Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[jimnyc]

Not sure what dictionary you're using but I would probably put it in the assassinate category based on below. I don't know about Zawahiri but bin Laden a capture was attempted so not assassinated. Awlaki was also not committing a crime at the time of attack.

The WOT is not that young that we need to be making decisions like this completely by one branch of government. Congress has been a fail on this IMO and judicial has not even had a chance to comment outside of the Awlaki suit brought by his father though the courts have made a few decisions on some WOT policies and they are not always siding with the Executive. That last part should cause some concern for the administrations position.

By #2 in the definition, any drug dealer who conspires and plans to kill the competition, would therefore be performing an assassination.

And, like stated earlier, then EVERY major terrorist we have targeted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere - all assassinations. Bitch about one then bitch about all - being an American doesn't make it any more/less of an "assassination".

[fj1200]

By #2 in the definition, any drug dealer who conspires and plans to kill the competition, would therefore be performing an assassination.

And, like stated earlier, then EVERY major terrorist we have targeted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere - all assassinations. Bitch about one then bitch about all - being an American doesn't make it any more/less of an "assassination".

Except the "especially political or public figure" part. My definition would include state-sponsored but why quibble over a definition? Whatever you prefer to call it the issue is Awlaki is/was an American citizen.

[jimnyc]

Except the "especially political or public figure" part. My definition would include state-sponsored but why quibble over a definition? Whatever you prefer to call it the issue is Awlaki is/was an American citizen.

Right, it says "especially", which would infer it's not solely related to those 2, but widely used in that manner.

A citizen that chose to join a terrorist group and work to kill Americans and was further working to kill more Americans. He wanted to be a terrorist, so he was treated like one. And I do hope you're right, that this matter gets settle before the courts/congress/judicial, as quite frankly, I don't see too awful much support going to terrorists on foreign soil who are planning attacks, citizen or not.

[fj1200]

Right, it says "especially", which would infer it's not solely related to those 2, but widely used in that manner.

A citizen that chose to join a terrorist group and work to kill Americans and was further working to kill more Americans. He wanted to be a terrorist, so he was treated like one. And I do hope you're right, that this matter gets settle before the courts/congress/judicial, as quite frankly, I don't see too awful much support going to terrorists on foreign soil who are planning attacks, citizen or not.

Sure. That is primary in my mind but your drug dealer could be assassinating the leader of a rival gang. I'm pretty sure I've heard that used on the tough streets of CSI.

I have no love lost for Awlaki and he likely should have been taken out, it just needs to be done legally. I think an Article I court could do quite nicely here.

[jimnyc]

Sure. That is primary in my mind but your drug dealer could be assassinating the leader of a rival gang. I'm pretty sure I've heard that used on the tough streets of CSI.

I have no love lost for Awlaki and he likely should have been taken out, it just needs to be done legally. I think an Article I court could do quite nicely here.

Then we are in agreement. I think they should go forward and have this exact issue addressed, so there can be no argument next time. Until then, I'm not going to lose much sleep.

And I think it was NCIS, or NCIS:LA, I'm not a big fan of CSI.

[logroller]

Except the "especially political or public figure" part. My definition would include state-sponsored but why quibble over a definition? Whatever you prefer to call it the issue is Awlaki is/was an American citizen.

The court's reasoning for dismissal of Awlaki (whatever his name is) was interesting and made sense.

His father brought the suit, supposedly in his son's interest- but the court found that his son's actions didn't resemble the father's declaration of acting in his son's best interest. Quite the opposite in fact, and that he not only failed to avail himself of legal protection, but deriding US law and indicated he, as a Muslim, shall never be held to the standards of US law. So he can't reject wholly the laws of the US and coextensively expect their protection-- so in effect, he waived any right to declaratory relief under the US Constitution.

[fj1200]

... so in effect, he waived any right to declaratory relief under the US Constitution.

I don't recall the judge seeing it that way.

[logroller]

Ha

I don't recall the judge seeing it that way.

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.

[jimnyc]

The court's reasoning for dismissal of Awlaki (whatever his name is) was interesting and made sense.

His father brought the suit, supposedly in his son's interest- but the court found that his son's actions didn't resemble the father's declaration of acting in his son's best interest. Quite the opposite in fact, and that he not only failed to avail himself of legal protection, but deriding US law and indicated he, as a Muslim, shall never be held to the standards of US law. So he can't reject wholly the laws of the US and coextensively expect their protection-- so in effect, he waived any right to declaratory relief under the US Constitution.

Interesting. I hadn't read this yet. I'm going to look, but do you know where I can find the text of the decision?

[jimnyc]

One piece I just found on a dumb site, not the whole text though, but worth posting for discussion:

"Can a U.S. citizen – himself or through another – use the U.S. judicial system to vindicate his constitutional rights while simultaneously evading U.S. law enforcement authorities, calling for 'jihad against the West,' and engaging in operational planning for an organization that has already carried out numerous terrorist attacks against the United States?," Bates asked.

I can't wait until the courts truly address this issue. And even after they do, and if they give the OK on such instances as this with Alwaki, I'll bet 100-1 odds that "some people" will STILL bitch and STILL claim it to be unconstitutional.

[logroller]

Interesting. I hadn't read this yet. I'm going to look, but do you know where I can find the text of the decision?

Sorry just noticed your request
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2010cv1469-31