Quite the Islamic Terrorist Gall

[sirs]

They murder 3000+ american Civilians, and they're having issues about us targeting and killing their military leaders??
------------------------------------------

Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has confirmed the deaths of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the young American propagandist killed alongside him in a U.S. drone strike late last month.

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would find itself hard-pressed to claim the moral high ground in the debate over the killing of Awlaki and Khan.

But the killing of two U.S. citizens has prompted outrage among civil liberties groups, as well as a debate in legal circles about the basis for the administration's position.

The Washington Post’s Peter Finn reported after the strike that Awlaki’s killing had been authorized in a secret Justice Department memo, a revelation that later prompted senior Democratic senators and scholars to call for its release. Over the weekend, The New York Times quoted people who have read the document as saying that the memo found it would be lawful to kill the cleric only if it were not possible to take him alive. The memo, the Times said, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Awlaki’s case.

Among those who have raised legal objections to the strike: Samir Khan’s family in Charlotte, N.C.

In a statement, the family said that, Khan was a “law-abiding citizen of the United States” and “was never implicated of any crime.”

“Was this style of execution the only solution?” the family said. “Why couldn’t there have been a capture and trial?”

Khan’s relatives also described themselves as “appalled by the indifference shown to us by our government,” saying they had not been contacted by a U.S. official.

After the release of the statement, the Charlotte Observer reported, an official from the State Department called the family last week to offer the government’s condolences.

“They were very apologetic [for not calling the family sooner] and offered condolences,” Jibril Hough, a family spokesman, told the Observer.


Article

[Plane]

  You know something?


   This guy might have done well in a trial.
    With good lawyers, good luck with jury selection,the rights of a defendant in a US courtroom.
    The trial would have definately gone on for years , Gretta Van Sustern , Geraldo Rivera , court TV, no one would have heard anything less than his side of the story in full.
    And for the lack of some technicality he might have been aquitted.

     I bet his ghost feels dumb for fleeing and avoiding capture , effectively running from that bully pulpit and into the theater of war where drone fired missles were first made effective.

[BT]

Death sentences issued and carried out against American citizens by secret tribunals is always problematic to the letter and spirit of the constitution.

[Plane]

Death sentences issued and carried out against American citizens by secret tribunals is always problematic to the letter and spirit of the constitution.

Is there a secret tribunal?

I thought it was an executive order.

One of the things that Obama can still do that is popular.

Didn't the Consitution empower Congress to authorise Navy officers to try Pirates pretty much where they captured them and to use deadly force?

   I think I only partly agree with you , this is a power of Congress and Congress should not be shirking its work, including a thourough debate .

     But the conclusion of this process I would expect and approve would be to empower the President to empower commanders in the feild to shoot every fighter who isn't easily captured.

[BT]

Is there a secret tribunal?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

[Plane]

"....the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council...."

  This is still an executive order , not a tribunal really , more like the staff carrying out the order.

    Reinterateing; I partly agree with you this is a Congressional responsibility and Congresss is shirking the duty to discuss it in the public.

    But there is a Constitutional clause that deals with Pirates which does not require that trials be on US jurisdiction rather that military commanders can be empowered to make deadly decisions where needed .

    It is hard to imagine a better policy to follow.

[BT]

I think the 14th supersedes the piracy clause.

Nevertheless it was a popular though legally questionable execution.

It would be illegal for a commander of a swat team to order his charges to open fire on the God Hates Fags crowd as they protested his baby brothers military funeral and appeared to be waving their protest signs in a threatening manner.

I don't see where the President is above the same restrictions.

[Plane]

  I don't see how the 14th nullifys the earlyer clause without mentioning that it does.

   Conspiritors can be acessorys to murder just for knowing the plan and keeping the secret untill it happens.
    Can a guy that is begging a murder to happen not be a conspiritor?

     The popularity of the move makes a diffrence, if it isn't strictly leagal , it can be made so retroactively if it is quite enough popular.

      Obama has chosen not to capture nearly as many Al Queda fighters and leaders as Bush did, this seems like a popular decision and is perhaps his best acheivement that will realy stick.

