Obama invokes 'state secrets' claim to dismiss suit against targeting of U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi

[Elmore Furth]

Source: Washington Post

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 25, 2010

The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets.

The U.S.-born citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, is a cleric now believed to be in Yemen. Federal authorities allege that he is leading a branch of al-Qaeda there.

Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president's powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.

Civil liberties groups sued the U.S. government on behalf of Aulaqi's father, arguing that the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command's placement of Aulaqi on a capture-or-kill list of suspected terrorists - outside a war zone and absent an imminent threat - amounted to an extrajudicial execution order against a U.S. citizen. They asked a U.S. district court in Washington to block the targeting.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/AR2010092500560.html

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[humbled_opinion]

94. This is exactly what disappoints me with Obama

Look, by him acting just like Bush he sets up the party as unprincipled i.e., Where are the Anti-war protestors? Do we only protest when Republican Presidents are in the White House? Where are the outspoken critics from out side? The anti-war movement is going to suffer unless we hold Obama equally as accountable as we would have held Bush. We should never bend on our principles but some on here actually think that we should, to what end? There is no good war, all war is stupid and bad.

[BillH76]

100. Obama ran from the center-left and rules from the center-right.

Just look at the other stories about Obama administration policies posted right here on DU. We wuz deceived. Again.

[bbgrunt]

105. ummmmm....they are being raided and labeled as domestic terrorists.

[No Elephants]

2. Be grateful to gubbamint for keeping us safe!Terra! Terra! Terra! Justifies anything and everything.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamjoy]

9. This Is Not Change

On many counts I have been disappointed in President Obama - and in all of those counts it is because he is too much like his predecessor.

[Angry Dragon]

4. "Off with their heads"

I believe this is an old French saying

[24601]

5. I believe that al-Aulaqi should have his day in court. But I also

believe that he should have to appear personally in court and assure the judge that's what he really wants. He's kind of special, wanted for "Treason" posters are very rare.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. you do understand that he can be shot on sight?

And that this sentence has been imposed without due process, oversight, or review? How on earth can a person targeted for execution 'appear personally in court'?

[Pavulon]

55. Decisions have consequences. He can surrender at his nearest embassy

or he can end up gloppy modern art looking corpse as an active member of a war. His call.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. So you are fine with executive execution orders?

no problem there at all?

[Pavulon]

85. Same as if he was shooting at the police. His actions provoked a lethal response. He has a right

to a trial, he can choose if he lives to have one. he can surrender at an embassy and live to write a book about what an asshole he is. His call.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. no that is a bullshit analogy

this is not "the same as if he was shooting at the police". That is a self defense reaction by the police to a specific circumstance at a moment in time. This is an executive order to execute an individual, regardless of the circumstances, without benefit of trial, without judicial oversight.

[Pavulon]

89. He is not a head of state so guess he is FUCKED. If were him I would turn myself in

he is a fighter on the battlefield. He is on the enemy side, there is no requirement to arrest him. KILL or CAPTURE is the order by the way.

But he will not be treated like he just stole your car from the wally world parking lot.

He presents a direct threat and can (and will) be addressed.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KakistocracyHater]

127. what if he is like Will Smith in "Enemy of the State" film?

framed & not guilty? You think a Kafka-esqu kangaroo court will serve justice?

[Pavulon]

150. No i think he will end up shit out of a bird and you will never

know the story. what if, the bitch is all over youtube.

[sabrina 1]

156. Lol, you are funny! So far he hasn't been shown to have any

suicidal tendencies. The U.S. doesn't have much of a reputation these days as far as being trustworthy is concerned. Ending up in one of our torture chambers to languish without charges for years, is probably not a very appealing prospect.

We torture innocent, uncharged people in this country. Did that slip your mind? As I said, your simplistic, black and white, strangely quaint solution to the problem is almost humorous.

Put it this way. Would you voluntarily walk into a Soviet Union Embassy if you were a Russian, eg, accused by the S.U. of treason? This is where we are in this country and sadly nothing has changed with this administration. There is no rule of law, or Habeas Corpus in the U.S. anymore. Walking into an Embassy would be, well, insane.

[hack89]

113. He would not be shot on sight if he arranged his arrest

and showed up with witnesses in a neutral site like a foreign embassy.

Not that he will bother - he is busy fighting his war.

