In a First, U.S. Acknowledges Drones Killing 4 Americans

[Stuart G]

Source: New York Times

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: May 22, 2013
4:30 pm Eastern

WASHINGTON — One day before President Obama is due to deliver a major speech on national security, his administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged that the United States had killed four American citizens in drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan.

In a letter to Congressional leaders obtained by The New York Times, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. disclosed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was killed in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen.

The American responsibility for Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration had until now refused to confirm or deny it.

The letter also said that the United States had killed three other Americans: Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike; Mr. Awlaki’s son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was also killed in Yemen; and Jude Mohammed, who was killed in a strike in Pakistan. “These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?hp

[graham4anything]

1. One of the biggest and most brutal terrorists there was.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. Who?

[graham4anything]

3. triple a

[Maedhros]

8. There is no evidence that al-Awlaki was a "terrorist"

He wasn't charged with any crimes. When asked to provide evidence of his involvement in possible crimes, the government has decline to do so citing national security concerns.

The only thing al-Awlaki engaged in was inflammatory anti-American rhetoric. This is protected speech (cf. Brandenburger v. Ohio).

To outright state that al-Awlaki was "one of the biggest and most brutal terrorists there was" is to simply repeat propaganda.

If the government assassinates a U.S. citizen, then it must provide the rationale behind the decision to do so and back up that rationale with real evidence. The government has not done this.

[geek tragedy]

13. There is plenty of evidence out there

that AAA was involved in the planning and execution of terrorist attacks, including testimony at the trials of captured terrorists.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. That is called "hearsay"

Are you now willing to allow hearsay evidence to be used against you in a any court proceeding, never mind one where you life is at stake?

[geek tragedy]

25. Court testimony is not hearsay by definition.

The person said there was "no evidence" that AAA was involved in terrorism. That assertion is blatantly false.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Court testimony is not admissable in another case unless

stipulated to by the defense, or the witnesses testifying are available for cross.

Also, how was the testimony obtained? During torture and other war crimes?

Again, you are taking the word of agencies who have KNOWINGLY and PUBLICLY LIED about the actions of foreign nationals and governments, and yet you think we should kill some one on their say so?

[geek tragedy]

32. Are you alleging that the underwear bomber

was tortured?

Or the cargo plane defendants in the UK?

Because both of them pointed their fingers at AAA.

By your standard, there's no evidence anyone conducted the 9.11 attacks since no one stood trial for them and was convicted.

Court proceedings and rules of evidence are relevant to punitive proceedings, not actions designed to prevent the action from occurring in the first place.

[Kelvin Mace]

44. They were NEVER placed in the stand

in a trial against AAA to present their evidence, so their evidence is hearsay, and sure as hell is not sufficient to murder someone.

If their case was so compelling, they would have made it completely public. The entire decision making process about what legal justification was cited to kill the man is "classified".

So you are fine with "secret" evidence and "secret" judicial rulings?

[geek tragedy]

51. You're confused on both the definition of hearsay

and what law governs the use of force in armed conflict where the goal is to prevent armed attacks.

1) Testimony is testimony. There was no trial for AAA (because he fled the legal authorities and refused to stand trial) so "they were never placed on the stand at his trial" is a silly statement.

They testified at their own trial about statements made and actions taken in their presence.

THAT IS EVIDENCE to any rational person seeking to determine what facts exist.

2) In dealing with an enemy engaged in armed attacks against the US, the use of force as a preventive measure is not governed by criminal justice protections. The goal is not to punish, but to prevent future attacks.

Obviously, if AAA was in custody there would have been no need to kill him. But, he chose to hide out in tribal Yemen, leaving the options (a) kill him or (b) leave him alone to do whateverthefuckhewants.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Again, bin Laden was afforded more due process than AAA

yet the situations were quite similar.

Again, where is your evidence? If I were the underwear bomber I would sure as hell finger anyone they asked me to in exchange for better conditions in prison, if not a lighter sentence. That's what we learn during a cross-examination, what inducements were offered for testimony and how credible the witnesses are.

People falsely accuse other people every day in the judicial system at the behest of prosecutors. And yet, you are prepared to take the word of corrupt agencies with a history of lying as primo evidence to end a person's life.

Dude, I seriously hope you are never subject to your own legal standards of justice.

[geek tragedy]

54. You're free to stick your head in the sand

and pretend there's no factual basis for AAA's participation in terrorist attacks.

