ACLU on Obama's assassination of Americans policy

[IndianaGreen]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 7, 2010
4:44 PM

Obama Administration Reportedly Authorizes Targeted Killing Of U.S. Citizen

More Information Needed On Legal Standards For Targeting Americans, Says ACLU

NEW YORK - April 7 - According to news reports today, the Obama administration has approved the targeted killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a United States citizen who is believed to be located in Yemen, far from any active hostilities. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the government to make more details about the targeted killing program available to the public. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the government to make more details about the targeted killing program available to the public.

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today's report raises serious questions about the legal standards that govern targeted killings. The American public deserves to know what standard the government uses and how much evidence is required when it decides, in the name of self-defense or otherwise, to place U.S. citizens on a kill list. In order to assess the moral, legal and strategic implications of the program, the public also needs information about how the program is overseen and what its consequences are in terms of civilian casualties."

In March, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas and related information. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties, internal oversight and safeguards and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

More information on the ACLU's predator drone FOIA lawsuit is available here: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-seeks-information-predator-drone-program

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/07-14

First they said that only foreign terrorists would be held as enemy combatants. Then came José Padilla, an American citizen. Then they said that only foreign terrorists would be targeted for assassination. Now comes Anwar al-Awlaki.

Little by little we have become an outlaw country in which the President holds powers that would have rivaled that of the Russian Tsars.

We are no more safer under a Democratic President than we were under a Republican President for as long as the Constitution remains an obstacle to overcome, and our hard-won civil liberties can be set aside by a Presidential whim.

We are less free and safe today than we were yesterday!

The US Constitution is quite clear:

Article III

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3

No one is above the law, not even the President, and the law should apply equally regardless of which party controls the government.

[jody]

1. But presidents bribe senators and congresspersons with pork projects for votes on bills, payments

that would be criminal if done by private individuals. :shrug:

[boppers]

2. Why mention treason?

I'm pretty sure "Treason" isn't the legal basis involved here.

[vaberella]

3. So this then would be a call for his impeachment to possible death? Treason was used.

Normally death is associated with Treason, although I am aware the court decides.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

8. Okay I understand. n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

6. Obama is infallible.

:eyes:

[vaberella]

9. Are there facts or presumptions and suppositions in this article?! n/t

[tekisui]

5. knr

This is a dangerous slippery-slope that Obama is going down. Actually, he is just taking on the slope bush started.

[LeftyAndProud60]

10. The Job market is still horrible, and you expect people to care about the life of a terrorist who

seems to be very active in planning new attacks on the US.


I'd just like to thank President Obama for trying his best to keep us safe w/ this decision. I wouldn't have even complained if Bush did this. I really don't care at all.

[Tesha]

11. Just remember what you said today on that day they come for you. (NT)

[LeftyAndProud60]

12. I'm not planning any terrorist attacks, so I should be safe from the kill squads. It's not like

there is no proof that this guy is a terrorist. He basically admits it.

[frylock]

13. do you have evidence that this guy is planning terrorist attacks?

[LeftyAndProud60]

15. I don't want to google him, becuz I don't want the FBI to target me. But I'm sure u can find

evidence if you really want it. The reason he left this country is becuz he was suspected of helping terrorist. And I'm sure if he turns himself in, they'd put him on trial and present evidence for his conviction.

[chill_wind]

21. Why would you even worry about the FBI

or any other agency targeting you? We have infallible intelligence gathering, and especially we have due process in America, right?

Oh wait-- it doesn't sound like you're too sure, even as you defend the certainty of it.

[tekisui]

22. lol. Well done.

:rofl:

[frylock]

24. agent mike has already logged your IP, friend..

that next knock on the door?

[ClarkUSA]

18. American counterterrorism officials do. Here's what they told the New York Times...

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said... The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

[LooseWilly]

44. That article you quote is couched in some pretty vague terms.

It'd suck to be put on a kill list over something like that...

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen ((Who said he was in "hiding"? ... unsourced but decidedly judgemental use of an adjective)). He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to ((linked how? Being in contact with? Does that mean everyone in contact with Hasan should be targeted for kill or capture? Or is this sloppy passing on of the prejudices of sources to an audience by the journalist writing this story?)) Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to ((more sloppy prejudice sharing?)) Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say ((finally, a source- too bad it's a generic profession being cited.)) Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe ((Ooops, not saying they have proof, or evidence, or the like... but rather these anonymous members of the "counterterrorism community"- "believe"... how convinceing!!)) that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said... The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” ((did you snip the beginning of a quote? Or was there no open-quote mark in the original story? Did context change? Should I really care, if it's another anonymous source?)) said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one." ((Again, I don't even see any mention of evidence... what "actions" are being referred to?... simply a "belief" and some implications extrapolated from some associations. The whole thing is reminiscent of the underpinning rationale for detaining people at Gitmo. Remember?, they're at Gitmo, and Gitmo is for terrorists, therefore the detainees are all terrorists. And Iraq had WMDs...))