[24601]

129. You do understand that's not what the "capture/kill" order says

don't you? Being declared "eligible" to be killed doesn't mean anywhere, anytime but only in according with Presidential ROE. If ye goes to Europe, the chances of a predator strike are non-existent. An airline isn't going to be shot down just to get him. If he walks into a US facility in Yemen with his hands in a non-threatening position, he can surrender and go get his day in court. Of course if he wants to play "catch me if you can" with the Aves, that's his prerogative.

[Catherina]

6. More bullshit from this Administration. n/t

[emilyg]

36. Amen.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RufusTFirefly]

38. "Even treasonous bastards deserve their day in court"

Absolutely. It's alarming how few people understand this. Constitutional rights aren't conditional. We don't arbitrarily take them away from people we don't like, don't trust, or who offend us.

It's easy to protect the rights of "innocent" people. We don't need a Constitution for that. What's much harder is to respect and protect those we oppose, suspect, or disagree with. But that is the very bedrock of our system of government.

[liberation]

47. Furthermore, either we live in a nation/society under the RULE of law or we do not. Period.

Chipping away with arbitrary exceptions is a very dangerous path. I am just saddened that some people think that the constitution can be subverted as long as the administration doing it belongs to their preferred "team" and it is done with a nice and bright smile.

The very same things that would have gotten people enraged in this site, a few years ago when Bush were perpetrating them.... all of the sudden become all sorts of reasonable and expected. It is just astounding the level of hypocrisy.

The constitution is not an optional document, and it is not about citizen's rights as much as it is about our government's limitations. The US government is constrained by the requirement to provide due process of law. Period. Not ifs, not buts, not sometimes. ALWAYS.

[RufusTFirefly]

71. Amen. We are a government of LAWS and not MEN.

Just because President Obama makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't mean that he is exempt from preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[BillH76]

101. Well, that's the theory. (n/t)

[HereSince1628]

8. Help me here, is there a law that gives state secrets priority of consideration

or is this simply the rabbit-hole that takes us the nation into Wonderland?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. This is the executive branch invisibility cloak

with which they attempt to hide any and all actions they desire from any form of review by congress or the courts.

It has become a founding principle of the New Security State.

[HereSince1628]

18. I wondered if there was something in either an old sedition act or P.A.T.R.I.O.T.

that provided that invisibility...

But I can accept that the CIA gets to do whatever the phalangists desire.

[City Lights]

12. K&R. nt

[placton]

13. zee government doss not vant you looking at what eet is doing

AND "we are killing ze girl tonite, old man - you can save her!" (last from Firesign Theater)

[Towlie]

14. No, not Firesign Theater, it's from a Cheech and Chong skit.

[avaistheone1]

34. Colonel Klink is that you?

[Towlie]

144. Not sure what that means, but it was on the Big Bambu album.

[G_j]

15. unacceptable nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

76. I am disappointed in that language.

Not up to DU standards at all.

[The abyss]

106. Words and comments like that are what made this board.

The fact they were removed tells me much.

[truth2power]

107. I did not say anything in my post that isn't being said by others in this thread...

I was especially thinking about American citizens being assassinated, without benefit of due process, anywhere in the world. I would call that a war crime. Or at least a crime against humanity.

Who is responsible for that policy? Perhaps it's Lady Gaga. Yeah, that's it. My mistake.

[katandmoon]

17. Hail to the new boss, same as the old boss.

[jaxx]

77. Comparing President Obama to dubya isn't productive.

It's completely negative and not true.

[katandmoon]

95. You forgot the "sarcasm" smilie.

[awoke_in_2003]

97. "isn't productive"

neither are new "democrats"

[Techn0Girl]

109. SO TRUE ! ...

Obama would NEVER support killing American Citizens without a trial like George Bush did.

Obama would NEVER keep Gitmo (remember that) open like George Bush did.

Obama would NEVER support the "Patriot" Act like George Bush did.

Obama would NEVER appoint industry lobbyists to the FDA or the Treasury like George Bush did.

Obama would NEVER support off shore drilling like George Bush did.

Obama would NEVER keep hundreds of thousands of troops in an illegal war like George Bush did.

Obama would NEVER tell Unions to get fucked like George Bush did.

Obama would NEVER sell out the Teachers Union like George Bush did.

Am I RIGHT or am I RIGHT?

[Jefferson23]

19. The destruction of a nation coming from within our government. Good luck America. n/t

[jaxx]

79. I need some facts for that statement.

Can you elaborate?

[Jefferson23]

145. Are you serious? The destruction began under Bush, follow

the Patriot Act for one, then look at the Military Commissions Act just before the election the year it passed.

