US Born Yemen mullah Anwar Awlaki now shovelling coal

[Ban Hammer 13,740]

I saw a show last night where the subject of the constitutionality of his assassination was raised. The government says it's legal. When asked under what authority, they can't comment because the authority is classified.

i wasn't aware there was a classified constitution

[Captain Oates 911]

That's been the issue since page one

Not if you look at the thread header but no mind - ok we agree on that and that suits me even better

..but now you really are stuck because you either discuss my previous post or you give in and agree it was lawful and constitutional

in the same way as Bonny and Clyde !

Edited October 1, 2011 by Alan the Red

[Ban Hammer 13,740]

What about Bonny and Clyde

US Citizens killed by an arm of government because they were threatening life and could not be safely arrested

Where is the difference between that and this guy ?

Would someone please tell me coz I do not get it

Why is this guy less deserving of a fatal response than Bonny and Clyde ? Why ?

I think he was very many more times more dangerous and more threatening to life than Bonny and Clyde.

Anyone care to disagree on this point ?

ps if anyone thinks these guys can be safely arrested, call the CIA because they have a contract for you

how many people did bonny and clyde kill?

And everyone else will see them for the garbage they really are. It's not a "Muslim thing" anymore than it's an ex military, gun owning guy thing as when Charles wrote he agreed with my first post. (sorry to pick on you again Charles, you secret Muslim you)

heck i'm a republican, what do i know?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.

The administration has faced a legal challenge and public criticism for targeting Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico, because of constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve, at least internally, a legal debate over whether a president can order the killing of U.S. citizens overseas as a counterterrorism measure.

The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.

A second American killed in Friday’s attack was Samir Khan, a driving force behind Inspire, the English-language magazine produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. An administration official said the CIA did not know Khan was with Aulaqi, but they also considered Khan a belligerent whose presence near the target would not have stopped the attack.

The circumstances of Khan’s death were reminiscent of a 2002 U.S. drone strike in Yemen that targeted Abu Ali al-Harithi, a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative accused of planning the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. That strike also killed a U.S. citizen who the CIA knew was in Harithi’s vehicle but who was a target of the attack.

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.

“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.

President Obama and various administration officials referred to Aulaqi publicly for the first time Friday as the “external operations” chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a label that may be intended to underscore his status as an operational leader who posed an imminent threat.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in national security law, said the government likely reviewed Aulaqi’s constitutional rights, but concluded that he was an imminent threat and was deliberately hiding in a place where neither the United States nor Yemen could realistically capture him.

Last year, the Obama administration invoked the state secrets privilege to argue successfully for the dismissal of a lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Washington by Aulaqi’s father, Nasser, seeking to block the targeting of his son. Judge John Bates found that in Aulaqi’s case, targeting was a “political question” to be decided by the executive branch.

The decision to place Aulaqi on a capture or kill list was made in early 2010, after intelligence officials concluded that he played a direct role in the plot to blow up a jet over Detroit and had become an operational figure within al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.

“If you are a dual national high in the Japanese operational group responsible for Pearl Harbor, you’re not exempt, and neither was” Aulaqi, the administration official said.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights argued on behalf of Aulaqi’s father last year that there is no “battlefield” in Yemen and that the administration should be forced to articulate publicly its legal standards for killing any citizen outside the United States who is suspected of terrorism.

Otherwise, the groups argued, such a killing would amount to an extrajudicial execution and would violate U.S. and international law.

“International human rights law dictates that you can’t unilaterally target someone and kill someone without that person posing an imminent threat to security interests,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The information that we have, from the government’s own press releases, is that he is somehow loosely connected, but there is no specific evidence of things he actualized that would meet the legal threshold for making this killing justifiable as a matter of human rights law.”

ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said that Aulaqi had been targeted for nearly two years and that the government would appear to have a very elastic definition of imminent threat.

The former senior intelligence official said the CIA did reviews every six months to ensure that those targeted for possible killing remained threats as defined by law and presidential findings.

The administration describes al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as an associated force of the original terrorist group that was led by Osama bin Laden until he was killed, making AQAP subject to congressionally authorized military force. Officials said Aulaqi was part of an enemy force and posed an ongoing, immediate danger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html

[Captain Oates 911]

how many people did bonny and clyde kill?

heck i'm a republican, what do i know?

Exactly ! This Mularky guy killed a lot - at Fort Hood alone ! and he wanted to kill you too Charles - and me - and her (collateral damage) - and all the mods on VJ and all the US Military !!!!

If Bonny and Clyde was constitutional then this guy was killed within the constitution to the power ^100 !!!