Well, I'm convinced. :sarcasm:

[Berry Cool]

38. Just like you figure you're OK with your privacy being violated

because after all, you have nothing to hide, right? :sarcasm:

[grahamhgreen]

17. Yes - that's the difference between a right wing authoritarian and a lefty.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

19. I know. It's not something important. Like say a president throwing a shitty pitch. nt nt

[Moochy]

32. Yes, Yes we do.

Big Strong Patriarchy makes you feel warm and fuzzy!

[chill_wind]

14. Keith Olbermann is covering this right now. n/t

[chill_wind]

16. Commentary on K.O. from Jack Rice and Richard Wolffe

if you missed it. Maybe someone will post the clips in the next day or so.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 and...

.... it does fall within the parameters of international law as well.

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

If it is likely that Awlaki will plot imminent terrorist acts that lead to murder if not apprehended or killed, and if it is impossible to apprehend him in a timely fashion because he is in hiding in Yemen with other members of Al-Qaeda, then due process would not be violated by killing him.

[BlooInBloo]

23. The point is....

Just because the President (or below) *says* ClarkUSA is an imminent threat and needs to be killed NOWNOWNOW!, doesn't mean it's true. There needs to be more than just "because the President says so".

[ClarkUSA]

26. That's a bit simplistic, isn't it? See reply #18.

Read the entire NYT article. There's a bit more to it than 'just "because the President says so"'.

If I was doing what Awlaki was doing now, I would expect to be targeted for assassination, too:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=262531&mesg_id=262671

[BlooInBloo]

27. If everyone who says so works for the President, it's the same thing.

[ClarkUSA]

31. How so? n/t

[Berry Cool]

39. "Use of unnecessary violence in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers has been approved."

I got a bad feeling about this.

[ibegurpard]

40. hey, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about

or something...

[chill_wind]

25. Meh. Don't worry, the next GOP fascist in the unitary executive WH

won't misuse or exploit this. They will roll this back and repeal it, because that's what ALWAYS happens
when the executive amasses more and more power.

Right? Right.

[Moochy]

33. Imperial Presidency is even more fun when democrats get to play empreror!

[IndianaGreen]

34. I never forgot the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

and the now debunked attack on our destroyers by North Vietnamese boats. How many people died on account of that lie?

[MadMaddie]

28. I understand that many are upset about this but I have a question

for you?

If the U.S knew when and where Timothy McVeigh was going to ignite his bomb and the U.S. issued an order to take him out as a terrorist threat would you have supported that decision?

The fact that this guy is an American is mute...he has alligned himself with terrorist and he is waging terroristic war against the U.S. thus he is a terrorist. I think this is a prudent move because this tells U.S Fringe groups that they are being taken seriously and there are consequences to terroristic acts. Sorry, the U.S dealt with the Black Power movement as if they were terrorist and many of them died.

If he committed a crime in a foreign country the U.S. government would not necesarrily come to his rescue. He made stupid decisions and would have to pay a cost.

Now let's go back to 2000 if an order would have been given to take out Osama Bin Laden knowing that he was actively planning attacks against the U.S would you have supported it then?

I am reading comments here that the President is violating the Constitution is he really? Or is his job to protect this country?

I have no smpathy or angst about this guy being eliminated. He made his choice and he has to live with it. Ultimately it comes down to responsibility doesn't it?

I have no problem if people disagree with me, all I know is if OBL would have been taken out or Timothy McVeigh would have been taken out there would be more than 4000 people alive today.

[IndianaGreen]

29. There is such a thing as an arrest warrant!

Bush suspended our rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and Obama is following suit!

Bin Laden is not an American but a terrorist wanted by several countries.

Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

[Berry Cool]

41. You meant "moot," not "mute"--but I think you are wrong.

First of all, I simply cannot bring myself to approve of "pre-crime" execution programs--even with the McVeigh example. Yes, I would have loved for McVeigh to have been arrested and his plans ruined before they came off. But would I have thought it was OK to go in and kill him to stop him? No.

Good Lord, there are Dems who feel that opposition to capital punishment is a primary Dem value...that executing convicted killers is wrong...and now we're saying that preemptive killing of terrorists is OK, so long as a Dem president and Congress say it is?

What are we? People with values, or just the guys in the blue shirts who want to beat the guys in the red shirts??

Sure, there should be "consequences to terroristic acts." But those consequences should be concerned with due process. Collect evidence, arrest and try.

