Obama panel can put Americans on 'kill list'

[imschur]

Interesting. 

I have no problem with taking out bad guys foreign or domestic. I do have a problem with these assholes deciding to kill Americans privately amongst themselves with no tracability and accountability. Today it's an American born terrorist in 20 years is it the President of the NRA or even you and I for that matter? This is ripe for abuse to further agenda's and careers.

I say put it out there publicy.  Mr/Mrs Jon Doe we a cross section of American citizens find you guilty of "X crimes against America" if you feel you are innocent turn yourself in for due process. If we do not hear from you within 30 days the USA of A revokes your right to citizenship and life in general, your ass is grass.

What do you guys think?

[MaDuce]

I think that what goes around, comes around. What it all really comes down to is that we (both liberal and conservative) want to stomp rights we don't like, while crying about others stomping the rights we do.

The very diversity and division created by this behavior leaves the door wide open for tyrants to take over.

In a nutshell, all the bad things that are happening to us are well deserved nemesis that we ourselves created.

[edgecrusher]

i agree with drew, make it a public ultimatum, but we all know how some people like power and will have a hard time relinquishing any power they can accrue

[98Z5V]

This is deep, deep, deep stuff, and I think alot of that news article was based on speculation and not fact.

From me, on this one, "No Comment."    Just can't say it...

[imschur]

This is deep, deep, deep stuff, and I think alot of that news article was based on speculation and not fact.

From me, on this one, "No Comment."    Just can't say it...

<laughs>

[Robocop1051]

You guys act like this is a new concept. The CIA and NSA have been doing this stuff for years. They have made movies and written books about this since the dawn of time.

Oh-bamma was just dumb enough to get caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

[imschur]

You guys act like this is a new concept. The CIA and NSA have been doing this stuff for years. They have made movies and written books about this since the dawn of time.

Oh-bamma was just dumb enough to get caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

Exactly!!!! I dont want THAT office making the choices. I prefer to leave these decisions to people with brains.

In hindsight I over complicated how it should be handled.  ;D

[MajorJim]

Just to run a few things down:  there is an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, state laws against murder, due process and right to trial protections in the Bill of Rights and international laws of war that apply. 

But if you get a memo, all is good.  There was a memo, which has not been released.  Reports from those who have seen it indicate that the legal analysis reached the conclusion that Awlaki could be legally killed, (i) if it was not feasible to capture him, (ii) because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in a war with the US (not declared) and "posed a significant threat to Americans", and (iii) because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him. 

The "memo" focused on subjective factors and sounds like it was a tad short of providing a list of objective factors as support.

Despite the spin stating that this will not be used as precedent and that this was a "one time" deal, I for one do not find a lot of comfort in that.  What happens if an administration concludes that an individual is "at war" with the US based on reports by "intelligence sources" and that the individual "poses a significant threat to Americans", and that the authorities are unable to stop this person.  Since capturing the person is not "feasible", it is A OK to kill. 

I have no problem with killing the enemy in a time of war.  But Awalki was not near any battlefield, and was not even present in a country where we are engaged in armed conflict. 

It might have been easier to swallow if they said Awalki had effectively renounced his US citizenship and forfeited his rights as a US citizen.  And crafted some legal analysis around the fact that he permanently left the US and focused on his links to Al Qaeda that he was part of their command structure.  Something other than he is an enemy of the state who is too hard to catch, and, in the estimation of unnamed sources, poses a danger to US citizens.  I for one don't take a lot of confort in who is making those determinations, particularly when the Director of Homeland Security believes "right wing extremists" are the same as terroritsts, and goes on to define right wing extremists to include verterans, those who support the US Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the Second Amendment to the Constitution, immigration enforcement advocates, Christians, and basically anyone who is conservative in their political views. 

The subjectivity in the reasoning for taking out Awalki gives the people who control the definitions virtually unlimited authority.  I have no problem taking out a bad guy.  I do have a problem with being unable to come up with an objective and rational reason for doing so in light of  domestic and international laws making it illegal. 

[98Z5V]

Major Jim - there's a few things in your post that I don't agree with, or are not accurate.  I'll leave it at that, 'cause I'm not here to argue. 

[MajorJim]

Here is the report I referenced above. 

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Since the "memo" has not been released, I cannot link to that and can only reference what has been reported about its contents. 