I cant believe I am a lone voice on here given what this guy was planning to do...

You cant give due process to a mountain lion when it has you by the throat - calling fish and wildlife dept isn't practical !

Edited October 1, 2011 by Alan the Red

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Exactly ! This Mularky guy killed a lot - at Fort Hood alone ! and he wanted to kill you too Charles - and me - and her (collateral damage) - and all the mods on VJ and all the US Military !!!!

If Bonny and Clyde was constitutional then this guy was killed within the constitution to the power ^100 !!!

I cant believe I am a lone voice on here given what this guy was planning to do...

You cant give due process to a mountain lion when it has you by the throat - calling fish and wildlife dept isn't practical !

He was at Fort Hood?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I haven't offered an opinion so far, wanting to give it some thought and research first. I believe it was constitutional under Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I don't know what process was used to attach the declaration of treason and consent from Congress, but that this is the controlling cite from the Constitution is pretty clear.

[skiptex 225]

He was at Fort Hood?

he "Simon Said" the FT Hood Shooter..

[Captain Oates 911]

He was at Fort Hood?

To be guilty of murder, conspiring/inciting it is EXACTLY the same as doing it.

Many people have been found guilty of murder in the US even though they were not present when the killing was done.

This guy was totally guilty of every killing at Fort Hood as he personally and explicitly incited it.

He is a murderer folks ? Get it ?

What a weird life this is - I spend half my time on VJ being accused of being anti-American, and now I stand up for the US, I get criticized for that too !

You guys are never satisfied

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I had said NOTHING one way or another before this post, yet, you still accuse me. If I did agree with you, it wouldn't be on the basis of "I didn't like that guy and I'm glad he's dead", like you. I'd look to law and precedent, coz that's my thang.

I think you're just stuck on, well . . .

..but now you really are stuck because you either discuss my previous post or you give in and agree it was lawful and constitutional

in the same way as Bonny and Clyde !

[Ban Hammer 13,740]

He was at Fort Hood?

apparently i was too....although last time i was there was in 94

[Captain Oates 911]

I had said NOTHING one way or another before this post, yet, you still accuse me. If I did agree with you, it wouldn't be on the basis of "I didn't like that guy and I'm glad he's dead", like you. I'd look to law and precedent, coz that's my thang.

I think you're just stuck on, well . . .

I have more background in criminal law than you (I bet) and I am telling you it is legal.

Its true I think he was an ugly pig with his crossed eyes and vagrant beard and his repulsive twisted idea of religion etc etc - but I put that to one side and consider the law and it was total legal - even in a local small town US setting - it would be legal

It was legal. Totally. I have given my reasons why I think it was and NOBODY has referred to my examples and tried to contradict me, except to suggest that inciting a specific murder from afar doesn't count as murder - which it does

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I doubt that; I've been advising lawyers for almost 30 years. Besides, I know this is not about criminal law, so I must know more than you.

I have more background in criminal law than you (I bet) and I am telling you it is legal.

Its true I think he was an ugly pig with his crossed eyes and vagrant beard and his repulsive twisted idea of religion etc etc - but I put that to one side and consider the law and it was total legal - even in a local small town US setting - it would be legal

It was legal. Totally. I have given my reasons why I think it was and NOBODY has referred to my examples and tried to contradict me, except to suggest that inciting a specific murder from afar doesn't count as murder - which it does

[Ban Hammer 13,740]

I have more background in criminal law than you (I bet) and I am telling you it is legal.

Its true I think he was an ugly pig with his crossed eyes and vagrant beard and his repulsive twisted idea of religion etc etc - but I put that to one side and consider the law and it was total legal - even in a local small town US setting - it would be legal

It was legal. Totally. I have given my reasons why I think it was and NOBODY has referred to my examples and tried to contradict me, except to suggest that inciting a specific murder from afar doesn't count as murder - which it does

does it not bother you that there's no checks and balances in this, no judicial review? no trial via the judicial system - just some secret memo via the executive branch to squash a usc?

[Captain Oates 911]

I doubt that; I've been advising lawyers for almost 30 years. Besides, I know this is not about criminal law, so I must know more than you.

What have you been advising them about, their mortgages or their furnishings ?

The constitution has no issues with police or other government agencies killing people in certain circumstances, whether the dead person is a USC or not. Police and the army kill USC's every week of the year with no constitutional issues

If you are saying that is incorrect, you are out of your depth

The circumstances must include the impracticability of due process due to circumstances and the imperative and immediate need to save threatened life - and that is demonstrably the case here.

If your understanding of the constitution and the law is different to that then you are just talking xxxxx talk