The expansion of the executive branch is well documented in Charlie Savage's Pulitzer Prize Award winning book;

Takeover, The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy.

If you believe Obama's decision here is assisting a move in the correct direction, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[flyarm]

20. The day the Music died...bye bye Miss American Pie..This is when our Constitution died..

and only a few cried..

I cry for our freedoms ..and I cry for the death of our constitution..at the hands of greedy assed killers and war criminals and the MIC up to and including our Presidents in our country and in our government!

This is illegal and unacceptable in every way... AND THIS IS NOT CHANGE! It is dispicable!

[awoke_in_2003]

98. "Won't get fooled again"...

is very fitting. It starts out with so much home, "the new revolution". Obama's election was just that, and we were filled with hope. We are now at the point of the song that states "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[OnyxCollie]

21. But this time it's different.

This time it's Hopetastic™

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

22. White House invokes privilege to kill lawsuit against cleric

Source: AP/Yahoo

Mods: the subject line was the headline on Yahoo news main page
WH: lawsuit for cleric would reveal state secrets

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be targeted for assassination under a U.S. government program.

In a court filing, the Justice Department said that the issues in the case are for the executive branch of government to decide rather than the courts.


The courts have sufficient grounds to throw out the lawsuit without resorting to use of the state secrets privilege, the Justice Department said in its filing.

"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement. "In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cleric_lawsuit

---

The father has demanded that the government disclose a wide variety of classified information which could harm U.S. national security, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement.

[xchrom]

23. If you're gonna carry out assassinations - you're gonna

Have 'secrets'.

[RobertBlue]

24. That's really scary.

:(

[The Northerner]

26. I couldn't believe it when I first read it

[valerief]

25. I thought state secrets were something pols sold, not something

PNAC's al Qaeda gave away.

[JackDragna]

27. Murder we can believe in!

eom

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

29. It is wrong, but not to the "the sky is falling" degree some here are making it out to be

First, to the question some are asking, if this person wants to answer the charges, he only needs to make a call to and then show up at the nearest US Embassy.

There needs to be a better way to address these issues but it certainly is complicated. The person is allegedly leading a terrorist organization, so how do you serve them with an arrest warrant or any sort of request to appear in court? Does anyone in this thread want to volunteer to do that?

I'm also guessing that no one here would be in favor of a special forces operation to capture this person in another country. Such an activity would be considered an act of war against Yemen in this case.

So, we have a hard time getting them to appear but we want to stop them from doing what they are doing. I guess the only recourse would be to try them in court in absentia. That isnt exactly a great option either. Everytime I have heard of those kinds of trials, they are completely one sided. There is almost a 100% guarantee of a conviction. So we have that trial in absentia, the person is convicted of treason and sentenced to death. That isnt much of an improvement.

Again, I am open to suggestions.

[Big Bill Jefferson]

30. The crux of your argument

lies in your statement, "...we want to stop them from doing what they are doing", and for that answer we must get into foreign policy and international law.

You must also define who it is when you casually toss about the all important term- "WE."

In any case why it is such a vital topic is that it is illustrative of the Obama administration to continue what are blatant violations of international law using the red herring of "state secrets" which as others have pointed out is a convenient way to hide the reality of state crimes.

Those who bought into the slogans ‘Hope' and ‘Change' last fall should have read the fine print. There were plenty of warnings.

[jaxx]

81. What were the warnings?

List them.

[Panaconda]

148. Well that's easy

I'll do the short list:

Top advisers to Obama:

Former Amb. Jeffrey Bader, President Clinton’s National Security Council Asia specialist and now head of Brookings’s China center, national security adviser

Mark Brzezinski, President Clinton’s National Security Council Southeast Europe specialist and now a partner at law firm McGuireWoods, national security adviser

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee and frequent guest on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, foreign policy adviser

Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism czar and now head of Good Harbor Consulting and an ABC News contributor, sometimes Obama adviser

Gregory B. Craig, State Department director of policy planning under President Clinton and now a partner at law firm Williams & Connolly, foreign policy adviser

Roger W. Cressey, former National Security Council counterterrorism staffer and now Good Harbor Consulting president and NBC News consultant, has advised Obama but says not exclusive

Ivo H. Daalder, National Security Council director for European affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Richard Danzig, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now a Center for Strategic and International Analysis fellow, national security adviser

