Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[jimnyc]

Why do all that when you LIKE what GW OBama's claims he got going now, no oversight, no judges, no congress, no constitutional authority, just ditatoral execution powers. are you saying you might be a bit mistaken here. that it might be to much? well, That's a step in the right direction Jim.


So you say that MAybe the prez should have a Judge or Judges look at, I'd prefer a confidentiality bound grand jury of informed citizens. That'd be one standard.
now you add..

Known terrorist implies they've already harmed or attempted to harm, there'd be a standard of evidence for "known". NOT JUST "INTENT" as holder says.
Irrefutable Proof, takes it up another BIG notch, someone would have to be able to determine that, and the general public should be able to see that proof at some point.
we know an attack is imminent, Imminent is in the eye of the BE-holder as it stand now though. But if a Fixed time could be added to thw other items you've listed Is another nocth of higher in responsible response, If there was a law that could included all of these standard I'd be FAR less concerned.


Holder is no where NEAR what you've outlined Jim
"He said the president is not required by the Constitution to delay action until some “theoretical end stage of planning — when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear.”
“relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”
“flexible definition of ‘imminent threat’."


KNOWN Irrefutable are not in the cards
and Imminent could be 10 days 20 days 30days 1 year 2 years oneday
plan stages could be we have the maps the routes and know the explosive OR
we heard 2 guys talking about it.
and the president is the only one who would know for sure, Know at least what HE was told.

But why stop overseas, and what is an "attack" and what is "harm". I've posted several iems where Fatherland security has tried people AS terrorist who have done things like "counterfeit money". And other things that most people wouldn't consider anywhere near terrorist acts.

And the authority assumed is not warranted by the level of threat from the handful of terrorist around the world.
But you see the power as ONLY being used against those YOU understand to be you REAL mass murders, but the powers ASSUMED here is much broader than that. For you not to be alarmed by THAT is short sight and foolish. plan and simple.

You're the one who states that no one should be brought forth to answer for crimes until they actually kill someone, and that it needs to be a certain amount of deaths before it should be prosecuted.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes you just have to let rev be rev and you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway.

IMO, bringing it through Congress should be what you are FOR not just that you're not AGAINST it. We have processes and hurdles, checks and balances, etc. for a reason, there is and should be high standards in place to act as a restraint.

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

[revelarts]

.... you always need someone to be an ardent backer of government restraint and liberty anyway...

I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

[revelarts]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

War on fear, war on hype, war on lies, war on terror,... sigh...

never ending war justifies all.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
~Alexis de Tocqueville

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive.
~C. S. Lewis


We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower




How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jimnyc]

Rev, just because you think there is a threshold of a certain amount of deaths needed before Americans can even investigate people, doesn't mean others have to think alike. I'm not the one who said there should be an individual investigation for each and every suspect and have congressional hearings before we can even eavesdrop on that person.

Btw - how do you think Ron Paul's ass feels today from the major spanking he received? LOL

[fj1200]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

We could always be in the midst of "war" so I think it best that we follow the methods of passing law that we have available to us. We should not be using circumstances to justify actions that would be unthinkable without the circumstances.

I thought that was everyone's job, at least most republicans claim they are for those. right?
am i way out in the hinter lands here?
I guess everyone else are ardent, well at least nominal, backers of gov't power and gov't control then?
For Safety/Security reasons, becuase that's more important than Liberty.


And having congress pass a law that makes it ok for the president to execute citizens without trial doesn't really cut it either does it FJ.

Whats the real difference in the end?

I was using "ardent" in the specific circumstance that Jim pointed out. It was a... nicer... term than I could have used.

And you might want to actually consider my position before creating one for me.

[DragonStryk72]

We are in the midst of war. I think right now the 1st priority is protecting American lives, but I think they should work on congress at the same time to close up the loose ends.

I really think that they need judicial review, as opposed to congressional, since it's a joint venture between Congress and the President, having the Judiciary do the oversight is proper as per our checks and balances as a nation.

[Intense]

Read the lame wiki version alone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

There was MORE than enough proof to show he not only had ties to terrorism, but that he was one of the leaders of an Al Qaeda division. Even Yemen had him on their most wanted list. He was directly involved in the Fort Hood shootings that killed 13 American soldiers. There is a long and storied history between Awlaki and terrorism.

