute phone interview or a few words to a small selected gaggle without questions allowed.  And the point on Kahn was not even a direct quote, they could have got it wrong. And I haven't checked for more coming out.

    I still think everyone is arguing theoreticals without enough information, which is a fine exercise but some arguments people are making may turn out not to be applicable.


    Juan Cole has finally put a post up on it, he is advocating the "show trial" option.

    I also ran across this interesting quote at the end of this Xinhua article from yesterday by from Michael O'Hanlon:

    O'Hanlon said that in order to balance the issues of due process and quick decision-making required in the war on terror, the U.S. government needs an internal system of checks and balances inside the executive branch.

    The administration needs an independent voice within the executive branch which has "the prerogative to say no," he said.

    Another interesting thing the Xinhua reporter, Wang Fengfeng, put in was this:

    According to the National Strategy for Counterterrorism unveiled in June, the principal focus of the Obama administration's anti-terror effort is "the network that poses the most direct and significant threat to the United States -- al-Qaeda, its affiliates and its adherents," as well as home-grown terrorism and the ability of al-Qaeda and its network to "inspire people in the United States to attack us from within."

    The description seemed to be tailor-made for al-Awlaki.


    elucidating the adminuistration's full argument yet

    Whatever their argument, it is merely suspicion., a position to be  presented to a tribunal and subject to rebuttal, and following which a reasoned decision is made which itself is subject to appeal.

    You really, therefore, ought not dignify the  proffered post facto justification with the term "argument". They were careful never to have themselves inconvenienced by rebuttal, even to the extent that they criminalized the presentation of such by any attorney.(see the Ron Paul story)

    It was never argued.


    Details, details.