Philip H. Gordon, President Clinton’s National Security Council staffer for Europe and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Maj. Gen. J. (Jonathan) Scott Gration, a 32-year Air Force veteran and now CEO of Africa anti-poverty effort Millennium Villages, national security adviser and surrogate

Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981-1985 and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, informal foreign policy adviser

W. Anthony Lake, President Clinton’s national security adviser and now a professor at Georgetown’s school of foreign service, foreign policy adviser

James M. Ludes, former defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and now executive director of the American Security Project, national security adviser

Robert Malley, President Clinton’s Middle East envoy and now International Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa program director, national security adviser

Gen. Merrill A. ("Tony") McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff and now a business consultant, national security adviser

Denis McDonough, Center for American Progress senior fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, foreign policy coordinator

Samantha Power, Harvard-based human rights scholar and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, foreign policy adviser

Susan E. Rice, President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Bruce O. Riedel, former CIA officer and National Security Council staffer for Near East and Asian affairs and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Dennis B. Ross, President Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and now a Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow, Middle East adviser

Sarah Sewall, deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance during President Clinton’s administration and now director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, national security adviser

Daniel B. Shapiro, National Security Council director for legislative affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a lobbyist with Timmons & Company, Middle East adviser

Mona Sutphen, former aide to President Clinton’s National Security adviser Samuel R. Berger and to United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson and now managing director of business consultancy Stonebridge, national security adviser

=========

A much more involved list would include Obama's policies and stances on so many issues, positions that were public and easily investigated.

For example:

What was his stance on the appointment of Condi Rice?

What was his position on Joe Lieberman versus anti-war candidate Ned Lamont?

What were his votes in the Senate as relates to the Iraq War?

What was his stance and what were his votes as relates to The Patriot Act?

These are just a few of the countless examples. How many people took the time to know these positions and to understand what these positions would mean.

[flyarm]

131. Indeed, there were many warnings..screaming warnings! eom

[stevenleser]

149. The crux of my post is that I am open to other suggestions and you didnt offer any n/t

[EFerrari]

68. The horse is sort of already out of the barn. Would you surrender

to a government with an unresolved (I'm trying to be kind) torture program? One that holds uncharged prisoners for years? I don't think I would. There is no guarantee whatsoever of anything like due process. That same government violently apprehended two Al Jazeera reporters -- beat them in full view of their families -- just last week. :shrug:

[Pavulon]

70. Or that pakistani lady we just stoned to death, umm fuck, sentenced to 84 years

I hope that catch that little bitch and lock him up like the shoe bomber. He can live a LONG life unable to speak a word to his family or see direct sunlight.

Getting turned to bird food while pulling his pud in Yemen in an instant is to good for him.

[flyarm]

130. I beg a sincere difference,.it is murder and illegal through OUR CONSTITUTION!

all a president is is OUR EMPLOTYEE..who takes an oath to defend and protect our constitution..it is time for this man to be fired!

No one man is bigger than our constitution..but you know that...don't you?????????

[Ozymanithrax]

31. An Empire does what an empire does... n/t

[Bluebear]

32. Disgraceful. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

33. For those here who have recently questioned--

the whole "Why do some compare O to W?" -- this is the type of shit those of us who do compare them are talking about.

I don't give as shit that it is the Obama Adminstration instead of the Bush Administration doing this shit.

I don't give as shit that it is a Democratic Adminstration instead of a Republican Administration doing this shit.

I don't care that it is a black man doing this instead of a white man doing this shit.

Guess what?

This shit is WRONG no matter who the hell is doing it!

And if you cannot take off your blinders long enough to recognize that fact then you seriously need to check yourself. The country, your fellow Americans, and Obama do NOT need that kind of blind loyalty -- it is dangerous and does not do any of us - most of all Obama -- any good.

[emilyg]

37. Good rant.

[awoke_in_2003]

99. +1 Billion. nt

[grahamhgreen]

104. HEAR HEAR!

[Techn0Girl]

110. Well Said my friend, well said :)

[Subdivisions]

118. Thank you. n/t

[flyarm]

132. Most excellent and it can not be said enough!! Thank you! seems there are still some of us who

Understand and respect and cherish our Constitution!

The most frightening are those who could care less! And will make excuse after excuse for these crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, international war crimes and crimes against our Consitution, and are nothing but paid shills.. bullshit artists and facists!

[Psephos]

152. I wish YOU were running for Congress. n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jefferson23]

40. Support for the rule of law, yep.. n/t

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberation]

43. Apparently you and the United States Constitution never acquainted with each other...

... good grief, am I actually hearing the very same arguments Bush supporters were using to defend anything and everything the Bush cabal were doing during those long 8 years?