But, the rest of us tend to take notice of the world around us, and do not insist that every fact from the existence of Al Qaeda to the shape of the earth be proven in a jury trial first.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/28/uk.terror.verdict/index.html

A key part of the prosecution case was a series of heavily encrypted messages between al-Awlaki and Karim, in which al-Awlaki pressed for information about Karim's job and his knowledge of airport security.

"I pray that Allah may grant us a breakthrough through you ... can you please specify your role in the airline industry, how much access do you have to airports, what information do you have on the limitations and cracks in present airport security systems?"

Karim replied: "The kuffar (a derogatory term for non-Muslims) are planning to install full body scanners across UK airports. This allows them to see things under clothes."

But he warned al-Awlaki to be realistic: "You are probably hoping that I work at the airport, but the fact is I don't. I personally know two brothers, one who works in baggage handling at Heathrow and another who works in airport security. Both are good practising brothers and sympathize towards the cause of the mujahedeen."

Replying, al-Awlaki got straight to the point:

"Our highest priority is the U.S. Anything there, even on a smaller scale compared to what we may do in the UK, would be our choice. So the question is: with the people you have is it possible to get a package or person with a package on board a flight heading to the U.S.?"

yes, yes, I know what you'll say--that lawfully introduced and authenticated evidence is fake because yada yada yada freedom.

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Once againing

there was plenty of evidence to arrest, try and probably convict AAA. We chose instead to simply disregard our own rules, and kill him, killing other people in the process whose only known crime would be existing within shrapnel range of AAA when the missile arrived.

As long as we keep breaking our own rules, disregarding people's rights for the sake of expediency and convenience, we will keep breeding terrorists who will feel they have nothing to lose and want to take as many of us with them as possible.

Either due process applies to every citizen, or it applies to no citizen. If the latter, then we are no better than the terrrorists we kill.

[geek tragedy]

75. Arrest wasn't an option, as he was a fugitive from the Yemeni authorities

and beyond their reach.

There was not going to be a trial either way--it was kill him or leave him alone.

[MNBrewer]

29. No, not by definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

[geek tragedy]

34. If someone testifies that "AAA told me to

detonate the plane over US territory" or "AAA arranged for me to attend a terrorist training camp" that is testimony, not an out of court statement.

[Maedhros]

43. If there was evidence of a crime

then you apprehend the suspect and try them in a court of law. The Constitution does not allow for summary judgement and execution.

The AUMF does not allow an exception in this case because it only provides remedy against those individuals and organizations that were involved in the 9/11 attacks - which al-Awlaki, the government of Yemen and the organization that became AQAP were not.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Excellent point

But even if it did, the Constitution is quite plain about exceptions to the rules: "war or insurrection". The AUMF was NOT a declaration of war.

[geek tragedy]

48. The al-Qaeda franchise in the Yemen area has been engaged

in armed conflict with the United States since at the very latest October 12, 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

[Recursion]

72. Yeah, you just walk through the AQ-held area of Yemen, which is engaged in a civil war...

... in addition to being engaged in an active war with the US Military for over a decade and a half now, and arrest him. It's really that simple.

[telclaven]

80. It's called a state of war

Not a state of criminal proceedings.

We didn't arrest American Germans serving in the Nazi military either. They were shot, bombed, mortared, and bayoneted if they weren't smart or fast enough to surrender.

[Heywood J]

82. No, you're right, Nazis weren't arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

[telclaven]

86. And this has what to do with anything?

You've linked to a wiki article about a post-war operation. Post-war, as in, after hostilities. You know, the part where people aren't shooting at each other? No active participation or support of combat.

Or is this just some kind of diversionary, internet argument style thing?

[24601]

60. Not to be mean here but court testimony can indeed be hearsay. Most of the time, hearsay

isn't admissible; however, there are exceptions. Probably the most well-known are dying declarations statements against interest.

Here's a link to a summary regarding hearsay in the federal rules of evidence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inadmissible+as+Hearsay

[Recursion]

73. The first sentence says "A statement made out of court..."

The purpose of the hearsay rule is to exclude unsworn/unaffirmed testimony that can't be cross-examined.

Person A testifying that Person B told him to do something is not hearsay.

Person A testifying that Person B told him that Person C did something is hearsay.

[24601]

85. Did you follow the link and read the federal rules of evidence? One of the exceptions is to allow

court testimony from previous trials. By definition, those statements would have been court testimony.

But in the broader sense, the exceptions allow hearsay to be introduced as court testimony - it's just that the person making the testimony is not the original speaker of the words.

[hughee99]

59. That's probably why the government didn't say he was a target.

That way, they can just pretend that it was a coincidence and not have to provide any rationale.

