Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
Ha
Under article iii, yea-- that's why they dismissed it. Alwaki showed no interest in seeking constitutional relief. Did you read it; they mentioned it multiple times.
Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
Sorry just noticed your request
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2010cv1469-31
Not in awhile. Thanks for the link.

Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
More on the judge's decision. Notice where it states "the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:" - If those questions offer insight to what the courts would want, the evidence would be abundantly against Awlaki.

In addition to dismissing on grounds that Nasser al-Awlaki lacked standing to bring the suit, the court explained that the case was ultimately outside of the purview of federal courts. In a major victory for the executive branch's role in setting counter-terrorism policy, the court explained the complex questions that the judiciary would need to answer in order to review the case:


  • the precise nature and extent of Anwar al-Awlaki's affiliation with AQAP;
  • whether AQAP and al-Qaida are so closely linked that the defendants' targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen would come within the United States' current armed conflict with al Qaida;
  • whether (assuming plaintiff's proffered legal standard applies) Anwar al-Awlaki's alleged terrorist activity renders him a 'concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety."


These considerations, the court acknowledged, are simply not within the purview of federal courts. "It is not the role of judges to second-guess, with the benefit of hindsight, another branch's determination that the interests of the United States call for military action." Although the procedures remain classified, a Pentagon document titled "Joint Targeting Cycle and Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology," shed some light on the procedures for targeted identified terrorists.

Clearly, Bates expressed discomfort with the decision. "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 judicial unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120...laki-suit.html
I don't think anyone is really questioning the evidence against Awlaki, more the process in which we deprive a citizen of their rights and protections.

I think the first two point ARE within the courts purview because it relates to evidence; is he affiliated with AQAP? Are they linked? The answer likely being yes and easily provable. The third is he an imminent threat? Is that the question? Do we "convict" on what he might do or do we convict on the basis of what he did do? I think it's pretty clear on what he did do so he can be "convicted" based on the evidence. I definitely don't want to be giving power to one branch of government based on what he might do.

I think the author overstates that it was a "major victory" in setting policy because that isn't the question. The executive can set the policy but they can't act as all three branches in carrying it out.