Well, he did it.

By kgb999 on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 3:30pm |

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).

Add new comment
10895 reads

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.

by Donal on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:44pm

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"?

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:09pm

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?

by Donal on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:11pm

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?

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 3:39am

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!

by Richard Day on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 4:46pm

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.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:06pm

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!

by Richard Day on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:10pm

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.

by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:29pm

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!

by Richard Day on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:46pm

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.

by NCD on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:06pm

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

by Oxy Mora on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:46pm

HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

by Richard Day on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:52pm

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

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:55pm

Greenwald is loud isn't he!

hahahah

by Richard Day on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 5:57pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:14pm

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.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:28pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:52pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:59pm

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)

by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:50pm

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

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:00am

Answer: Because all them -asias look alike?

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:15am

We have always been at war with oceania...

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:24am

We *are* oceania, you idiot ;-)

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:38am

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...)

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:57pm

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

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 9:50pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:57am

"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.

by Anonymous Obey (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:32pm

What happened to Army lieutenant Philip Nolan?

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

by Resistance on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:41pm

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.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:42pm

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.

by Anonymous Obey (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:04pm

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

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:07pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:46am

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.

by artappraiser on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:15pm

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

by artappraiser on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:49pm

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.

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:49pm

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/

by artappraiser on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 11:11pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:08am

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.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:22pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:32pm

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

by artappraiser on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:08pm

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

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:21pm

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?

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:31am

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:59am

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?

by Resistance on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:44pm

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?

by Richard Day on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 6:54pm

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

by Resistance on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:12pm

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.

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:45pm

http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/Ban-on-Sharia-in-US-Legal-Matters-a-Slip...

by Resistance on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:26pm

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.

by Verified Atheist on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:46pm

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

by Resistance on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:21pm

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.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:06pm

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.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 7:10pm

Well said! Thanks!

by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 8:37pm

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.

by bwakfat on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:38pm

Here comes the anonymice already:

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi
By Peter Finn, Washington Post, Updated: Friday, September 30, 8:06 PM

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.)

by artappraiser on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:02pm

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.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:25pm

"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?

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:22am

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!

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:27am

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.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 8:07am

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.

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 8:46am

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.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:31am

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).

by Verified Atheist on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:41am

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.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:53am

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!

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:56am

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

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:22am

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:47am

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:39am

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.

by Ramona on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 7:55am

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.

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:17am

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.

by Verified Atheist on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:36am

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.

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:11am

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.

by Verified Atheist on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:43pm

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.

by Ramona on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:23am

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?

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:40am

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

by Ramona on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:59am

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.

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:35pm

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.

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:45am

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.

by Ramona on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:13pm

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:49pm

queen of hearts: " verdict first trial afterwards"

by jollyroger on Fri, 09/30/2011 - 10:55pm

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.

by erica20 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:46am

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:40am

Or at least be careful about your choice of convincees.

by erica20 on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:00am

Nah, nobody listens to me.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:54am

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

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:02am

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")

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:05am

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?

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:05pm

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

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:08pm

Well that's comforting

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:28pm

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?

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:42am

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.

by moat on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:49pm

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.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 6:33pm

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.

by moat on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 8:44pm

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.

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:04pm

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:54am

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.

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:34am

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

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:53am

That is just a beautiful quote.

Really, thank you!

by Richard Day on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 3:00am

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 3:15am

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!

by Richard Day on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 3:31am

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.

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:46am

"A Man for All Seasons."

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

by Richard the Ele... on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 11:35am

That is a beautiful quote, JR.

by Verified Atheist on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 7:02am

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.)

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:14pm

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

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:21am

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.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 12:34pm

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:16pm

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.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:44pm

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.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:53pm

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.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:58pm

Details, details.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:00pm

er, one thing that is clear from the WaPo article is that they are making a "this is a war" argument and it's also clear that you are not:

“If you are a dual national high in the Japanese operational group responsible for Pearl Harbor, you’re not exempt, and neither was” Aulaqi, the administration official said.

And as per the Juan Cole quote from 2005 that I just posted below in another comment, I think that these are difficult issues for democratic societies to deal with. Everything was not always hunky dory morally and legally kosher in the long process of figuring out how to deal with the Mafia, either.

Which brings me back to Donal's comment at the top of this thread, I thought it was an interesting reaction, one that a lot of Americans might have.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:28pm

I'd like to add that I know Juan Cole has been interested in the thorny legal issues about terrorism for quite some time. Here is something related he wrote after the 2005 London bombings:

Legislators in democratic societies who are thinking about how to respond to this problem should give serious thought to RICO-like laws that could be used to curb religious cults, which typically isolate members, indoctrinate them, manipulate them, and sometimes coerce them. Cults avoid scrutiny by harassing critics and whistleblowers, often in ways that police find it difficult to respond to. The enormous problems modern societies have had with groups like Christian Identity, the Koreishites, Aum Shinrikyo, and now al-Qaeda, suggests that current legal frameworks are inadequate to address this problem. Ex-members, victims and critics of cults need a legal basis for protection from the cults. The American Family Foundation is doing excellent work in this regard.

Note that in his new post he makes similar points, i.e., we really have not figured out the best way to deal with this yet.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:37pm

It was said of Al he was charismatic as was Debs

"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."

Debs was fortunate enough to be incarcerated for mere words in defiance of President Wilson.

Makes one wonder if rather than incarceration, where his writings continued; assassination might have been considered.