The point being made was that without some objective guidance, those in charge of subjectively determining just what is a threat, when someone can't be found and stopped or caught, and just what rises to the level of being "at war" with the US, have a trump card in voiding the Constitution. 

This Administration wantted to try Al Qadea detainees in a US court because justice demanded it.  They were not US citizens, and were captured in connection with Combat operations or proven to have had direct involvement in terrorist attacks against the US (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). 

While the Administration seems to have relented, Mohammed and others will still get a military trial and a right to due process under the UCMJ. 

The concern is the precedent set.  Just what happens once you put a foot on that slippery slope? 

[CMAN]

I have to agree with Jim on this. This is a very slippery slope and will only get worse over time. It seems as soon as a precedent is set it is abused by those in authority.

[BR-549]

I have to agree with Jim on this. This is a very slippery slope and will only get worse over time. It seems as soon as a precedent is set it is abused by those in authority.

+1

"This great danger that hovers over America is unrecognized by the majority of the people. When Obama announced before a military gathering his success in assassinating an American citizen, cheers erupted. The Obama regime and the media played the event as a repeat of the (claimed) killing of Osama bin Laden. Two “enemies of the people” have been triumphantly dispatched. That the President of the United States was proudly proclaiming to a cheering audience sworn to defend the Constitution that he was a murderer and that he had also assassinated the US Constitution is extraordinary evidence that Americans are incapable of recognizing the threat to their liberty."

"Instead of seeing the danger, most Americans will merely conclude that the government is getting tough on terrorists, and it will meet with their approval. Smiling with satisfaction over the demise of their enemies, Americans are being led down the garden path to rule by government unrestrained by law and armed with the weapons of the medieval dungeon."

"What do Americans think will be their fate now that the “war on terror” has destroyed the protection once afforded them by the US Constitution? If Awlaki really needed to be assassinated, why did not President Obama protect American citizens from the precedent that their deaths can be ordered without due process of law by first stripping Awlaki of his US citizenship? If the government can strip Awlaki of his life, it certainly can strip him of citizenship. The implication is hard to avoid that the executive branch desires the power to terminate citizens without due process of law."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26896

[98Z5V]

I think the news media has intentionally put the "American citizen" part of this "targetting" directly into the spotlight.  That has alot of Americans either shocked, or just plain freaked out so bad that they don't know whether they've been shot, fucked, powder-burned or snake bit.

Read into al-Awlaki's "US Citizenship" a little bit before jumping to the conclusion that he was just like "Mike Smith," generations-old American that was in your second grade class - this guy wasn't like that.  He's Yemeni by blood, completely, and was simply born here, of Yemeni parents (100%).  We'd be in an uproar if he was a Mexican Anchor-Baby - they're born here, within these borders, of Hispanic parents, citizens of Mexico, and not legally in this country (that's what Anchor Babies are).  So, his parents were here legally, but were not US Citizens when he was born here.

al-Awlaki was involved in:

* Al-Awlaki was born in 1971 in the United States. In 1978, when he was seven years old, he and his family returned to Yemen. He then lived in Yemen for 11 years, and studied at Azal Modern School.

* Al-Awlaki returned to the U.S state of Colorado in 1991 to attend college. He earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University (1994), where he was President of the Muslim Student Association.

* He attended the university on a foreign student visa and a government scholarship from Yemen, apparently by claiming to be born in that country, according to a former U.S. security agent.

* He spent a summer of his college years training with the Afghan mujahideen.

* Al-Awlaki was called an Islamic fundamentalist, and accused of encouraging terrorism.

* He developed animosity towards the U.S. and became a proponent of Takfiri and Jihadi thinking, while retaining Islamism, according to one research paper.

* While imprisoned in Yemen, al-Awlaki became influenced by the works of Sayyid Qutb, an originator of the contemporary "anti-Western Jihadist movement". He would read 150–200 pages a day of Qutb's works. He described himself as "so immersed with the author I would feel Sayyid was with me in my cell speaking to me directly".

* He was noted for attracting young men with his lectures, especially U.S.-based and UK-based Muslims.

* Terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann calls al-Awlaki "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approach are a powerful combination." He calls al-Awlaki's lecture "Constants on the Path of Jihad", which he says was based on a similar document written by al-Qaeda's founder, the "virtual bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists".

* Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers, alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab; he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

* The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".

* According to U.S. officials, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda in 2009.

That's not all the stuff on this guy, but let me ask you all something - does that sound like a "US Citizen" to you?  Really?  Or, does that sound like a fucking terrorist?

"Former US Citizen" would have been the very best way for the news media to describe this shitbag.  He was killed in Yemen, and was being tried by his own country... Hmmm.  As far as being in a country that we're not at war with - well, the War on Terrorism isn't against a country.  We weren't at war with Afghanistan when we went after Bin Laden in October of 2001.  We weren't at war with Pakistan, when we got him this year.  This isn't about a country...

Formulate your own opinions about the "validity" of this guy's US Citizenship.  Whatever.  Jump on the media bandwagon about the "targetting of US Citizens."  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and they can voice it - just do your own research, instead of following the poop that's put out through "news outlets" - that's sensationalism and ratings, at best.

I'm off this soapbox - it's up to you guys to decide how to think.

[MajorJim]

"Former US Citizen" would have been the very best way for the news media to describe this shitbag.  He was killed in Yemen, and was being tried by his own country... Hmmm.  As far as being in a country that we're not at war with - well, the War on Terrorism isn't against a country.  We weren't at war with Afghanistan when we went after Bin Laden in October of 2001.  We weren't at war with Pakistan, when we got him this year.  This isn't about a country...

But that is a very important point - he was not stripped of his citizenship and remained a US citizen.  I am very familiar with what this shitbag did in the past.  However, the analysis the Administration did to justify this did not argue for his loss of citizenship or use that as a factor.  And that is a very important factor.

Instead, they argues that because he presented a "threat" and that he was too hard to catch, we could skip the arrest and trial and go to execution - all without due process guaranteed to US citizens under the Constitution.  Even the detainees at GITMO are getting trials.  We tried Nazi brass at Nuremburg.  The reason a trail is important is that you have an impartial third party evaluating the evidence in a setting designed to guarantee due process rights.  He's too hard to catch?  Try him in abstentia.  That has been done before.  Or at least make a pretense for revoking his citizenship before ordering the guy killed.

Like any new power found by the government, once the door is opened there is no going back.  And with any new toy, the limits of that new found power will be pushed.  Just what will stop this precedent form being applied domestically?  Or having the definition of "threat" expanded to include those whose political ideology conflicts with yours? 

You have given the Executive Branch of government absolute power here, without the ability to subject it to the checks and balances of either the legislative or juducial branches.  That certainly is not consistent with the protections under the separation of powers provisions in the Constitution. 

The Constitution is not some ala carte menu to pick and choose from; it is not like the Pirate Code - "guidelines, really".  It is the North Star of government that has guided us for over 200 years.  Abandon the Constitution and we lose our sense of direction.  Once the nation loses its bearings, all bets are off as to where we are led, or where we end up.   

[BR-549]

Like any new power found by the government, once the door is opened there is no going back.  And with any new toy, the limits of that new found power will be pushed.  Just what will stop this precedent form being applied domestically?  Or having the definition of "threat" expanded to include those whose political ideology conflicts with yours? 

You have given the Executive Branch of government absolute power here, without the ability to subject it to the checks and balances of either the legislative or juducial branches.  That certainly is not consistent with the protections under the separation of powers provisions in the Constitution. 

Spot on observation Jim...... This action, plus all the executive orders signed into law by past presidents, leaves the door wide open for someone to come in and establish a dictatorship and there is nothing we can do about it short of revolting.

  The Constitution is not some ala carte menu to pick and choose from; it is not like the Pirate Code - "guidelines, really".  It is the North Star of government that has guided us for over 200 years.  Abandon the Constitution and we lose our sense of direction.  Once the nation loses its bearings, all bets are off as to where we are led, or where we end up.   

This is what PATRIOTISM is all about!  <thumbsup>

Without the protections set in place by the Constitution, and allowing this incident to set precedence, by utilizing my God given right of free speech and assembly I could get "wacked" or rendition ed away to Gitmo for disagreeing or protesting against our beloved establishment.  8)

Did the CIA asset al-Awlaki deserve to die? Probably so, but let's not allow the fabric of our society to become meaningless in the process.

[imschur]

Ive decided to lock this thread. We have enough serious stuff to contend with elsewhere.

Lets keep this place light and fun.