WTF!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

54. "Sheeple Disease"? Are you accusing of me of being "sheep" because I don't support leaking intel? nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

59. Putting allegience to a Party or an Individual over --

Constitutional and/or democratic principles is wrong and dangerous.

[ClarkUSA]

64. You didn't answer my question. Are you accusing me of being "sheep"? Hmm?

[ClarkUSA]

48. President Obama was a constitutional law professor. I trust him more than anonymous bloggers who...

... never liked him in the first place.

<< good grief, am I actually hearing the very same arguments Bush supporters were using to defend anything and everything the Bush cabal were doing during those long 8 years? >>

Apples and oranges. This situation is completely different than anything BushCo had to deal with.

[liberation]

52. Wow... talk about sophistry.

Apparently, it seems your main issue with Bush's actions were that he had gone to business school, not law school. Technically, the subversion of the US Constitution is even worse because as you said, Obama as a constitutional scholar should know better.

BTW, what is actually "different" regarding this situation. The state secret invoked is of the "double secret probation" kind?


If anyone would have told me, two years ago, that I would be having literally the same kind of arguments with Obama supporters as I was having with the Bush deranged psychopaths for those long 8 years I would have laughed at them. The joke, apparently, is no longer funny.

WTF?

[Pavulon]

60. Here is a con law test. You have a right to jury trial, get a toy gun and paint it black

walk up and point it at the police. You are now a lethal threat. They will shoot you. You may bleed to death on the floor, you may live.

You never lost your right to a trial, but it was trumped by others rights to personal safety. He can still surrender, or he can get splattered.

[ClarkUSA]

65. You get it. Thanks for the excellent illustration.

Why doesn't al-Aulaqi surrender? Why did he flee to Yemen when pursued by US authorities?

Even his own father, who asked for time to get him to surrender -- and received it -- is unable to get his son to surrender.

[liberation]

122. That is a con alright, besides being a BS analogy

Good grief, seriously... you actually came up with that analogy and did not go deaf from the logical dissonance?

Seriously, some of you make the mythical Good Germans look downright revelrous.

Seriously, a cop acting in self defense is according to you an example of "due process." Do you even know what "due process" means? Seriously, before administering "law" tests you should at least be even remotely acquainted with the basic tenets of common law.

[ClarkUSA]

62. Look in the mirror. Your strawman arguments are prime examples of sophisms.

<< Apparently, it seems your main issue with Bush's actions were that he had gone to business school, not law school.>>

Never said that. Strawman argument #1.

<< Technically, the subversion of the US Constitution is even worse because as you said, Obama as a constitutional scholar should know better. >>

Never "said, Obama as a constitutional scholar should know better" either. Strawman argument #2.

<< BTW, what is actually "different" regarding this situation. The state secret invoked is of the "double secret probation" kind? >>

Bush never had to deal with a known American-born terrorist who was actively recruiting and planning terrorist attacks on US soil (see Christmas bomber and VA military base mass murderer).

[westerebus]

120. I seem to recall a hispanic fellow?

American born, who converted to the Muslim faith in prison. He was arrested for planning a dirty bomb attack, if I remember right. Sorry I don't recall his name.

[ClarkUSA]

137. I don't know who or what you're talking about. nt

[flyarm]

138. are you talking about John Walker Lindh ? eom

[The abyss]

147. Probably José Padilla

José Padilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

93. Why were you against this even during the Bush years?

Gitmo, yes, but this sort of thing? Do we have no right to defend ourselves without granting a court proceeding to every such person, and if so, why aren't foreign nationals included? Why don't they get a court proceeding?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. Do you realize that this is about much more than --

"radical cleric al-Aulaqi & al-Qaeda in Yemen"?

This is about YOU, this is about ME, this is about any American citizen that some future President decides is a "terrorist". Have you learned nothing from the ACLU all these years?

In protecting al-Aulaqi's rights we are protecting OUR RIGHTS.

[Pavulon]

58. You dont have a right to shoot at the police. You are not guaranteed a trial if you do,

you may just get killed before you make it to court. No difference here. He can still turn himself in.

I HOPE some operators grab his little punk ass so he can die a poon in federal custody rather than being a "martyr" and be shit out of a vulture in some 3rd world nation.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Exactly. Thanks for explaining con law so clearly in layman's terms.