Fast forward to Martin Luther King, who was followed by the FBI and called a communist No incarceration for him.

Trial? We don't need no stinkin ~~badges~~ trials Were more advanced. dissent will not be tolerated.

It is no longer the responsibility of the ~~transitory~~ government to protect your right to free speech, especially if your words are directed at the government. Words that Bashar al-Assad, might speak?

Al Alawki according to reports was a bad person, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we are bad too.

"Take the rafter from you own eyes before you try to remove the splinter from the other persons eye."

I suppose we've learned to salve our conscience, just as we "vote the lesser of the two evils", we've compared ourselves with others and decided WE are, the lesser of the two evils. Because we say so?

I do not want to defend a murderer, I want to make sure the power of the Government by the people, for the people has not granted itself more power than we allowed.

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:21pm

As to your point #2: You are insinuating that al-Alawki did all these things. On what evidence do you make such a claim? I'm curious, because I heard a rumor that just last week he was trying to sell yellow cake to Saddam Hussein.

by SleepinJeezus on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 4:31pm

It is not my job to inform you on al-Awlaki one way or another if you don't know his history. It's your job if you're interested, just like it was your job if you were interested to check out Bush administration's claims about yellow cake.

Nonetheless, here's some quickies right from the horse's mouth to get you started:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/11/2010118204835107675...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/radical-muslim-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-urges-kil...

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6512422n

http://ia700707.us.archive.org/0/items/shk_anwr/1275462180_shk_anwr.pdf

But I don't see any reason for bothering with any more, I am not interested in doing a remedial recap for those who haven't paid attention to the story, you know where google is, and there's all kinds of recap articles available from innumerable sources right now because of his assassination.

And you can certainly believe what you want if it happens to be different than the general knowledge available. Just like plenty of Americans are still free to agree with Ahmadinejad that Al Qaeda didn't do 9/11, that it was an inside job, even when Samir Kahn tells them it's not so.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:51pm

Maybe the memo said "Al would bring the yellow cake, you bring the punch"?

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 5:48pm

It seems to me that there are two ways to approach an issue like this. One way is to recognize that this is not a clear-cut issue, or truly believe that it is, and to engage accordingly. There is another way, ever so common on the internets and in the halls of Congress among other venues, and that is to call those whom you disagree with lackeys for the president or haters of the president, indifferent to national security or indifferent to civil liberties (pick your poison), etc. I understand that the latter approach is tempting, just as I understand that certain folks KNOW that G-d created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. It's all the same, different religions, but religions nonetheless, intractably so.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:37am

One way is to recognize that this is not a clear-cut issue,

Bruce! The man's father sought due process preemtively. They not only violated the kid's fifth amendment rights, they pissed all over the equitable right to injunctive relief.

I am missing some subtlety here.

Just because it is inconvenient to afford due process doesn't cloud the obligation so to do.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:20pm

I disagree. As I understand what the court decided in that case (I haven't read it) was that it was a political question, which is not a doctrine that was made up yesterday. It seems to me that the doctrine exists because of the kinds of conflicting constitutional provisions under these circumstances. Once again, absent additional information, I think the lack of a more transparent process is a problem--it is the principal problem and I don't claim to understand how to resolve that.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:08pm

To hide behind "political question" in a challenge to what amounts to a bill of attainder (sans legislative input, no less) hardly solves the due process problem.

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:19pm

I didn't save it solved anything. I said that in this type of situation, when two conflicting constitutional principles clash, that the political question doctrine recognizes that sometimes the best albeit imperfect solution is to defer to the legislature and executive branches. I don't claim that solves anything in terms of the accountability of the government to the people or to potential targets in the future.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:25pm

Plus I'd like to read the case we're debating!

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 2:27pm

bslev,

Spencer Ackerman's article (which is literally doing a "he said, she said" debate by two experts on the legality) has a little bit of elaboration on that case that made it clearer for me, though you may already know what is explained. (He probably got the understanding to make it clearer for us non-lawyers because as he discloses, his wife works for the ACLU.) This part was besides the "political doctrine question" stuff and I hadn't read it before:

The lower court found that Awlaki did retain an option for due process of law: He could turn himself in and seek to adjudicate his fate at trial. But since Awlaki wasn’t availing himself of the courts, the government had exhausted its reasonable efforts to avoid killing him.

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 7:53pm

Without knowing all of the facts, one can only speculate.

It is okay to speculate isn't it? If not, I'm with Jolly (Cluck, cluck, cluck cluck) .

"Al Awlaki turn yourself in, we promise we wont use a cattle prod and sodomize you, , we wont take nude pictures of you, while our female guards with cigarettes in their mouths laughing at you. it's not like we would use a heated iron to burn your flesh, its just a cigarette burn . We promise we wont hook electrodes to your genitals. Besides those were just ugly rumors to discredit our country.

You can even share a bunk with your friends at Camp Guantanamo. Turn yourself in, you can trust us".

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 8:30pm

Thanks AA. Good link.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 8:29pm

Dr. Lawrence Britt’s well known list is worth a look every now and then when we are debating the evolution of our government’s claimed rights and its justification for its actions.

