The Thorniest Question: When Can a President Order an American Killed?

[The Northerner]

Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen alleged to be a senior al-Qaeda figure, was reportedly killed this morning in Yemen by an American drone strike. President Obama reportedly authorized his assassination more than two years ago and several unsuccessful attempts had previously been made.

This raises troubling questions about the limits of presidential power.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly declares that "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 shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Awlaki, who was not a member of the U.S. armed forces, was not afforded these rights.

Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer and Salon columnist, notes: "No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was 'considering' indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were 'state secrets' and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner."

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-thorniest-question-when-can-a-president-order-an-american-killed/245963/

[treestar]

1. More spinning off without even looking into that question

And what the law might be on it.

Not even trying.

[rug]

4. Yes, the term "a constitutional lawyer" is ambiguos.

[treestar]

6. Here's at least a start

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

At least for anyone willing to actually consider the issues.

[JuniperLea]

2. How many of these are you going to start?

I call bullshit on this late to the party outrage.

This BS is really making people look silly. Honestly! Since when has the president or the FBI been held accountable for this shit?

I call bullshit on all the outrage. Quite frankly I'm disgusted by it. If people truly cared about it, there would have always been outrage! Oh, I see, it conveniently works within the "program."

I still think it is seriously weak... and seriously fucked up to start using this shit now!

If you haven't been screaming about it until now, you're a fucking poser and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Angry Dragon]

3. In answer to your question:

It would seem anytime they want.............

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I don't think there is an applicable situation.

If there was a trial, that's the judiciary, outside the Executive Branch.

If it were the police or FBI, there would have to be constitutional principles such as self defense against deadly force.

Sadly, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows this. It wasn't an act of War nor was there an indictment against Anwar al-Awlaki.

[ixion]

7. legally he couldn't, until the Bush Doctrine

which allowed pretty much anything under the guise of so-called "preemptive warfare", or "preventative warfare"

Now, despite the bogus legal framework on which it is built, a US president can order anyone he pleases killed.

"Nothing says democracy like a royal decree." - Jon Stewart

[Brother Buzz]

9. The Bush Doctrine with the help on John Yoo's twisted logic:

Jon Carroll

Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[Poll_Blind]

8. K&R! A very informative article.

PB

[Kurmudgeon]

10. Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1996.

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/war-declaration2.htm
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/war-declaration2.htm#1996%20OBL%20Declaration%20of%20War

As such, members of that organization are at war with the US of their own choosing.
It's in them when they have reaped what they've sown.

[bvar22]

11. Without a Warrant issued by a US Judge,

...the answer is NEVER.
The US government was designed to provide Cross Checks from the other branches of government.
Operating outside these Cross Checks is NOT a good idea.

How many here were as supportive of the Unitary Executive when Bush-the-Lesser was president?


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bvar22]

12. The Obama justification for the Assassination of a US Citizen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[undeterred]

13. The teaching of "Constitutional Law" will never be the same.