[another_liberal]

4. Really?

I'd say George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, a number of other politicians and more than a few American Generals make Anwar al-Awlaki look like a piker when it comes to murderous terror against innocent civilians.

We are not "The Good Guys." Our terrorists count too.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Absolutely. Thanks for saying it. n/t

[AndyA]

6. Thank you!

That's what I was thinking as well. A lot of innocent people have lost their lives due to the wars they told lies to start.

[cstanleytech]

7. But that doesnt answer the real question of

what to do with people like Anwar al-Awlaki in the future? Because lets face it their will be other cases like his.
Usually I would say arrest them and put them on trial but how do you do that if if they hiding in a country that cannot or will not extradite them? Do we start just invading those other nations in order to arrest them and stop them or do we just allow them to continue with what they are doing or do we hope that they might someday in the future slip up and be arrested in a country that will extradite them?

[another_liberal]

12. No one suspected of a crime should be killed outright, unless he is violently resisting.

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)

That should go for terror suspects as well. If not, we are nothing but lawless, murdering thugs ourselves.

Even in a purely practical sense, it's how we should always handle such cases. Imagine how much we could have learned from bin Laden if he had been taken alive! Who knows the people he might have rolled over on? In fact, maybe that's actually why he was shot on sight.

[cstanleytech]

20. Oh I agree and

as I said I am in favor of trials and in a perfect world every case should be handled via a judge and jury but what do you do when you have situations like this one in the future when they arent where they can be arrested to be brought before a judge and a jury?

[DCBob]

22. One could argue these individuals were violently resisting..

just not in the classic sense of a war or in a criminal pursuit. Their violence is in the planning and preparing and then eventually executing their attacks.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. So are you OK

with the police gunning down innocent people just to get at a person accused of a crime? Do the police get to say, well, we weren't shooting at them so it's all hunk dory? Because that is what Holder is claiming is legal.

[DCBob]

33. who said these others were innocent?

just because they werent targeted doesnt mean they werent involved with AAA and his operations.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. That is your standard of evidence for summary execution?

What someone claims?

Ten plus years, a trillion dollars, hundreds or thousands dead and maimed and we have learned nothing about simply believing what people tell us?

[DCBob]

38. summary?? I think they had a great deal of evidence on this guy.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. What is this evidence you speak of?

Please share it with us.

Under what circumstances was the evidence obtained?

When I look into the "evidence" all I get is a lot of hearsay testimony without the benefit of cross-examination, confessions obtained under dubious conditions and a lot of REALLY convincing evidence that they really wish they could let us see, but damn, wouldn't ya know, it's classified.

[another_liberal]

61. Well said!

I agree completely.

[woo me with science]

95. Thank you.

[DirkGently]

55. Yeah. Guilty until proven innocent. That's the ticket.

And of course even Holder isn't claiming the two non-targeted Americans were even suspected of anything.

[another_liberal]

62. It was the car we were attacking.

We can't help that people were in that car (he might have added). That car was a "known" terrorist asset and had to be destroyed. (ahem)

[another_liberal]

63. Suspicion of "planning and preparing" is more like it.

Suspicion alone never justifies summary execution? Nothing, in fact, justifies summary execution.

[bvar22]

14. What do we do?

We sit.
We watch.
We listen.
We gather evidence.
We wait.

It is estimated that Stalin executed over 20 million "Traitors to the Revolution".
How do we know they were "traitors"?
Because Stalin told us so.

The Constitution does NOT "Grant us our Rights".
It places restrictions on our government,
and some of those restrictions are being exceeded.

Our Constitution no only protects our inalienable rights,
it also confers certain responsibilities on our citizens.
One of these responsibilities is to OverSee our government.
If our government is executing people in secret,
it is impossible for me to fulfill MY responsibilities as a citizen.

It is MY responsibility to:
*Attend the Public Trials

*Hear the Government's case

*View the evidence

*Hear the Defense

*Decide whether the Government has acted properly

It is not just my RIGHT to hear the case against Mr. Awlaki.
It is my responsibility.
Our current government has far exceeded its authority.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. Exceptionally well stated.

[woo me with science]

94. Thank you. nt

[7962]

98. Comparing Obama to Stalin is ridiculous.

With that logic, Obama would have been executing all the tea party groups, talk radio and everyone at fox news. Along with their families and he towns they lived in. Come on, folks, keep your eye on the ball here.

[bvar22]

105. Claiming the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, at any time...

...on "secret" evidence, on "suspicion", without due process, review, or oversight
IS a valid comparison.