Fourteen Characteristics of Fascist States

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

by LULUDUDE (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:39am

Thanks Luludude,

I found this tidbit at the link you provided

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbM_MIz4RM

by Resistance on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 6:30pm

I put up a comment a while ago but the spam filter blocked it. Curious how a mindless machine knew I was still in my pajamas. Maybe it ill pop up later if a moderator notices but I expect everyone here is familiar with the piece I linked to anyway. My comment was mostly a paste of Dr. Lawrence Britt's 14 characteristics of Fascism. After putting it up I continued to read an excerpt from "They Thought They Were Free", by Milton Mayer which was at the same sight. It is a sad, shamed, man's tale of how what "could never happen here" did happen there. There being Germany, of course. Screw Godwin if he doesn't like to hear it. It happened in Germany the only way it could happen there, or here, in small increments. Our President just took a significant incremental step in the wrong direction. I think it is worth a read, especially by anyone who justifies legally or otherwise, the recent non-judicial killing authorized by our President. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 11:54am

This ABC News story from the time explains one complication in the case was that after al-Awlaki was placed on the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control's terrorist list it becomes illegal for anyone to represent them legally.

I just stumbled upon this little footnote to the "due process" thingee, in the Ron Paul story.

This comes under the heading of "we are taking no chances of someone proving us wrong"

I wish Ron Paul would just quit being right about so many important things since he is so wrong about one or two...

by jollyroger on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 1:38pm

Being libertarian means never having to say you're sorry.

by moat on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 7:18pm

From the media empire of Rupert Murdoch:

Fox News Gretchen Carlson: 'would we get anything out of him anyway if we captured him?'

The crackpots at Fox would have loved to bloviate endlessly on why Obama didn't ruthlessly torture the guy if he was captured, reason enough to take him out quickly, like OBL.

by NCD on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:48pm

KGB:

I have to thank you for cross-posting this here, because you gave us the opportunity, once again, to demonstrate what a fantastic place dagblog is. This chain of comments is second to none--varied, sometimes contentious, but on the whole the best you're going to find on the internets.

I also went over to your website. Interesting comments.

All of us, you included kgb, are very fortunate to be able to participate in this forum. It truly is a special place.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 9:11pm

This has been an exceptional discourse which I have been monitoring off and on for the past day. Maybe the subject has been exhausted but I am still not clear at what level the essential argument is. Obviously I have no background whatever in law, or in particular, constitutional law.

One question I have is what in fact "war" is, given the possible evolution of the definition by virtue of the new physical and electronic structure of enemy combatants holed up in rogue nations attacking the U.S. through networks of affiliates. The term "asymetrical war" may apply, to the waging of "landless" war and to a legitimate defense of it as well as a counter attack of it.

The definition of the "war on terror" was so expeditiously and carelessly defined by the Bush Administration I wonder whether and how an objective definition of a "war of terror" has been made, and where is it institutionalized in our government.

Assuming there is a legitimate definition of a "war of terror"--perhaps defined as a war against the U.S. conducted by "terrorists" for the purpose of unleashing direct terror upon American citizens or property,--isn't the next logical question whether the distinction of "due process in war", is proper in the first instance. If it is, does "due process in war" appropriately apply to a "war of terror"? (And does "due process" in any context evolve or is it static?)

It seems to me that there has to be some agreement both on the definition of war and acceptance of a separate due process within such a war before the actual procedures can be resolved. Maybe everyone has reached that stage, I don't know.

Anyway, an awesome discussion, parts of which I might have actually understood.

by Oxy Mora on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 10:55pm

I went over to the New Yorker and found some different kinda conversation on the same topic. These two comments hit me like a slap aside the head and they apply to what you are talking about. I don't know if I agree with them, but I often find a different perspective to be good for shaking things up in my head

So, following the examples Ms. Davidson outlines here, is the point that Awlaki was an American novelist embedded with Al-Qaeda for the sake of researching his next book? Because we should really be concerned that he wasn't taken out at his favorite cafe in the West End – presumably over a coffee with his editor – because killing an American citizen in London has more complications than taking him out with a drone strike in Yemen? I'd love to engage in all the moral hang-wringing here, but really, the only precedent this sets is that American citizens actively working with declared enemies to help further their murderous aims, yes, we'll kill them in direct combat, just like we'll kill the people they're working with. Is that wrong, illegal or even troubling? No, it's not.
Posted 9/30/2011, 6:56:50pm by readerly

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/09/questions-about-...

Theoretically, absent our own visual confirmation of the initial offense, any retributive death can be debated. In the same vein, a prudent military act can be extended by debate into situations where the act would no longer be prudent or sane. And what about the promoters of violence, righteous or not? Can they be held as culpable as the actual individuals that carried out their calls for violence. The Rwandan genocide had many words that drew blood. This is not a debatable issue in Rwandan. Yes, al-Awlaki and Khan were American citizens and their words were designed to draw American blood. These two lived in a messy world where hesitation to act can lead to even greater tragedies. Rules can’t step into the breach, only imperfect men and women. Given what we went through under George Bush I can understand the alarm but these situations are unavoidable. Again, you can debate how things can be abused but there is a slippery slope here just as dangerous as the actions you are condemning. It is unilateral paralysis with an enemy who has no such internal debates. In the final analysis, the only reason you can debate this issue is because it is merely an intellectual exercise. There is no blood or fear.
Posted 9/30/2011, 6:16:03pm by skyline

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/09/questions-about-...

BTW, I the links--which copied automatically-- won't take you directly to these comments, only to the article they are responding and to, by Amy Davidson. To see them on the site, you'd have to scroll down and through the comments.