As for the arrests, first time I'm hearing about this. When? Where? Can you give us details? Either way though, doesn't excuse his terror activities and the planning/killing of Americans.

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

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.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79475C20111005

We are agreed that He was an Enemy. My reference is to poor form and poor public relations in how it was handled. Obviously, this Clown would have been a fountain of Information. That is lost now. The issue of proper form and due process was a problem. The Article I linked to does bring up a few issues. I will see what I can find on Awlaki's travels before the assassination.

[jimnyc]

We are agreed that He was an Enemy. My reference is to poor form and poor public relations in how it was handled. Obviously, this Clown would have been a fountain of Information. That is lost now. The issue of proper form and due process was a problem. The Article I linked to does bring up a few issues. I will see what I can find on Awlaki's travels before the assassination.

Killing a terrorist hell bent on killing American and/or our interests, is not assassination. We are at war with terrorism and he was a terrorist. You don't get to plan the killing of Americans, hide in another country and the Constitution.

What if it were a battlefield, and an American came charging at our troops? We try to tackle or subdue him in the name of "due process"? We shouldn't have to scour other countries for terrorists and figure out how to "police" them so that we can bring them back to the US to answer charges. If they're in another country, trying to kill Americans, then they are enemies just like other terrorists, and deserve to meet their maker.

[fj1200]

What if it were a battlefield, and an American came charging at our troops?

SCOTUS has already ruled on that one iirc. They haven't had a chance on the other.

[jimnyc]

SCOTUS has already ruled on that one iirc. They haven't had a chance on the other.

And for those wanting to call this an assassination - would you then agree that every terrorist that has been targeted, every enemy combatant that has been targeted - they've all been assassinated?

[fj1200]

And for those wanting to call this an assassination - would you then agree that every terrorist that has been targeted, every enemy combatant that has been targeted - they've all been assassinated?

Awlaki assassinated? I suppose that might be the correct definition since he was a leader but every terrorist/combatant targeted is not assassination. The question here though is American citizens and what rights they have.

[revelarts]

We are agreed that He was an Enemy. My reference is to poor form and poor public relations in how it was handled. Obviously, this Clown would have been a fountain of Information. That is lost now. The issue of proper form and due process was a problem. The Article I linked to does bring up a few issues. I will see what I can find on Awlaki's travels before the assassination.

Don't skip his "Hell Bent" trip to the pentagon where he was a guest. and somehow was not dangerous enough to be captured there either. Or that wa s before he turned evil, but wait I thought Muslims were Always evil and Hell Bent on killing ... I can't keep the propaganda strait. maybe i'm over thinking it
we are suppose to just forget about his visit to the pentagon, down the memory hole with that. keep the thinking clear here. He's an enemy of the state! he's always been and enemy of the state! We've alway been at war with the muslims we always have to kill 1st ask questions later... except the with Saudis with 9-11 terrorist connections um .. ok wait a minute.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blott...6#.T1jrvMwf9eQ

[Intense]

From the Court Case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf
and as next friend of Anwar Al-Aulaqi,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 10-1469 (JDB)
BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official
capacity as President of the United States;
ROBERT M. GATES, in his official
capacity as Secretary of Defense; and
LEON E. PANETTA, in his official
capacity as Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency,
Defendants.