The principle is exactly the same.
Are you really going to argue that it is a matter of degree?
Would you have objected if I had used a lesser know Banana Republic dictator who has only executed a few thousand?

How many human beings do I have to kill before it can be considered murder?
Does it matter that there are those who have killed more than me?
Would a judge & jury find me innocent based on the fact that others have killed more than me?

[DirkGently]

100. All the "standards" in the world mean nothing, applied in secret. (nt)

[Kelvin Mace]

23. What do we do NOW

when a murderer hides in another country. We pressure the hell out of the sponsoring country to extradite him. And when they do, we put him on trial.

You know, people would be a lot less inclined to commit terrorist acts if the U.S. would refrain from terrorist acts, war crimes and illegal wars.

[bvar22]

66. Exceptionally Well Stated!

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. Would you approve a drone strike on them, then? nt

[another_liberal]

10. I don't like drone attacks on anyone when we are not at war.

It will, however, be to our country's lasting shame if at least the people I have named are not tried and punished for what they did. What they did, it should be noted, in our name.

[cstanleytech]

16. If I was president?

I just dont know.
Would you?

[Kelvin Mace]

24. Nope, because I believe in due process and the rule of law.

Once you adopt a monster's tactics, you are a monster.

[cstanleytech]

30. Except the problem here is the discussion is how to deal with those who

are evading being arrested in another country either by hiding in a country so well as to be undetected and or there are those in that other countries government is providing them assistance in hiding.
Due process is well and good Kelvin but in our world we are facing exactly this problem.
But let me ask you since we have seen Obamas answer on how to deal with it so how would you handle it if you were the president? Call for a military and or economic embargo on those nations until they arrest and hand the people over for trial?
Send the military in?

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Follow the RULE OF LAW

I don't know how I can make it simpler.

If we had followed the RULE OF LAW, we would never have backed various deranged dictators, who then murdered their citizens, who then had to be propped up with more American money and weapons.

How did bin Laden come by his military and terrorist training? Courtesy of Uncle Sam when he was part of the Mujahadeem fighting the Soviets. How did Saddam Hussein come to power? A little help from the CIA, as did Pinochet and dozens of others.

We keep getting into these situations because we keep breaking our own laws to murder people, who are mad at us for murdering them.

[cstanleytech]

46. Yes, in hindsight alot of things could and should have been handled differently

but its clear that we cannot change the past just like its clear that you keep avoiding the question.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. No, I answered the question.

You follow the RULE OF LAW. You attempt to extradite him by legal means. If the country shielding him is going to allow him to plot criminal/military actions against the U.S., then they run the risks inherent with that position. But, if I follow the RULE OF LAW today, the problem doesn't continue into the future. You deprive the criminals of the moral high ground.

Again, I point out that Osama bin Laden, who is NOT a U.S. citizen, was afforded legal due process DENIED to AAA, who IS.

[cstanleytech]

57. Rule of law also states that the police can use deadly force.

Not that I agree with it but just pointing out if we use the rule of law like you have now defined then it apparently was ok to use drones like this to remove an active threat.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. Hardly the situation his own observation

here. In that instance the police officer has the power to make the decision based upon his own observations. He would not be allowed to use deadly force based on someone else's say so. He could just open fire on a building based upon being told a bad guy is inside.

[bvar22]

69. Oh, I see what your problem is.

You believe in our Constitution, Due Process, and Rule of LAW!!!
LOL!
What a hopelessly outdated approach.
We threw that old rag out 12 years ago,
along with the Magna Carta.

Just because Bill Clinton caught ALL of the terrorists responsible for the 1st WTC Bombing,
put them on Public Trial,
convicted and jailed them without shitting on the Constitution,
(or invading a country or killing a single innocent civilian)
doesn't mean we can do that NOW.

9-11, 9-11 Booga...booga...booga.
We gotta get them before they get us, don'tcha know.
To defeat them, we must become them

[font size=3]We must destroy the Constitution to save our Democracy![/font]

I am still stunned that ANYONE here is attempting to defend the indefensible.

[telclaven]

81. Oh Dear God, not this again!

How did bin Laden come by his military and terrorist training? Courtesy of Uncle Sam when he was part of the Mujahadeem fighting the Soviets.

bin Laden had nothing to do with the US support to the Afghan Muj. The very term Al Qaeda means "The Base". bin Laden set up his own, parallel logistics system because he felt US support to Afghanistan was wrong. He never was supported, supplied, or dealt with by US enablers. AQ was (initially) a group of about 200 Arabs that were considered a joke by the Muj and sidelined. Only one actual operation is recorded by them during the Afghan/Soviet conflict, for the rest of the war they sat in the mountains building up supply and handing it over to Afghan forces.