The Davidson article is good, too. She brings up what I was trying to earlier on this thread, but expresses it much more clearly:

....Was it as a conspirator or an inspirer that he was killed? The “senior Administration official” told the Times that his operational role was more important, and the A.P. noted that the Administration disclosed new “detailed intelligence to justify the killing of a U.S. citizen.” If so, it makes the extrajudicial nature of this operation more frustrating.....

The administration hasn't as yet put out anything about actual operational threats he was involved in, that might be classified info, but might leak out later. But she cites the Times as being told that was the more important reason. That's the point I was trying to make by saying we don't know enough yet. I.E., we don't know if they did it now in order to stop something happening that they just found out about or they just did it because they got a location on him. (Note to Verified Atheist: I know you got what I was trying to say, that was very clear in your response to me.)

by artappraiser on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 11:24pm

Thanks, Artsy. Goes back to such things as crying out "fire" in a crowded theater. That's pretty much guarantied to get someone killed.

I got to thinking of what is the redress for someone who loses a loved one flying home on a holiday and murdered in a downed plane by a terrorist's bomb?

by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 11:37pm

Had to re-log.

by Oxy Mora on Sat, 10/01/2011 - 11:40pm

I got to thinking of what is the redress for someone who loses a loved one flying home on a holiday and murdered in a downed plane by a terrorist's bomb?

It makes me think about someone who goes home for the holidays and they're with their grandchildren and great grandchildren and unbeknownst to them, a drone is about to launch a hell fire missile into a crowded village square. While the operator gives high fives.

I find it hard to imagine a group of shepherds, sat around in the fields, thinking of world domination.

I have to trust my leaders aren't coveting resources.

by Resistance on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 3:17am

Question: Are those Americans you are talking about "going home for the holidays with their children and grandchildren?" Or are they even white people?

Or are they terrorists?

It makes a difference.

by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 8:35am

Darn you sleepin, now you'll have some folks wrestle all day, trying to figure out that question.

Some might figure the US is being merciful sending missiles, they could have sent smallpox laced blankets.

by Resistance on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:08am

Are they mass murderers who brag about their mass murders?

What principles do you think you are defending, exactly?

by bwakfat on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 7:40pm

It is very uncomfortable defending an accused.

What principles do you think you are defending, exactly?

The principle to defend,......... is that everyone is innocent till proven guilty.

With so much distrust of our government and the way Bush lied us into war, our government lost our trust. That is the principle we want to restore. TRUST

When Bush attacked our constitutional law, I vigorously questioned his right to abrogate the pact. it is incumbent on all American citizens, who want to live free, to continue to be on guard against encroachments, whose sole reason is to take away the power of the governed.

When the governed lose faith and trust in those who govern us , what is the basis for the authority granted? Mistrust, fear, despotic, authoritarian?

Charge the criminals, present the evidence as the law provides for.

I don't trust the government as much as I used to. When they say trust us,....... I'm like Reagan in that respect "Trust, but verify"

I didn't wish it to be this way. I liked living in the fantasy. I want God to Bless America, and the reasons why he should...... Justice for all

We have a judiciary, to keep in check, the Authoritarian.

Did the judiciary condemn this man? Then I accept that the rule of law was applied.

We are a Nation of laws governed by representatives, and not by a military junta. At least I thought it was.

by Resistance on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 10:45pm

I have heard reports that said Awlaki was taken out, because he was such a good recruiter.

At the time of the scandal of Abu Ghraib, (only uncovered because someone obtained pictures, otherwise one could expect denials) didn't our military leadership say at the time, the released pictures would be a recruiting tool.

A RECRUITING TOOL?

Our torture policies worked against US because it helped recruit our enemies; so why is Dick Cheney, or any of his cronies still allowed to speak or sell books?

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

What did we sow?

by Resistance on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 6:51am

For KGB and his pal Wendy Davis at his blog, who said this action 'was a notch worse than George W. Bush', I would ask you to examine your measuring instrument.

The fact is killing innocent foreigners by the tens of thousands in their own country, a country that posed no threat to us, is far more immoral than killing one or two self proclaimed terrorist Americans loose in a lawless land. Aggressive war is the 'supreme international crime' as declared at Nuremberg, what Obama approved was not an aggressive war or invasion of a nation, what Bush did in Iraq was. This should be clear. That is, unless you think American terrorists in hiding abroad have more rights, and their lives are more protected or sacrosanct, than innocent non-Americans living in their own homes, in their own nation.

by NCD on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 8:33pm

You're all my pals, NCD.

by kgb999 on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 10:50pm

Yeah, thanks, agree. Let Wendy know her notch instrument may need to go back to the shop for calibration.

by NCD on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 12:21am

Hmmmm. Quick scan back across this thread ... that list should likely expand to include a few more than just Wendy Davis, no?

Not in the mood. Or more to the point, don't give a fuck. You sound like a goddamn three year old - grow the hell up.

by kgb999 on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 2:57am

I'll take the bait.

NCD doesn't even have a notch.

"Aggressive war" has always existed.

The moment people started being walked into gas ovens we had something new.

Those early crass, unevolved experiments grew into factory quality.

1 extra-judicial targeted American is puny compared to a whole war.

But wait until 1American becomes 50,000 suspects of whatever nationality.

Or that drone assassinations become our extra-judicial world police force. (as they already have)

The Constitution is about principles. People looking to tear up the Constitution start with a pin-prick, then expand. If you don't put a finger in the dike at the start, you need a dam to stop the gush.