<< I HOPE some operators grab his little punk ass so he can die a poon in federal custody rather than being a "martyr" and be shit out of a vulture in some 3rd world nation.>>

I have the same "HOPE" as you do.

[flyarm]

139. Oh absolutely 1million percent!

does no one remember John Walker Lindh?? Who was captured and returned to the USA for trial??????

As a now retired Flight Crew of a US airline..I have flown the world,.this is about all our rights..if any President has the right to sign a signing statement allowing or ordering shoot to kill, on any American on foreign soil..that opens up every American that travels abroad..and it opens up all kinds of abuse of power! And it is murder! And against all International law and against the laws of our Constitution!

it opens our nation and her people up to dictators and a banana republic!

[newspeak]

154. yes, it's about you and me

Now, it's stop those dirty AQ terrorists--but if it slides down a slippery slope-it could be those pro-labor or peace activists or socialists or whoever are a direct threat to the country-take'em out.

and, it could also be someone knows too much which is a direct threat to our agenda, take'em out. We live by the Rule of Law or we don't.

[JonLP24]

44. I support the ACLU on this n/t

[ClarkUSA]

51. Fine, but their job is not to safeguard Americans from further terrorist attacks, is it? nt

[JonLP24]

57. Their job is to safeguard Americans through civil liberties

They're perhaps last organization or group of people willing to fight for civil liberties. The Dems and Repubs sure as hell don't.

[ClarkUSA]

72. You don't get it. Con law applies to al-Aulaqi. Read the following illustrations:

Pavulon (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-25-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #52

60. Here is a con law test. You have a right to jury trial, get a toy gun and paint it black

walk up and point it at the police. You are now a lethal threat. They will shoot you. You may bleed to death on the floor, you may live.

You never lost your right to a trial, but it was trumped by others rights to personal safety. He can still surrender, or he can get splattered.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4552761&mesg_id=4553121

Pavulon (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-25-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #42

58. You dont have a right to shoot at the police. You are not guaranteed a trial if you do,

you may just get killed before you make it to court. No difference here. He can still turn himself in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4552761&mesg_id=4553114

If the ACLU is so concerned for al-Aulaqi's "civil liberties" they should send a lawyer to Yemen and get him to surrender to US authorities.

[JonLP24]

75. I never refer to Pavulon arguments

to make a case. I'm sorry I don't see the analogy there. One is actively pointing a gun or toy gun at a law officer and in that case they're protecting themselves. If someone kills a cop and gets away for a few days they're not put on a hit list. Law enforcement will try to find him and arrest him without incident. Of course if he opens fire they have a right to shoot back. I don't see anything similar there.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Pavulon was speaking in allegory. nt

[Pavulon]

86. He is providing a threat to us forces during a war, he is not the first or last

to do so and will not the the first to get his ticket punched if does not surrender.

He did not just rob the quick e mart. he is a military target until he turns himself in.

You opinion is noted but the people who make the calls have the right to kill him with a drone right now.

[ShamelessHussy]

135. some say the gov behaves like terrorist

so in a sense they are

[Marr]

143. Nor is it the President's job. Christ-- if you're going to spout off about "con law" every other

post, you ought to at least realize that the President's oath is to defend the Constitution-- not "save American lives". That's what Bush said, because it made him a sort of autocratic superhero with freedom to do just about anything. Apparently you lapped that bullshit up.

[Ignis]

92. +1

This is a bad, bad precedent to set. :thumbsdown:

[KakistocracyHater]

128. yes..........how long will it be until DU is labeled a "witch" organization,

its' members a threat to the nation? Sounds unreasonable, but there've been alot of unreasonable things happening lately. It is a very bad precedent, those who disagree are just hoping their fervor for this guy's punishment means they're not on the list. They're a common enough type, found everywhere.

[littlewolf]

158. agreed

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[colorado_ufo]

39. If it could happen to one of us,

it could happen to any of us. Anwar al-Aulaqi needs to appear in court.

[ClarkUSA]

45. It'll never happen to me. I don't plan on becoming a terrorist al-Qaeda leader in Yemen...

... who helps recruit terrorists like the Christmas bomber and the VA military base mass murderer and plan those kind of terrorist attacks.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

50. Famous last words.

The definition of "terrorist" is one that is incredibly fluid, the definition depending on who is holding office. Members of PETA and antiwar activists were on Bush's "terrorist" watch list. Tomorrow it could be American dissidents trying to stop a rouge Administration.

Maybe some future President will not like the color of your skin, the church you go (or don't go) to, or the Party you vote for.