Accuracy and research are important to formulating an argument. Misinformation only weakens your position.

[JEB]

26. Drone those miserable pieces of feces and a bunch of banker terrorists as well.

[1983law]

77. wondering why it took this long

to mention Bush. Just think how LBJ and Kennedy with Vietnam made AAA look while we are at it. This is about drone policy under a specific president under peculiar circumstances. I support Obama on these strikes, and when it comes to crimes against this country, or actively waging war against it like AAA, you should get treated like it.

[another_liberal]

79. Murder is murder.

It matters little why a murder is committed or by whom, murder is still murder.

I, for one, want no more of these summary drone assassinations (murders) committed in my name, by my government. This country is not at war with any foreign power, and, despite all the "War On Terror" hyperbole, sovereign states do not go "to war" with individuals nor with criminal enterprises. If criminals are wanted for crimes (even terroristic crimes) they should be brought to justice, tried and punished. They should not be summarily murdered from six thousand miles away, by some kill-crazy hotshot with remote control joystick.

[1983law]

89. Summary?

You make it sound like Obama was offered up AAA and he said, "you know what, thanks but no thanks. I'll blow his ass up instead." And please stop with the legalism and be realistic. First, no one is doing anything in your name, unless it is "United States of America". We act as a sum of its parts, not as individuals. That point was dumb when Shepard Smith said that about "torture", and it's just as dumb here (not you, that point). Also, regardless of how you spin it, war is always against persons or "enterprises". A country is merely a designation of land, incapable of doing anything but for its citizens. If Yemen is housing AAA, or Afghanistan is doing the same with OBL (the soldiers fighting us), that's where the war takes us.

I am curious to know if we did arrest AAA and got a conviction (assuming we read him his rights, got him his lawyer, answered the bail question, gave him access to our intel which led to his arrest, etc.), would killing AAA be okay at that point? Would that pep you up some?

[another_liberal]

91. If you, as an American, travel overseas . . .

If you as an American travel overseas you will be personally blamed for our war crimes. This is our country, we are ultimately responsible for what the United States does. It is all done in our name, mine and yours. Listen to the politicians' speeches more closely, they often invoke the authority of the "American people" for what they do. That means you and me. If our government misuses our implied consent for unlawful purposes, we have the responsibility to force it to change policies and practices accordingly.

As to what constitutes a war: I have enough advanced education in international relations to assure you that actual war is only possible between sovereign States. Any other "war" is just a convenient semantic construct with no standing in international law.

Finally, I do not believe in capital punishment for criminal offenses, period. War, actual war, is a different matter; however, this country is not currently at war with anyone.

[1983law]

92. I gather

you understand from my handle what I do for a living, so I would like to believe I know what I am saying. That said, whenever you change the facts of a situation, and resort to slippery slope, bizarre scenarios, then you lose me. It is refreshing to hear you so adamant against the death penalty, which I am as well. Also glad to know there are some anti-abortion folks in this forum. Open exchange of ideas and no echo chambers is encouraging to me.

[another_liberal]

103. Abortion?

When did I even mention abortion? You are certainly entitled to your opinion on such important matters, but I do not think a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body is the same as extrajudicial murder of criminal suspects.

I would be happy, though, to exchange views with you on that issue. Start a string about it. I will look for it.

[1983law]

110. Choice only matters when it suits

Terrorists choose to use their bodies to attack this country, and there is a consequence for that. The president chooses as commander in chief to treat them like soldiers regardless if U.S. citizen or not and chooses to blow them up. There, choice works.

[another_liberal]

112. That is meaningless . . .

That is a meaningless comparison, not even apples and oranges. It's more like apples and fence posts. I mean really, a woman's right to choose is a Constitutional right. To compare that to the decisions made by terrorists is utterly specious.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Really?

And what court tried and convicted him of any crime?

Execution is no okay as long as the President and the AG pinky swear that the assassination is "deserving".

[geek tragedy]

15. killing an enemy is not an execution, it's killing an enemy nt

[Kelvin Mace]

17. He was an American citizen

and subject to due process. Please see Amendments 5, 6 and 8 of that quaint document called the Constitution.

Who declared him an "enemy"? Under what legal procedure? What Grand Jury indicted him? When was he afforded a PUBLIC trial by an IMPARTIAL jury of his peers? Who defended him? When was he allowed to confront the witnesses against him?