Bush opened up some new territory, but even he was shy of extra-judicial killings of Americans.

As for Iraq, it's just the Spanish-American War all over again.

by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 4:39am

In a piece on The Daily Beast Saturday, Richard Miniter, the author of Losing bin Laden and Shadow War, recounted what he claims he knows about the administration's debate about this

(along with his own opinion about why the ACLU and libertarian arguments are wrong and the differing opinion of Stephen Carter):

Was Obama Right to Kill Awlaki?
Sep 30, 2011 4:10 PM EDT

Was it constitutional for Obama to target the U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki? Richard Miniter argues that not only was it legal—it was wise. For more coverage, Stephen L. Carter also weighs in and says it might have been wrong to kill al-Awlaki, because Obama has yet to explain the goals of his drone war to the nation.

[...]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA director Leon Panetta, according to one account related to me, were the “war wing.” They took the hardline view that Americans who seek to kill other Americans can themselves be killed to save lives. After all, it is war. And, the Fifth Amendment was never successfully used in court to limit a president’s war-fighting powers.

Attorney General Eric Holder and other lawyers close to the president took a view similar to the ACLU’s. Congress authorized war in Afghanistan, they said, not Yemen. So the “battlefield exception” does not apply. And killing a U.S. citizen was simply wrong.

After much debate, the president came to a surprisingly balanced legal decision. [....]

Next, the president concluded [....]

Finally, the president became convinced [....]

by artappraiser on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:10pm

Just noted that three similar points, albeit summarized to the point of vagueness, and without a clear source, are in a paragraph in a roundup article of legal opinions by Scott Shane in Saturday's New York Times:

....The administration’s legal argument in the case of Mr. Awlaki appeared to have three elements. First, he posed an imminent threat to the lives of Americans, having participated in plots to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and to bomb two cargo planes last year. Second, he was fighting alongside the enemy in the armed conflict with Al Qaeda. And finally, in the chaos of Yemen, there was no feasible way to arrest him....

by artappraiser on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:31pm

Here is Ron Paul's op-ed from today on it:

An unconstitutional killing: Obama's killing of Awlaki violates American principles
By Ron Paul, New York Daily News, October 2nd 2011

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat. National defense is a primary function of Congress and the commander-in-chief, and, as chief executive, I would carry out my duties as outlined in the Constitution and in accordance with the rule of law.

President Obama apparently believes he is not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law. When it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen last week, certainly no one felt remorse for his fate. Awlaki was a detestable person we believe helped recruit and inspire others to kill Americans through terrorist acts.

We have to take the fight against terrorism very seriously. In 2001, I supported the authority to capture and kill the thugs responsible for 9/11. In our efforts we must, however, work hard to preserve and respect our great American constitutional principles. [....]

by artappraiser on Sun, 10/02/2011 - 11:20pm

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.

The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone. Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law. The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree.

When Nazi leader and Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann was convicted and executed by the Israeli government in 1962, it was after he was captured, extradited and tried. Respect for the rule of law never has been for the protection of monsters like Eichmann or Awlaki, who should meet their just fate - but for the protection of the vast majority of innocent citizens who should never become subject to mere governmental whim.

by kgb999 on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 2:48am

Christopher Hitchens, October 3 @ Slate:

Citizen Enemies: Those who protest the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki have to say what they would have done instead.

Challenging as always, and not the opinion that many who think they know him might automatically presume.

by artappraiser on Mon, 10/03/2011 - 11:24pm

Hitchens writes better than most but I don't see any idea that I haven't seen a hundred times before. I might have been surprised when immediately after 9-11 Hitchens came out as a full throated hard-core war hawk, but everything I have heard from him since would have made me expect him to approve any killing of any alleged terrorist anywhere, any time, any way. Once the killing is a done deal I would expect him to defend it even if it turned out to that there was good evidence of a better alternative. I believe that he takes as his part in the war he supports, the "War on Terror", to be that of a propagandist and so is willing to [if necessary] overstate his case as convincingly as he can or just create a case and at the same time just ignore or attempt to diminish any legitimate argument or evidence that might lessen support for that war.
He says that the dilemma was that al-Awlaki was located in a geographical location that put him out of reach of our laws and that meant that a method of eliminating him outside the law was justified. Unreachable? Maybe yes, maybe no, and if yes then maybe yes only temporarily. Hitchens does not touch on the idea that even if our forces could reach him and bring him to answer to our laws that there is recent clear indications that they might choose to kill him anyway just like they did Ossama. I don't know, but I bet Hitchens defended the killing of Bin Laden even if it was a cold blooded execution of an accused criminal who could have been brought back for trial. He has plenty of company if that was his position then just like he does now in the majority support for the extra-judicial execution of al-Awlaki among the U.S. population.

Hitchen's assertion that those protesting the killing must say what they would have done instead is a weak rebuttal to arguments that the killing was wrong in principle. It tries to force voicing an active alternative choice out of several that potentially might have become available if they had been pursued like the opportunity to kill had been pursued. I strongly suspect, for instance, that our government could have put enough pressure, diplomatic or otherwise, on the Yemen government to cooperate, either actively or passively, so as to allow us to capture al-Awlaki. I also think that after the Seal Team showed they could go into the place in Pakistan that they did to get Bin Laden that snatching al-Awlaki out of Yemen would be a piece of cake whether Yemen authorities cooperated or not.

