A U.S. counterterrorism official said American forces targeted a convoy in which al-Awlaki was travelling with a drone and jet attack and believe he’s been killed. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.posted by BobbyVan at 5:54 AM on September 30, 2011
"The same U.S. military counterterrorism unit that got Osama bin Laden used a drone and jet strike in Yemen on Friday to kill the U.S. citizenbut this is all kind of a distraction from the fact that the US policy of assassination from the sky is completely counter-productive. The U.S. is on the verge of being kicked out of Pakistan because of it. But, of course, we will blame the perfidiousness of the Pakistanis rather than our own hubris.-born clericsuspected of inspiring or helping plan numerous attacks on the United States..."
Because it operates under different legal authorities than the military, the CIA may have greater latitude to carry out strikes if the political climate shifts in Yemen and cooperation with American forces is diminished or cut off. ...posted by Trurl at 8:07 AM on September 30, 2011 [1 favorite]
The new tasking for the agency marks a major escalation of the clandestine American war in Yemen, as well as a substantial expansion of the CIA’s drone war.
Although the "foreign target" happens to be a U.S. citizen, the same reasons that counseled against judicial resolution of the plaintiffs' claims in El-Shifa apply with equal force here. Just as in El-Shifa, any judicial determination as to the propriety of a military attack on Anwar Al-Aulaqi would "'require this court to elucidate the . . . standards that are to guide a President when he evaluates the veracity of military intelligence.'"The Court went on to say:
...
Nor are there judicially manageable standards by which courts may determine the nature and magnitude of the national security threat posed by a particular individual. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has expressly held that the question whether an organization's alleged "terrorist activity" threatens "the national security of the United States" is "nonjusticiable."
Given that courts may not undertake to assess whether a particular organization's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security, it would seem axiomatic that courts must also decline to assess whether a particular individual's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security. But absent such a judicial determination as to the nature and extent of the alleged national security threat that Anwar Al-Aulaqi poses to the United States, this Court cannot possibly determine whether the government's alleged use of lethal force against Anwar Al-Aulaqi would be "justified or well-founded."
Rather, the Court only concludes that it lacks the capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an "operational" member of AQAP, presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him. This Court readily acknowledges that it is a "drastic measure" for the United States to employ lethal force against one of its own citizens abroad, even if that citizen is currently playing an operational role in a "terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against Saudi, Korean, Yemeni, and U.S. targets since January 2009". But as the D.C. Circuit explained in Schneider, a determination as to whether "drastic measures should be taken in matters of foreign policy and national security is not the stuff of adjudication, but of policymaking."...citations and other legal artifacts removed from text quoted above...
Anwar AlAulaqi, however, has given no indication that he believes it is in his interest to take legal action to stop the United States from killing him. Not only has he failed to bring suit on his own behalf at any point over the past ten months -- despite the fact that his life is allegedly at stake -- but he has made numerous public statements condemning the U.S. judicial system, see, e.g., Defs.' Reply, Exs. 1-2, and has publicly announced that he has no intention of "surrendering" to the Americans. See Wizner Decl., Ex. V (quoting Anwar Al-Aulaqi as remarking, "[a]s for the Americans, I will never surrender to them"); see also Clapper Decl. ¶ 16; Defs.' Mem. at 14 n.5. Taken together, Anwar Al-Aulaqi's actions and statements strongly suggest that his interests do not include litigating in U.S. courts.You say you want judicial review, but from here it looks like you actually want judicial agreement with your own opinion. Where a federal judge says something that doesn't suit your position, you just ignore it. So far I've offered a federal judge's opinion, statute law, a valid and current executive order, and an extensive law review article, all of which bear on the question of whether the President has the authority to order someone killed or not, but nobody has shown any interest in discussing these.
To be sure, this Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is "constitutionally committed to the political branches" and judicially unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance.What do you think 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' means? I take it to read that the Constitution confers such authority on the Legislature and the Executive.
Also our government could have dealt with the terrorist attacks as a crime against America rather than a war against America. So the guilty would be tried and only them would be punished rather than bombing an already destroyed country. I do not restrict myself to US media. I check out Aljazeerah and European media such as the BBC. I am seeing something that you are not seeing because of the one-sidedness of the US media. I see the carnage of Afghanistan. I see the innocent civilian deaths. That is why my opinion is different.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.The determination of liability (specifically, for Al-Aulaki's having sworn allegiance to the head of AQAP) was made in 2010.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;Like it or not, the Constitution grants Congress rather broad powers of defense against threats to the United States, and allows congress to delegate those powers to the Executive as it sees fit. 'Offenses against the law of nations' are not the kind of crimes contemplated by the 5th amendment, and this is one reason that the 5th amendment itself contains an exception for cases arising out of military action.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.Nor are Yemeni civilians or anyone else that ends up as collateral damage of airstrikes.
Letters of marque were issued to deal with pirates. Article 1, section 8, an enumerated power of Congress. There are mechanisms in the Constitution to deal with things like terrorism; they may need some updating, but they are there.I could be wrong, but first, I believe that letters of marque and reprisal are specifically against foreign governments or subjects.
Given that courts may not undertake to assess whether a particular organization's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security, it would seem axiomatic that courts must also decline to assess whether a particular individual's alleged terrorist activities threaten national security. But absent such a judicial determination as to the nature and extent of the alleged national security threat that Anwar Al-Aulaqi poses to the United States, this Court cannot possibly determine whether the government's alleged use of lethal force against Anwar Al-Aulaqi would be "justified or well-founded." See El-Shifa, 607 F.3d at 844. Thus, the second Baker factor -- a "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards" for resolving the dispute -- strongly counsels against judicial review of plaintiff's claims. (pg.71)The current policy, from what I can piece together, is the following: the President determines someone to be a threat to national security, the evidence is secret and unavailable for review. To ensure it is "lawful" there is a process through the National Security Council (note that every member of that council is a part of the executive branch) this is also a secret process. Once on the kill list, CIA or similar group is given the go ahead to kill said person on list.
Stark, and perplexing, questions readily come to mind, including the following: How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death? (pg.2)
Can the Executive order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization? (ibid)
Because these questions of justiciability require dismissal of this case at the outset, the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum. (pg.4)
President Barack Obama has decided to waive almost all the legally mandated penalties for countries that use child soldiers and provide those countries U.S. military assistance, just like he did last year.posted by homunculus at 9:39 AM on October 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
The White House is expected to soon announce its decision to issue a series of waivers for the Child Soldiers Protection Act, a 2008 law that is meant to stop the United States from giving military aid to countries that recruit soldiers under the age of 15 and use them to fight wars. The administration has laid out a range of justifications for waiving penalties on Yemen, South Sudan, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all of which amount to a gutting of the law for the second year in a row.
...
For Yemen, the administration's argument is simply that counterterrorism cooperation with that country is too important to suspend. Yemen is set to receive $35 million from the United States in foreign military financing. What stunned activists in the room, however, was State Department officials' admission that they don't know who actually controls the Yemeni military these days.
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 subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensationMy emphasis.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.Even if we go with msalt's pre-crime argument (and I'm not at all sure that there's any possible way it's legal to convict someone for crimes they **MIGHT** later commit; I might later rob a bank, shall we shoot me now to prevent that?) he's still entitled to a trial where the government must present its evidence for criticism by a defense attorney before he can be sentenced to die.
They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.This is outrageous. Again, how can anyone be OK with this process?
... Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.
A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.
« Older Is the internet rewriting history?... | Tim Rogers has written a long ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by IvoShandor at 5:45 AM on September 30, 2011 [11 favorites]