You are taking the claim of covert agencies who have committed war crimes, have flat out lied to the American public in order to launch a series of illegal wars, as gospel?

I take it you will wholeheartedly support the right of assassination by fiat when it falls into conservative hands?

[geek tragedy]

21. armed conflict and criminal justice are two entirely different

sets of laws and standards. Court proceedings are relevant to the latter but not the former.

Obviously, if this guy was shooting at Americans on a battlefield or even part of a Taliban militia roaming the hills of Afghanistan, there would have been no due process considerations involved when killing him. No need for a trial, or a warrant, or witnesses or anything like that.

Similarly, there were no due process considerations for bin Laden as command figure inside AQ.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. If the guy is shooting at Americans

on a battlefield, I believe the soldiers are allowed to shoot back. It is traditional, and even legal.

Bin Laden was NOT an American citizen and the U.S. was in Pakistan LEGALLY to capture him (though I am damned sure they were instructed to kill him to avoid "problems&quot .

Seems odd to me that Osama bin Laden was afforded more legal protections than an actual American citizen.

Regardless of what the Congress said in its AUMF, the Constitution is CLEAR about rights only being suspended in "times or war or insurrection".

Please point me to the official declaration of war and what country is was declared against.

[geek tragedy]

56. The US was there to kill bin Laden, let's not kid ourselves.

To which provision of the constitution (the one referencing "insurrection&quot are you referring?

Had the US intended to punish AAA for his past activities, the drone strike would have been murder.

But, since he had joined the enemy and was participating in armed attacks against the US, the government had a right to blow his ass up to prevent him from doing so in the immediate future.

[Kelvin Mace]

67. Again, based upon what evidence?

The Constitution comments that the habeus may only be suspended during time of war or insurrection.

There is also an similar exclusion in the 5th Amendment:

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

The exclusion covers only members of the army, navy and militia, and ONLY during time of war or public danger. Thus, civilians are excluded from the exclusion.

I'll make this simple:

Point me to the relevant part of the Constitution that suspends the 5th and 6th Amendments just because we can't be bothered to follow due process or we are unable to.

And yes, we intended to kill bin Laden, he was never coming out of it alive, and I stated such in another post. However, bin Laden was still dealt with legally, whereas AAA was not.

[Recursion]

74. And this is a time of war

The Constitution comments that the habeus may only be suspended during time of war or insurrection.

This has been a "time of war" since the AUMF was passed on September 14th, 2001. This is exactly why a lot of us were nervous about the vagueness of that authorization's objectives.

Pursuant to that authorization, certain areas of Yemen, Somalia, Chad, and Pakistan have been combat zones coming under the military ROEs developed since then.

[bvar22]

96. The AUMF did NOT Declare a State of War.

A Declaration of WAR is a specific document that names specific countries.
Like Bush-the-Lesser, you are vastly exceeding the permissions granted in the AUMF.

[Recursion]

102. That myth is prevalent, but wrong

Congress has used authorizations of force as declarations of war since the 1790s. There is no constitutional difference, and there's case law on that from the late 18th century onwards.

[bvar22]

106. You know what is funny about your "work" here.

I remember back when all the "Centrist" Democrats and Party Celebrities
voted FOR the AUMF.

They ALL paraded in front of the TV cameras insisting that it was NOT a Declaration of War. All the "Centrists" on DU parading along behind them,
parroting their talking points,
that the AUMF was in no way a Declaration of War,
that it was merely window dressing.
Hillary, Kerry, all the Big Party Celebrities.....

THEN,
when Bush used to to actually invade Iraq,
they were all crying in front of the cameras
about how Bush has exceeded his authority,
and there was nothing they could dooooooo,
because Bush IED to them.

NOW that Obama is President, it is a WHOLE different story,
isn't it?
Don't you guys ever get dizzy?

Where can we find consistency,
the hallmark of honesty, integrity, and a Moral Compass?

You can find that Moral Consistency way out on the "Fringe Left Wing" where no one has changed their mind or position on the BOGUS War on Terror, the AUMF, and the Unitary Executive.
It was WRONG when Bush did it.
It is STILL wrong.

You will know them by their Works and their Consistency!,

[Recursion]

107. I wasn't here in 2003

I was in the Marines, saluting smartly. I didn't protest Iraq until 2006.

[bvar22]

109. You must have had an opinion.

All the Big Democratic Party "Centrist" celebrities were insisting that Bush had far exceeded anything they give him permission to do.
Did you disagree with the Democratic Party leadership about the AUMF back then?