In a situation with the many ramifications of this one, doing nothing for a time while looking and waiting for the opportunity to make a good choice might be way better than making a bad choice.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 1:39am

He says that the dilemma was that al-Awlaki was located in a geographical location that put him out of reach of our laws and that meant that a method of eliminating him outside the law was justified.

Polanski better watch his back…

Hitchen's assertion that those protesting the killing must say what they would have done instead is a weak rebuttal to arguments that the killing was wrong in principle.

I actually do support this position, and I think several people have voiced alternatives, even ones that differ only in legality, such as getting judicial permission first, which probably would've been given.

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 7:18am

I would agree, as a general principle, with your position here regarding offering an alternative, but with a lot of exceptions depending on a lot of variables. One of many important variables in this case is the urgency, based on Awlaki's [alleged] harm to out country, of killing him first chance balanced against the harm done to our country by a "Unitary Executive" who asserts the power to order the execution of a citizen against Constitutional mandates as well as a host of national and international laws and then acts on that power.

When this is done without any significant demand for accountability, when requests for evidence are denied or ignored, and the extra-judicial killing is done to the cheers of such a high percentage of citizens, it scares me. Thinking he could have got legal cover to break those laws but didn't bother to do so does not alleviate any fears.

I expect that you agree that in every major military conflict engaged in by our country that there has been an obvious effort to demonize the enemy and the persons doing the demonizing have never been restricted to truth. They have never felt obligated to give an honest appraisal of the threat faced. This goes on because humans are so demonstrably susceptible to this kind of manipulation. The gross hypocrisy of those who screamed for Bush's head but approve of Obama in so many similar situations involving long standing principles and laws is plainly evident. These people are, IMHO, acting as low level politicians themselves when they demonize one political side, and in cases like this do so correctly, but praise their chosen side for similar actions. On their own level they are committing the same abuses as are manipulative politicians on the national level who cheat, lie, and deceive, for personal or ideological reasons.

From the Urban Dictionary:

Hypocrisy, [1] What Democracy turns into when all of the politicians in your country are liars.

[2] When no party/President that wins the election manages to keep its/his own ideology, and instead, keeps changing it every time it/he feels like it, that's no democracy. That's hypocrisy.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 10:45am

IANAL, but I think the urgency variable holds no weight as an excuse not to get judicial review or whatever-it's-called. Couldn't they have obtained the equivalent of a "standing warrant"? It wouldn't have changed the outcome, and I still would have some problems with it, but at least it wouldn't be extra-judicial.

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 10:54am

Notice that I am offering "urgency" as one variable that affects the implementation of a general principle and I do so to suggest that, IMHO, it was not so urgent a variable that we kill Awlaki first chance and so it was not incumbent upon anyone to offer an immediate alternative to the breaking of law in order to justify being against breaking the law.
I am also not saying that "urgency", in this case, could have even potentially been so great that the failure to get a standing warrant could could have been excused. Further, I do not think that such a warrant without being allowed to access to evidence could be legally or correctly issued without stretching and distorting the law beyond what the law is supposed to be about.

By the way, one excuse that is given for Obama's action is that Awlaki could have turned himself in and received the protection of a U.S. citizen under our laws, but that his failure to do so meant he forfeited that protection. Apparently smart people have offered this as an excuse. I think he would have been absurdly naive to believe that and then act upon that belief but, suppose his failure to turn himself in did, in fact, legitimize killing him without presenting evidence or allowing due process, what about other named people on that secret list? How do they protect themselves by adhering to this requirement?

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 11:54am

Oh, I knew I was preaching to the choir, but I preached anyway.

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:01pm

Preachers get to preach whether they really believe or not and so do atheists whether verified or not. Relative to those stands, as opposed to a political position, I am firmly in the middle as an agnostic, but of coarse I preach too. Like a Vonnegut character said, "Lion's got to rest, bird's got to land, Man's got to say that he understand."
Being agnostic gives me a psychological self-defense in some situations where I get overtly preachy, which I think most anyone holding strong beliefs that are not shared by everyone around them tends to do at times. Maybe the internet makes that tendency too easy to give in to and to get too preachy too often. Very little is offered as a possibility to be considered but rather as a truth which should be self-evident. What is wrong with everyone else, anyway? My psychic defense I referred too is that I feel that I can attempt to challenge a Christian and to deliberately put them put them on the spot by asking what Jesus would do without setting myself up as a self-righteous hypocrite based on the fact that I too have so often "sinned" if I claimed to be under any religious obligation put forth by a personal God to do what Jesus would have done. But what the hell, not to put anyone on the spot now, especially myself, what's religion really got to do with all this anyway? Oh, yeah, I am the one who brought it up. My bad. At least this isn't a bar where they have rules against such breaches and often big stupid, also drunken, rednecked reasons to follow those rules. Usually it is smart to follow the rule in that situation even if Jesus wouldn't have. Cheers.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 1:01pm

Hitchen's assertion that those protesting the killing must say what they would have done instead is a weak rebuttal to arguments

I don't know if we read the same essay. I wouldn't call it a rebuttal. I see him saying it's a horrible dilemma and struggling with it through the essay (in an "on the one hand, on the other hand" manner) and concluding in the final paragraph that it's cowardly to just complain about it without offering an alternative. I basically read it as saying that those who are arguing trial in absentia are ok with him, but just ranting and saying we should do nothing about it is cowardly and not anymore a defense of our system than what was done.