"Sorry, the U.S dealt with the Black Power movement as if they were terrorist and many of them died"? So what you're saying is, two wrongs make a right? If it was done to leftys in the past it's OK to do it to terrorists now?

"If he committed a crime in a foreign country the U.S. government would not necesarrily come to his rescue. He made stupid decisions and would have to pay a cost"? OMG, you sound like that email that's going around the GOP circles. You know, the one where in this country and that country and another country, a certain kind of person would be shot, but here in the USA we give them freebies...you know, that piece of bullshit.

And no, I wouldn't have approved taking out Osama Bin Laden. Sheesh. There are other ways to deal with these guys.

When you say "I am reading comments here that the President is violating the Constitution is he really? Or is his job to protect this country?" you sound just like a Bushie! YES, the President's job is to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution, and this is a violation of that! It is not "to protect this country" or "keep it safe"! That's a Bushism, and you're parroting it?

Yeah, "Ultimately it comes down to responsibility doesn't it?" And as a country, we need to take responsibility for what we do and what kind of justice we believe in.

And yeah, I bet we could save a lot of lives if we simply pre-determined who we thought might commit a crime and "took them out" before they could. But what criteria do we use? And since when is the USA in the business of summarily executing people it THINKS are probably going to try to kill other people?

[ncteechur]

30. I don't think this cleric is a citizen. I think he renounced the US.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Here's more on this poor innocent chap -->

:sarcasm:

"al-Awlaki message calls for jihad against U.S."
By Paula Newton, CNN

London, England (CNN) -- American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is calling for jihad against America, claiming "America is evil" in a new audio message obtained by CNN... Al-Awlaki's voice in the recording is measured and clear, as he takes on the cadence of a preacher. He singles out Muslim Americans for a provocative message:

How can you have your loyalty to a government that is leading the war against Islam and Muslims?

Just last week, Yemeni authorities subdued a New Jersey man, Sharif Mobley, as he tried to shoot his way out of a local hospital. He had been captured days before in an al Qaeda raid... Senior U.S. security officials confirmed to CNN that Mobley left his home in New Jersey to seek out al-Awlaki. The officials say that Mobley made contact with al-Awlaki and was eager to meet up with him eventually in the belief that al-Awlaki could become his al Qaeda mentor.

Al-Awlaki's sermons and recordings have been found on the computers of at least a dozen of terror suspects in the U.S. and Britain. In addition, al-Awlaki admits to having communication with U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, charged in the shooting deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November.

More at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/17/al.awlaki.message/index.html

[vaberella]

36. I'm trying to figure something out Clark.

I get the feeling people are using this to just be angry at the President. If this man wasn't a citizen of the US and was just any other militant member of Al Quaeda (militant in the sense of supportive) and we were looking to kill him with a drone or send our military out there to get him dead or alive...would this board have all this hoopla. Because to be honest, I don't see, from what information I've seen here, that this guy is any different from other crazy AQ member who wants us out and we're out there fighting. The only technicality is that he was born here. Why does his life matter so much more than the several other figures we've killed in this entire process to protect our nation from attacks?! I have not seen so many people push and push and push for all of the people killed by drones or military to actually stop all of that and arrest them all for them to await trial. Instead they seem okay with it...however this guy brings up a different sentiment. It doesn't make sense, not that the article which seems speculative makes any sense to me either.

[Berry Cool]

43. Here's why it matters.

Because, yes, he is a citizen, no matter what else he's done. And if he's a citizen and this can be done to him under this president, who's to say a Republican president can't issue the same order on a citizen he or she determines to be a terrorist or enemy combatant of some sort...oh, maybe someone who's going around criticizing the government or something?

You honestly think "it's OK if a Dem president does it, and the only people criticizing it are people who want to pick on him"?

It's like the post below says--if it were Bush doing this, all of DU would be up in arms. But because Obama and this Congress do it, it's OK.

*sigh* And you know what's really sad? For saying this I will no doubt be called an Obama hater. And I am not. I really like and support much of what he does. But this is just plain wrong, any way you slice it.

[Berry Cool]

42. Did anyone yet claim him to be poor or innocent?

You're setting up a straw man here. I have yet to see anyone claim he is a sweet, nice fellow who means no one any harm. But in my USA, the government doesn't decide to issue an order to kill someone just because he's a bad guy. Even the cops don't shoot unless their lives are in danger. Go figure.

[emilyg]

37. We would be screaming if Busgh did this.

[JonLP24]

45. Thank god for the ACLU

K&R

[joe black]

46. Obama's just following orders.

Do you really believe he won on his own. Nobody hear criticizes diebolt when a democrat wins. funny that.

[JTFrog]

47. He won with the help of the people.

By a landslide.

I bet you are still looking for his birth certificate too aren't you?