Or were they lying just to cover their asses?

[Doctor_J]

83. What does that have to do with the subject of the article?

namely that US drone strikes killed 4 US citizens?

[DeSwiss]

18. K&R

“These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States,” Mr. Holder wrote.

- You're a goddamned lying piece of shit.

[Demo_Chris]

39. Very few in our party care so long as it's our party doing it...

No point listing the endless examples of our own hypocrisy. The perpetrators and defenders do not care, and the rest of us already know.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. I care as

I may be guilty of some bad things in my life, but I am damned determined that hypocrisy will not be one of them

[Demo_Chris]

45. Well, I am a hypocrit no question. There is probably NO moral failing I don't commit every day...

On the plus side, I started with loyalty to my moral convictions rather than loyalty to some politician. For whatever that's worth.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. Absol-freakin-lutely

I am revolted by the loyalty to obvious criminals, because, ya know, he's "one of us".

[WillyT]

52. Here;s Holder's Letter:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022887099



& Rec !!!

[tabasco]

58. Scumbags deserved it

Good work, Droney!

[Doctor_J]

84. Actually graham4anything could well be a Tom Tomorrow character

[disidoro01]

64. An American Teenager

was killed as well.
Go ahead and debate Awlaki but this kid with no terror ties was killed. Frightening and heartbreaking. This site seems to use equivalencies and say "yeah but so and so was worse".
I don't believe it gets much worse. An American teenager with no terror ties except his last name, had not seen nor heard from his father in years. He was killed in a cafe. The Presidents mouthpiece says he should of had a better father.

No discussion on this site, how sad. We sit silently by, some cheer these deaths, some shake their heads but never show any outrage that our Nobel Peace prize winning President is doing this.

[gopiscrap]

70. Yikes

[Solly Mack]

71. K&R

[bowens43]

76. so Obama admits to murdering Americans.....fuck the Constitution.

[DeSwiss]

88. Yes, and all with the New And Improved.....

...DUE PROCESS LITE!!!



[center][/center]

[woo me with science]

90. +1000000000000000

Thanks for posting this.

[blkmusclmachine]

78. .

.

[michigandem58]

87. "Citizen" or not....you're fair game

If you're overseas and plotting to attack.

[davidthegnome]

93. Proof?

We have lots of suspicion, we have significant evidence... what we do not have is proof. What we do not have is a trial, a legal prosecution or defense.

The rights of the American citizen might make things difficult when it comes to fighting some of our own who become terrorists... however, the law must apply to all of us or to none of us. Consider the potential for abuse.

Let's say a severe right-wing politician becomes President... someone like Rick Santorum. Now let's say that there's a political activist from America, a fanatic liberal, who is in some area of the middle east for political purposes, perhaps even for something as bizarre and hopeless as peace. This might potentially lead to meetings with criminals, with terrorists - and so on. My point is not that this HAS happened here, but that it very well could.

This person is then determined to be an enemy, primarily because the President wants to get rid of them. The justification used is that this person was a well known terrorist sympathizer, that he or she was involved with terrorists, had been known to meet with them and so on and so forth. Most people would be suspicious of such a person to begin with, so they might not really care. Others simply would not know enough to care.

So this President, with the authority of the American people, declares this person an enemy. Perhaps this person even has a spouse and children with them when the drone comes in to eliminate the target...

It is the rule of law that protects (or should protect) us from exactly this sort of scenario. When different people, groups, and even military organizations are above the law... many, many despicable abuses of our rights as citizens become all too common.

This is wrong for a variety of reasons. What really concerns me though, is the potential for abuse in the future - anyone who does not fear this, has paid little or no attention to history.

[michigandem58]

97. There's potential for Presidential abuse

of a million different foreign policy scenarios. (See Iraq War)

When you're outside the country and the reach of our justice system, there's really no alternative. Except to allow anyone who's a "citizen" to commit any crime they choose, outside the reach of enforcement.

[davidthegnome]

99. It is exactly that sort of logic...

that permits people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so on... to get away with various, outrageous offenses against their own people and humanity overall. "Well, obeying the law is difficult. It's too hard to bring these criminals to trial." In the case of those like Bush and Cheney - well, they're wealthy, powerful, so those who replace them let them off the hook. After all, if they were held accountable for their actions... it might set a dangerous precedent!