A reminder that he was personally invested in the assassination fatwa against Salman Rushdie since day one, it is why Islamic radicalism became a cri de coeur to him beyond his dislike for religion. And yes, one could say the assassination order against al-Awlaki was like an assassination fatwa by a secular government; though it's unsaid, to me, this is clearly what is bothering him.. The thing is, though, al-Awlaki's speech was promoting (and perhaps guiding, we don't know for sure yet) assassination of civilian Americans, not like Rushdie, where the speech involved was not advocating violence but was considered blasphemy against a religion. And that al-Awlaki's main modus operandi was basically assassination fatwa, he was into promoting that it was okay with Allah for you to kill American civilians.

I myself, as pretty much a free speech absolutist, was kind of haunted by the comment on the New Yorker site which I quoted upthread that referenced the Rwandan genocide. And when Oxy Mora replied there with a comment about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre," it clarified for me why it was haunting me. People like to say we could have done more to prevent some of it. Well, anyone who has studied it knows one of the main things that would have helped would have been to bomb the radio stations and news printers and assassinate the speakers on the radio when they started crossing the line from ginning up hate against Tutsis to telling Hutus to rise up, get their knives and machetes and go kill Tutsis. And that is the reason no one did anything--that crossing the line space is real hard to find.

Hitchens essay reminded me of the Goya print from his "Disasters of War" titled "And Nothing Can Be Done About It." To me, Hitchens seems to be saying "I don't like this, but tell me, what else can be done about it?"

by artappraiser on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:00pm

Hitchens corroborates what I don't consider to be profound and is an effective refutation to what others on this thread-- beginning with the author of this blog post-- consider to be a black and white issue with no room for compromise or acknowledgement that this truly is a difficult area--both morally and as a matter of constitutional law.

I'm really pleased with this entire discussion thread, and I don't mind saying that over and over again--because it doesn't always work out this way. And, once again, kudos to Lulu for continuing to debate the way he has been debating. Lulu that's two compliments in a week from me for you. Don't get used to it!

by Bruce Levine on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:19pm

Hey, Bruce, twice in one week is also twice in five years, but what the heck, who's counting? Cheers.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 4:10pm

You may not call it a rebuttal but but I see it as an attempt at one. Hitchen's conclusion:

"Those who share my alarm at the prospect of this, and of the ways in which it could be abused, are under a heavy obligation to say what they would do instead.",

implies that no one has offered other courses of action and that is obviously wrong but it is apparent that he wants readers to agree that we did what we had to do and so those who disagree are wrong. His notice of how his supported course of action "could be abused" when the argument is that that action was, in fact, just such a scary abuse, is just another attempt to muddy the picture.

Then we, I should say I, see him as miss characterizing the dilemma as to its very nature based on the level of threat that Alwaki posed.

"To phrase the essence of the problem succinctly, you are perhaps more likely, as a reader of this column, to be blown up at work or play, or on the way to work or play, by a “homegrown” or “lone-wolf” or “self-starter” fanatic using ....."

This is an attempt to hide the fact that you are even more likely to get struck by lightning out of the blue while treating the rattlesnake bite you just received. [Am I exaggerating? Not as much as Hitchens] He is, IMHO, attempting to over blow the necessity of tapping Alwaki first chance by saying that otherwise you might die. It is a hyping of the threat to justify a a controversial action.

Shortly after, Hitchens is linking to an article in a way that suggests Alwaki is a pimp when it seems from the article that there were only reports that he had used the services of prostitutes. It is unclear if he was actually charged with a crime in this instance either since the article only says that he avoided jail time. Then from the article:

"But FBI agents hoped al-Awlaki might cooperate with the 9/11 probe if they could nab him on similar charges in Virginia. FBI sources say agents observed the imam allegedly taking Washington-area prostitutes into Virginia and contemplated using a federal statute usually reserved for nabbing pimps who transport prostitutes across state lines." Emphasis added.

Lots of wiggle room there for people to take whatever suits them. An anonymous source reports an alleged minor [victim-less?] crime which was considered as an opening to use harsh charges in a way never intended for what Alwaki was alleged to have done. The authorities are cited as considering pumping up the charges so as to pressure someone who might help them make a case. Maybe the fact that they dropped the plan is an indication that even the exaggerated violations had too little merit to stand up in court and maybe they decided their was no case at that time to be made. Who knows? Hitchens? Dilemmas all around. Regardless, even though Hitchens links to the story so we can evaluate it for ourselves, his own use of it is just one more attempt to demonize Alwaki with unrelated and unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations. It is getting pretty damned common to throw in sexual deviance charges and innuendo as part of any high profile demonization campaign where personal feelings about the person might affect judgments of how they were treated by the law, or should I say, by the man.

Hitchens: "As we engage with the horrible idea that our government claims the right to add its own citizens to a death list that is compiled by methods and standards unknown, we must concede that no government on earth faces such a temptation to invoke what I suppose we could call a doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense. Those who share my alarm at the prospect of this, and of the ways in which it could be abused, are under a heavy obligation to say what they would do instead.

I don't concede for a moment that no government has been so tempted as that of the U.S. to employ pre-emptive actions against their own citizens who pose a threat to that government, real or only perceived, or even simply concocted for other reasons. Many other governments have been so tempted and have chosen actions which have often included torture and execution. I could sight as many stronger examples than that of the U.S. as there are countries in South and Central America just for a beginning. I would be with those citizens of those countries that no doubt felt that the best solution to their particular dilemma would have been their governments adherence to the rule of just laws.