BACKGROUND
This case arises from the United States's alleged policy of "authorizing, planning, and
carrying out targeted killings, including of U.S. citizens, outside the context of armed conflict."
See Compl. ¶ 13. Specifically, plaintiff, a Yemeni citizen, claims that the United States has
authorized the targeted killing of plaintiff’s son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, in violation of the
Constitution and international law. See id. ¶¶ 3-4, 9, 17, 21, 23.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi is a Muslim cleric with dual U.S.-Yemeni citizenship, who is currently
believed to be in hiding in Yemen. See id. ¶¶ 9, 26; see also Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot.
to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mem.") [Docket Entry 15], at 1; Pl.'s Mem. in Support of Pl.'s Mot. for
Prelim. Inj. ("Pl.'s Mem.") [Docket Entry 3], Decl. of Ben Wizner ("Wizner Decl."), Ex. AA.
Anwar Al-Aulaqi was born in New Mexico in 1971, and spent much of his early life in the
United States, attending college at Colorado State University and receiving his master's degree
from San Diego State University before moving to Yemen in 2004. See Wizner Decl., Ex. AB,
Decl. of Dr. Nasser Al-Aulaqi ("Al-Aulaqi Decl.") ¶¶ 3-4. On July 16, 2010, the U.S. Treasury
-4-
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") designated Anwar Al-Aulaqi as a
Specially Designated Global Terrorist ("SDGT") in light of evidence that he was "acting for or on
behalf of al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)" and "providing financial, material or
technological support for, or other services to or in support of, acts of terrorism[.]" See Defs.'
Mem. at 6-7 (quoting Designation of ANWAR AL-AULAQI Pursuant to Executive Order 13224
and the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 594, 75 Fed. Reg. 43233 (July
16, 2010)) (hereinafter, "OFAC Designation"). In its designation, OFAC explained that Anwar
Al-Aulaqi had "taken on an increasingly operational role" in AQAP since late 2009, as he
"facilitated training camps in Yemen in support of acts of terrorism" and provided "instructions"
to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of attempting to detonate a bomb aboard a
Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day 2009. See OFAC Designation.
Media sources have also reported ties between Anwar Al-Aulaqi and Nidal Malik Hasan, the
U.S. Army Major suspected of killing 13 people in a November 2009 shooting at Fort Hood,
Texas. See, e.g., Wizner Decl., Exs. E, F, H, J, L, M, V, W. According to a January 2010 Los
Angeles Times article, unnamed "U.S. officials" have discovered that Anwar Al-Aulaqi and
Hasan exchanged as many as eighteen e-mails prior to the Fort Hood shootings. See id., Ex. E.
Recently, Anwar Al-Aulaqi has made numerous public statements calling for "jihad
against the West," praising the actions of "his students" Abdulmutallab and Hasan, and asking
others to "follow suit." See, e.g., Wizner Decl., Ex. V; Defs.' Reply to Pl.'s Opp. to Defs.' Mot. to
Dismiss ("Defs.' Reply") [Docket Entry 29], Exs. 1-2; Defs.' Mem., Ex. 1, Unclassified Decl. of
James R. Clapper, Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence ("Clapper Decl.") ¶ 16. Michael Leiter, Director of
the National Counterterrorism Center, has explained that Anwar Al-Aulaqi's "familiarity with the
-5-
West" is a "key concern[]" for the United States, see Defs.' Mem., Ex. 3, and media sources have
similarly cited Anwar Al-Aulaqi's ability to communicate with an English-speaking audience as a
source of "particular concern" to U.S. officials, see Wizner Decl., Ex. V. But despite the United
States's expressed "concern" regarding Anwar Al-Aulaqi's "familiarity with the West" and his
"role in AQAP," see Defs.' Mem., Ex. 3, the United States has not yet publicly charged Anwar
Al-Aulaqi with any crime. See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp.")
[Docket Entry 25], at 9. For his part, Anwar Al-Aulaqi has made clear that he has no intention of
making himself available for criminal prosecution in U.S. courts, remarking in a May 2010
AQAP video interview that he "will never surrender" to the United States, and that "[i]f the
Americans want me, [they can] come look for me." See Wizner Decl., Ex. V; see also Clapper
Decl. ¶ 16; Defs.' Mem. at 14 n.5 (quoting Anwar Al-Aulaqi as stating, "I have no intention of
turning myself in to [the Americans]. If they want me, let them search for me.").
Plaintiff does not deny his son's affiliation with AQAP or his designation as a SDGT.
Rather, plaintiff challenges his son's alleged unlawful inclusion on so-called "kill lists" that he
contends are maintained by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command ("JSOC"). See
Pl.'s Mem. at 5; see also Compl. ¶¶ 3, 19. In support of his claim that the United States has
placed Anwar Al-Aulaqi on "kill lists," plaintiff cites a number of media reports, which attribute
their information to anonymous U.S. military and intelligence sources. See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 19;
Pl.'s Mem. at 5; Wizner Decl., Exs. F, H, L. For example, in January 2010, The Washington Post
reported that, according to unnamed military officials, Anwar Al-Aulaqi was on "a shortlist of
U.S. citizens" that JSOC was authorized to kill or capture.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2010cv1469-31

[Intense]

The Anwar Awlaki Timeline

Contents:

Early years in America
Busted for Prostitution
The 9/11 Plot
Yemen
Fort Hood
Christmas Day Bombing
U.S. response: Airstrike in Yemen
CIA Takes Over Drone Attacks
Death

http://awlaki.sethhettena.com/