There is risk, danger, and hardship that comes with following the law - this is true of any remotely civilized society. When the law is manipulated - when civil rights and greater freedom are exchanged for complacency and for safety, then we run the risk of letting those in power trample all over us - the last few decades should be enough to prove this point. Think your phone can't be tapped without a warrant? Think you can't be imprisoned without any charges? Think we still require trials for poor shmucks like the average citizen, or worse, poor people? Or worse still... poor brown people? Well, I don't think any of that. Not anymore.

Allowing citizens to commit crimes is not something we have any control over. You cannot prevent theft, rape, or murder, anymore than you can prevent the sun from rising. What we can do is punish the guilty - however, first, we have an obligation to confirm that they are guilty, and in America we do this by investigation, by trial, by what is supposed to bear some resemblance to fair representation. Remove that, remove the law from the equation, and it all falls apart. The Bush years demonstrated this, the Obama years are (to a lesser extent) continuing to demonstrate this.

What happens when we get another republican President in office? What happens if, at some point in the future, it is someone you love that ends up in that hypothetical scenario I described? Will you still think it's okay to ignore the law in pursuit of simply eliminating those who are determined to be enemies?

The law applies to everyone - even when it is difficult, even when it is enormously difficult to follow. Our civil rights are something that were bled for, fought for, heavily sacrificed for. They should not now be abandoned because it is difficult to extradite a criminal from a dangerous Country. We eliminated Osama Bin Laden, we captured Saddam Hussein, historically, we assisted in bringing an end to the evil inspired by Hitler.

We do damn difficult things, even seemingly impossible things, quite frequently. There is no reason why this case should be any different. Bring them here, have them stand trial - and if they are guilty, then let punishment be meted out. The assassination of an American citizen, domestic or foreign... goes against everything that we as Americans have struggled for and bled for and died for. It is an outrageous abuse of civil rights - and it is, quite frankly, a crime, regardless of who is responsible.

[John2]

101. I have no doubt,

with the evidence that I have seen, this person actively engaged in plotting against the United States. He didn't have to pull any trigger but engaged in encouraging others to do it against U.S. citizens. He fled to Yemen, so he could escape prosecution when they was on to him and his treasonous sermons. No American citizen worth his or her salt, would engage in encouraging others to attack the United States and call his or herself an American citizen. If I was in his situation, I would have remained in the United States and obtained a lawyer to fight the charges, as soon as they were alleged. It is the same as these people attacking Eric Holder. No matter what the President does, they will complain. This President has my total support period and I trust him.

[bvar22]

108. Were you as big a fan of the Unitary Executive when Bush was wielding these powers?

Almost no one on DU would EVER stand up and defend the Constitutional Excesses of the Bush Administration.
Back THEN, everyone agreed that Bush had far exceeded anything granted to him by the AUMF.
ALL of the big Democratic "Centrist" Celebrities that voted FOR the AUMF insisted the Bush had abused it.... Hillary, John Kerry, all the DLC Biggies,
one after another,
"Bush LIED to us."

So you were a supporter of Bush's excesses back then?

Will you be as big a fan of the Unitary Executive,
secret assassinations on "suspicion" without Due Process, Oversight, or Review
when the next Republican claims these powers?

How about President Sarah Palin being able to secretly assassinate Americans she "suspects" of being disloyal?

The Republicans will probably regain the White House in 2016.
Will you be regretting your support for these powers claimed by the Obama Administration then?

That is WHY it is FOOLISH to support them because you support Obama.
Please separate the PERSON from the POLICY.

[michigandem58]

104. A few points

"Allowing citizens to commit crimes is not something we have any control over."

Yes it is. Part of our security and law enforcement structure in prevention of crime, not simply reacting to acts committed. Plotting a crime is a crime in itself.

"What happens if, at some point in the future, it is someone you love that ends up in that hypothetical scenario I described? Will you still think it's okay to ignore the law in pursuit of simply eliminating those who are determined to be enemies?"

If someone I love in is a foreign country plotting to attack the United States, there's not a lot of choice.

"Bring them here, have them stand trial - and if they are guilty, then let punishment be meted out."

I prefer that as well. But it's not always practical.

"The assassination of an American citizen, domestic or foreign... goes against everything that we as Americans have struggled for and bled for and died for."

In these scenarios, I don't think we can allow citizenship to be immunity from strikes to protect this country.

[Locut0s]

111. Sad that it takes the death of a few Americans to get people to pay attention...

Doesn't matter how many innocent bystanders on the other side you kill, that's just collateral damage. But when you accidentally kill an american or two, Hmm... well... maybe we need to take another look at this whole thing.

[circlethesquare]

113. Obama Administration Admits to Dronning US Citizens...How Many?

From: www.davidpakman.com