Famous last words.

[ClarkUSA]

78. Apples and oranges.

<< Members of PETA and antiwar activists were on Bush's "terrorist" watch list. Tomorrow it could be American dissidents trying to stop a rouge Administration. >>

Apples and oranges. If "PETA and antiwar activists" or "American dissidents" become al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen and recruit terrorists like the Christmans bomber and the VA military base mass murderer and plan those kind of attacks that occurred, then flee from authorities who tried to nab him to a hidey-hole, I expect they will have to surrender or suffer the constitutionally lawful consequences as spelled out to you already by Pavalon:

Pavulon (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-25-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #42

58. You dont have a right to shoot at the police. You are not guaranteed a trial if you do,

you may just get killed before you make it to court. No difference here. He can still turn himself in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4552761&mesg_id=4553114

If the ACLU is so concerned for al-Aulaqi's "civil liberties" they should send a lawyer to Yemen and get him to surrender to US authorities.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

49. Yep. The FBI just raided the homes of well known PEACE activists

looking for "material support for terrorists". Despite what "good germans" say, we're 'way down that road.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4551777&mesg_id=4551777

[liberation]

53. I prefer the term "Good Americans"

These guys make the mythical "Good Germans" look down right anarchical and rioting in comparison.

[EFerrari]

61. My mother says, "this is why 9/11 happened"

and she's referring to unthinking obedience to officialdom. She's 79.

[Pavulon]

63. And Stan's law applies to her too.

If you are a troofer you are the 1 in 5 Americans who are "fucking retarded"

[flyarm]

74. Your mother is right..My mother is gone but her sister tells me all the time

as a 79 year old..why do you keep fighting..they are all one in the same!
With each passing day..I find her wisdom more than correct!

[Pavulon]

56. Oh yeah, we;ll be burning Jews in no time at all.

they guy is fighting on the other side in a war. That would get him shot in the head in ww2, ww1, the civil war, etc..

He can still surrender to the embassy nearest him and get a day in court.

[ClarkUSA]

83. The false "Good Germans" meme is disgusting, isn't it? Some refuse to accept con law parameters.

<< the guy is fighting on the other side in a war. That would get him shot in the head in ww2, ww1, the civil war, etc..

He can still surrender to the embassy nearest him and get a day in court.>>

Exactly. President Obama would prefer that al-Aulaqi surrender.

[Pavulon]

87. Hell if he has anything useful in his noodle I would prefer he surrender

he is more useful alive. Once he yaps, let him die in Florence an old and broken man.

[ClarkUSA]

142. I hope so, but al-Aulaqi is obviously planning on being a martyr. nt

[earcandle]

67. wolf as sheep, sheep as wolf, wolf eats sheep .. forget sleep find a new beat and sweep.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[awoke_in_2003]

96. "I tip my hat to the new revolution". nt

[grahamhgreen]

103. Why would any decent human feel it is necessary to do this?

[Peregrine Took]

108. But we are only disappointed cuz he hasn't done ENOUGH!! That's what

the gang on progressive radio says. We had our hopes up THIS HIGH and then he didn't have time to do it all and now we are mad as we wanted him to "walk on water" and he didn't oblige.

Get it? Not for what he actually did but only because he didn't fulfill our childish fantasies!

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solly Mack]

112. ...

Attorney General John Ashcroft lashed out Thursday at critics of the administration's response to terrorism, saying questions about whether its actions undermine the Constitution only serve to help terrorists.


War's Critics Abetting Terrorists, Cheney Says


The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 276

"Since April 17, supporters of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld have asserted that the numerous retired U.S. generals criticizing Rumsfeld and calling for his resignation may, in fact, be aiding the enemies of the United States." - Media Matters, 4/20/06


"(White House Press Secretary Tony Snow) suggested that war opponents in congress need to consider what message they are sending in favoring a resolution or legislation that opposes the president's 'surge' - saying it was 'worth asking' the question of whether they might sending a message to al-Qaeda. The implication was that their opposition could be seen as giving al-Qaeda a green light to expand their actions." - Editor & Publisher, 1/17/07


"Nevada Sen. John Ensign says Democratic leaders who criticize the Iraq war are aiding the terrorists and hampering the war effort." - (notoriously crap) NewsMax, 5/21/06

"Insisting that the spying by the highly secretive NSA had been essential in the war against terrorism, Mr Bush said: 'It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war.' He added: 'The fact that we're discussing this
program is helping the enemy.'" - Sydney Morning Herald, 12/21/05





The Right to Defend Rights in an Age of Terrorism

"Human Rights Defenders Equated with Terrorists

Efforts of human rights defenders have been denigrated as being supportive of
terrorism and insufficiently attentive to the imperatives of national security threats.
Human rights defenders who spoke out against repression as a response to the threat of
terrorism have themselves been subjected to attack for their criticisms.