And again, many have offered other courses of action that could have been taken instead of the one that was taken. And even for those who haven't offered a different answer because they don't know how they would have solved the dilemma, but who are aware that their government chose to do something that their conscience rejects and who then spoke up about it, suggesting that that is cowardice is a cheap shot regardless of who takes it.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 3:54pm

Did you order the Code Red ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg

The Dark Knight - Some Men Just Want To Watch The World Burn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc

Who knows the right answer?

Just hope the shepherd (Obama) knows what he's doing?

I hope our leaders understand the law of unintended consequences, should there ever be a future president bent on war and who'll suspend the constitution, because of the groundwork of today

God, please help America.

by Resistance on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 7:00am

lawfareblog.com , a blog founded by Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution, Robert Chesney of the University of Texas Law School, and Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School was recommended to me as a place where thoughtful commentary on the question of the legality of killings such as this can be found. Just fyi for any who might be interested.

by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:44pm

It seems like an unbiased and informative read. Alas, so many questions (factual, not legal) still linger.

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 12:50pm

Great find AD, thanks!

by Bruce Levine on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:18pm

Odd coincidence--I too just found that site, last night. Didn't know it existed until now.

Even if you don't like the elite legal opinions being argued (and if you check the bios, they are some of the elite in this field at different institutions who got together to do the blog,) it's great, because they are tracking and linking to most of the important writing elsewhere on the topic!

Speaking of links and elite legal experts in this area, I should copy the comment here to I posted on the "the cheneys say" thread.

----------------------

Anyone interested in more sophisticated comparisons between Bush & Obama "war on terror" policy, I recommend following this guy's link, a comment I ran across on Yglesias' blog post on topic:

Saul Tannenbaum · Top Commenter · Cambridge, Massachusetts

The continuity of counter-terrorism policy from Bush to Obama was an ongoing theme of a conference called "Law, Security and Liberty after 9/11" at the Harvard Law School and featured John Brennan (on the record and taking questions) and a bevy of elite national security lawyers on panels.

It's safe to say that all the former Obama lawyers took exception to the notion that there was continuity and most of the former Bush lawyers insisted that there was. Jack Goldsmith went so far as to quote Glenn Greenwald to make his case.

Charlie Savage gave the closing keynote and he tried to put this in a larger framework. From his perspective, the difference between Bush and Obama was not so much outcome but process. While the Bush policies (before the Jack Goldsmith revolt) were based on the theories of the unitary executive and the commander and chief's war time authorities, the Obama administration has dismantled those justifications and put them back together with what they believe is a rigid adherence to the rule of law. That they come out in the same place is just a coincidence.

That line of reasoning is parallel to yours. A focus on who we really went to war with on 9/11 is part of that whole shift to sound footings for the various policies.

Not to pimp my own work, but I wrote up the conference here:

http://www.cctvcambridge.org/LawSecurityandLiberty

Charlie Savage has expanded his keynote to a $.99 Kindle single here:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Wars-Unmasking-Deliberations-ebook/dp/B005OTY468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317497820&sr=8-1

Yesterday at 12:38pm

Note that the Charles Savage Kindle single that he links to is titled

Power Wars: Unmasking National Security Legal Policy Deliberations Under Bush & Obama

------------------------------------

by artappraiser on Tue, 10/04/2011 - 2:48pm

Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
By Charlie Savage, New York Times, October 8/9, 2011

A secret memo offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to the Obama administration’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, in Yemen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-l...

The Kill or Capture List
By Raffaela Wakeman, Lawfare, October 6, 2011
I wanted to share this very interesting article, which discusses the National Security Council panel which decides who is placed on the “kill or capture” list. The process was revealed by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee:...

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/10/the-kill-or-capture-list/

by artappraiser on Sun, 10/09/2011 - 5:25pm

On the anonymice:

The Awlaki Memo Leak
By Nick Baumann, Mother Jones, Mon Oct. 10, 2011 2:15 PM PDT

[....]

There's a point to be made here—one that Wittes alludes to—about the Obama administration's attitude toward leaks of top-secret information. The Obama White House has been extremely harsh in its treatment of government whistleblowers and other spillers of government secrets. But when the government wants to brag about something secret to the press—say, the Awlaki killing, or the fact they targeted him in the first place—or explain its actions behind the shield of anonymity, the normal rules don't seem to apply. I asked the Justice Department on Monday morning if they plan to investigate the Awlaki memo leak, or if they could even tell me generally about which sorts of leaks they choose to investigate. I haven't heard back.

by artappraiser on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 7:55pm

Obama admin debates releasing Awlaki memo
By Sr. State Dept. Producer Elise Labott & Sr. Producer Carol Cratty, CNN, Oct. 10, 2011

...The official said the memo was narrowly defined to apply to the case of al-Awlaki and not to offer a new, broad legal doctrine intended to justify the killing of any other Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.

Another senior official said there is a debate within the administration about whether to disclose its legal rationale. Some are arguing for more disclosure, while others contend that, because the legal argument refers to covert actions that involve national security interests, it should not be disclosed, the official said....

My comment: Two senior producers are the authors of record here, that's highly unusual. The only really new thing in the article are the two paragraphs I quote; the rest is filler, a nice summary, but filler. That says to me that the "officials" contacting CNN were top level and wanted assurance that they would be quoted correctly.

by artappraiser on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 5:02pm

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 9 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 9 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 12 months ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

Well, he did it.

Comments

In the News