Holder: U.S. can lawfully target American citizens

[jimnyc]

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.

Since late 2009, al-Awlaki "has taken on an increasingly operational role in AQAP," said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in a statement filed in the court case in August. Awlaki, Clapper said, has recruited terrorists and planned and facilitated attacks in the United States and abroad. IPT News has reported many of Anwar al-Awlaki's terrorist connections, linking him to the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bomb plot, and the failed Times Square attack. "He has involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism—fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents," the U.S. government explained in designating him.

As important as the issues presented in this case are, Bates' opinion suggests he is unwilling to expand judicial access to an individual who has expressed no such interest. "Whatever the reason for Anwar al-Awlaki's failure to seek legal redress for his alleged inclusion on the CIA and JSOC 'kill lists' – a mistrust of or disdain for the American judicial system, a desire to become a martyr, or a mere lack of interest in pursuing a case thousands of miles away from his current location," the court refused to expand access to al-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

[Intense]

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.



http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010120...laki-suit.html

Agreed, the arguments are overwhelmingly compelling, and would have supported the action, had they been brought to light at the time.

[revelarts]

For some reason, reading you guys making excuses for the Gov't to assassinate Americans (or torture, or jail without trials or Spy without warrants) reminds me of this cartoon.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LyPFQKpRnd0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage">< param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LyPFQKpRnd0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

but makes sense of it any way you want , I'm not on the same planet as many of you. carry on.

[jimnyc]

The fact that this discussion reminds you of cartoons is very telling, and can explain a few things.

[fj1200]

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.

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

Not in awhile. Thanks for the link.

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.

[logroller]

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.

Was it the process which failed to protect his rights, or him? He rejected, wholly, the process by which his rights are protected under the Constitution. He wasn't killed merely for might do alone..he did orchestrate terror attacks, he did call for a Jihad on America-- so he was killed for what he might, and would, do again.
I understand what you're saying I think-- you're suggesting we should have granted him a trial in absentia, in stark contrast to his own interests and wishes. It seems to me he expressed his rightful intention to never be brought to justice while alive-- we granted his request. "I think that's what Awlaki wanted"

[fj1200]

Was it the process which failed to protect his rights, or him? He rejected, wholly, the process by which his rights are protected under the Constitution. He wasn't killed merely for might do alone..he did orchestrate terror attacks, he did call for a Jihad on America-- so he was killed for what he might, and would, do again.
I understand what you're saying I think-- you're suggesting we should have granted him a trial in absentia, in stark contrast to his own interests and wishes. It seems to me he expressed his rightful intention to never be brought to justice while alive-- we granted his request. "I think that's what Awlaki wanted"

To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished. The process surely didn't protect his rights, the Constitution is pretty clear IMO on how your rights are processed. They even have a special section for treason so it's not unreasonable that we can grant protections even to the most vile. He could have been prosecuted for what he did do and taken out for punishment and for what he might do. Again, Congress is at fail here because to this point they have not addressed this scenario which I believe is in their power. I actually think the Executive should be aggressive in carrying out their national security role but they have to be checked by the other two branches. I'm stunned that this is even a point of argument.

[logroller]

To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished.

IF law is to be considered just by perception alone, than i guess so.

Certainly prudence plays a part in the consideration; but from a purely subjective standpoint-- if you deny the enforcement of a law, you can't very well be afforded its protection-- Two-way street.

[fj1200]

IF law is to be considered just by perception alone, than i guess so.

fyi, I added to my post.

[logroller]

fyi, I added to my post.

ditto

[logroller]

To make the US look bad? Mission accomplished. The process surely didn't protect his rights, the Constitution is pretty clear IMO on how your rights are processed. They even have a special section for treason so it's not unreasonable that we can grant protections even to the most vile. He could have been prosecuted for what he did do and taken out for punishment and for what he might do. Again, Congress is at fail here because to this point they have not addressed this scenario which I believe is in their power. I actually think the Executive should be aggressive in carrying out their national security role but they have to be checked by the other two branches. I'm stunned that this is even a point of argument.

I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.

[fj1200]

ditto

Too-shay.

I agree, its tricky. As it begs reason as to what level of autonomy the executive must have to carry into force its Constitutional role. The Judicial branch is the monday morning qback really; their role is solely as a trier of fact, not propositional, some evidence of a wrong must exist, and (this is important) someone must bring such a claim-- as such, their ruling in the case I linked was justly dismissed.

Should Congress elaborate on the intent and extent of the power and process terrorists are brought to justice? Sure, of course they should. But you can't say the executive was wrong for having carried into force their own policy when Congress gave them broad reign over how to combat terror. However, laws can (and should) be adjusted to better fit their prescribed intent; so I don't think its reasonable for COngress to impose their, or the Justice Branch's, participation into the executive function-- separation of powers.

Constitutionally prescribed autonomy which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.

[logroller]

Too-shay.



Constitutionally prescribed autonomy which includes the powers that Congress subsequently gives them. The memo they used re: Awlaki was not written overnight and he was a problem for years iirc so there was likely ample time in which a bill could have been introduced in Congress and passed. And in this case there was evidence and there is someone to bring the claim, the dismissal on the father's case was administrative in a way, standing, and didn't speak to the facts and actions. I'll assume that it was decided correctly and that possibly the judiciary is not the forum in which to be tried.

I think in this case it's easy to say that the executive was wrong, because there is failure by Congress shouldn't absolve the POTUS. They haven't released the memo so it's hard to judge the basis for their actions; that's something else to have issue with.

No arguments on most of this.
Except I think the judiciary is the forum, pending Awlaki himself having expressed a willingness for the courts to redress his grievance. He did not; and I think it stands to reason he was aware of his right to do so. He chose not to, for whatever reasons; but regardless, I don't believe any procedural change (save Sharia law) would have compelled Awlaki to submit to the authority of the US Government. Thus, any changes based on the specifics of the case at hand are moot.