Defaming human rights defenders as terrorist sympathizers is an old device. The post-
September 2001 global emphasis on the primacy of counterterrorism gave new potency
to such criticisms and gave them a veneer of international respectability."



Having concern for America's obligation to human rights (as atrocious as our record is on that score) and to international law (as atrocious as our record is on that score) doesn't make anyone a terrorists supporter or sympathizer. It doesn't mean you're undermining the President or the government or the CinC or national security.

[Amonester]

114. 'state secrets'? What happened to the 'Promise' of 'Transparency'?!?

Another one (Campaign Promise) bites the dust.

Does anyone really believe al-Aulaqi poses a threat to the EXISTENCE of the U.S. of A.?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[Pavulon]

115. Poor little guy, the man is trying to fuck him out of his right

to fight the man. hey he can still surrender right, I bet he will do that.

[Amonester]

116. I don't understand your reply, sorry. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

141. Obama never pledged transparency that included revealing intel about terrorists still at large.

President Obama is still the most transparent president in modern history. For example, no other president has ever given totally unrestricted access to WH visitor logs, long a holy grail for news agencies and special interest group inquiries.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

133. Don't think so. When did Cheney ever deal with this exact same kind of situation? nt

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

134. Plenty of CHANGE has occurred. Just ask Republicans. nt

[BlueIris]

123. Obama is in the White House to protect state secrets.

And for (almost) no other reason. So these actions are hardly shocking.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

136. More over-the-top rhetoric. When did "Bush/Cheney" ever deal with this exact kind of situation? nt

[Major Hogwash]

126. But, was that one of his campaign promises? Because he broke all of those.

I don't remember candidate Obama saying anything about sweeping shit under the rug, looking the other way, or sounding like Nixon by saying "state secrets" when he was running to be the leader of the free world.

Si, se puede doesn't sound like "state secrets" in any language to me.
But hey, I could be wrong.

Either that or, . . . I was living on a different planet at the time and wasn't tuned in to the right channel to listen to the 'coded' messages that were once thought of as "campaign slogans".

Silly me, tricks are for kids.

[Major Hogwash]

125. I can't wait until the Democrats can get a liberal to run for the White House!!!!

Cause I'm not going to vote for this guy in 2012.
Whatever party he is from, it ain't from mine.

I was a born a Democrat and I will die a Democrat.
But I don't buy that shit about "state secrets" one fucking bit.

[ClarkUSA]

140. We have a liberal in the WH and he's doing what any responsible CIC would do in this case.

No responsible CIC would agree to leak intel about a terrorist that's still at large.

<< Cause I'm not going to vote for this guy in 2012. >>

I'm sorry to hear that, but of course, that's your choice. I'm a lifelong liberal and I will be voting for President Obama again.

[Major Hogwash]

151. Bullshit and hot air, sporto. Killing American citizens without benefit of a trial is anti-American.

Period, enumo!!

We killed spies that were covert that were working for the other side, but these guys aren't spies.

[stevenleser]

153. The trial argument in this situation is a red-herring

Have you ever researched what it is like to try someone in absentia? I think there is a near 100% conviction rate in trials like that. So... fine, we have a federal trial for treason in absentia, the person is convicted and sentenced to death. Now it becomes fine, according to you, to have a dead or alive warrant. Does that really make you happy?

What Obama detractors in this thread never seem to be able to answer is, in the situation at hand, what would YOU do in which the end result is better?

[MNBrewer]

155. We don't have trial in absentia, anyway

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia>

[stevenleser]

157. Yes, we do, you didnt read through your own link

Check the reference to Andrew Luster and Shalom Weiss, both convicted in absentia in American courts recently.

[MNBrewer]

159. Both were present for their trials, but fled the country.

"Weiss fled the country at the end of his trial and was a fugitive for one year. He was subsequently extradited from Austria."

"Andrew Luster, convicted of date rape after fleeing mid-trial"

Try again.

[Poll_Blind]

146. I don't like when Obama's administration does things like this. Worse, I don't understand it.

The only candidates as far as explanations go are allegations equally explosive and depressing.

PB