      The alternatives are to fight less and accept that Al Quieda be given rebuilding time  or fight more and continue to reduce Al Queda untill its back is truely broken.

      I think these are the two choices and all other choices are detail parts of these two.

[BT]

This is the text of the 19th amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Could you show me the part that specifically mentions that it is changing eligibility to vote laws.

[Michael Tee]

For anyone who was wondering, here is the Fifth Amendment in full:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


That this President - - a former teacher of law - - thinks that he can absolve himself of his oath to defend the Constitution by getting a favourable legal opinion - - is both an absurdity and an obscenity.  It's as pathetic and ludicrous as Bush and Cheney covering their own asses with a legal memo from John Yoo.  None of these "legal opinions" has ever been tested in a real court of law, the true arbiter of what is legal or not, not the President's lawyers on the Government's payroll.

The absurdity of this approach just boggles the mind.  On this basis, I could find some fucking shyster, pay him enough money, and get a "legal opinion" from him in writing that it's OK for me to beat my wife and kids, rob the local convenience store whenever I need money and burn down my neighbour's home.  In the real world, I would be arrested immediately, charged, convicted and sentenced and so would the fucking shyster, as an accessory or accomplice.  But it seems that in America, your Presidents (and their shysters) are above the law.  Sorry to say, it has not always been that way.

[BT]

Yeah the al-Awlaki  executions are definitely in a gray area of the law.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yeah the al-Awlaki  executions are definitely in a gray area of the law. >>

Sorry, I don't see any gray here at all.  It's black and white.  The Fifth couldn't be clearer.  "Due process" had to mean presentation of detailed charges, the opportunity to present a full defence before an impartial judge, verdict with reasons and appeal process.

A memo from a bureaucrat and a Presidential stamp of approval?  Ludicrous.

[BT]

<<Yeah the al-Awlaki  executions are definitely in a gray area of the law. >>

Sorry, I don't see any gray here at all.  It's black and white.  The Fifth couldn't be clearer.  "Due process" had to mean presentation of detailed charges, the opportunity to present a full defence before an impartial judge, verdict with reasons and appeal process.

A memo from a bureaucrat and a Presidential stamp of approval?  Ludicrous.

The gray area is in the presidents authority to wage war as well as the congressional authorization to wage same.

[Michael Tee]

Well, then let him submit it to a court of law.  Personally I don't think any court in the world would torture this assassination into the "waging of a war."  There was no battlefield, there is no war with Yemen, officially Yemen is friendly to the USA and receives assistance from it, there was no imminent threat to US troops posed by the victim, no weapons being visibly transported . . .

How this can be termed "waging war" is baffling.  The ramifications of this are mind-boggling.  What if it's part of the "War on Drugs?"  Who is immune from execution by Presidential fiat if the prez first covers his ass by announcing a "war on _____" and then proceeds to kill "the enemy" through a process of memos and drones?

I've always had a problem with the concept of "war on terror."  How can one be at war with a tactic ("terrorism?")  How is the law of warfare to be interpreted when there is no national enemy, no enemy boundaries, no enemy uniform, no enemy flag, no enemy capital city . . . ?  Basically the way I see it, the U.S. was attacked by what can only be described as a criminal gang, citizens of nowhere, living all over the world and they should have been hunted down like any other common criminals.  Bush chose to call this a "war" to give him certain freedom of action and absolve himself of the obligations of the laws of war.  Bad move.

[BT]

I don't think they were too concerned about taking Yamimoto out over the Pacific Ocean, so your territory condition doesn't seem to apply. And i don't believe he was convicted of anything prior to his demise.

Why should al-Alwaki be any different.

Like i said, it's a gray area and one i'm not comfortable with. I think it sets dangerous precedent, even though i agree with the reasoning for the attack and applaud the results.

to my understanding al-Alwaki advised other to commit terrorism, but did not kill anyone himself. Which makes him kinda like Charlie Manson and the Underwear Bomber Squeaky Fromme. And he isn't on death row.

Updated: But as Plane pointed out if al-Alwaki wasn't an international fugitive, he could have availed himself of his civil protections, instead of placing himself in the position of being "shot while escaping".

See John Paul Knowles.