Can a Republican President execute any American at will?

[MannyGoldstein]

I continue to be creeped out by DU's being cool with the Obama Administration's brand-new theory that the President can execute anyone, anywhere, without any oversight, if the President decides that they are a terrorist and puts them on a secret execution list.

I wonder if everyone will be so relaxed about this theory if a Republican becomes President.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kaleva]

2. I'd be cool with it regardless of who is President.

[pmorlan1]

39. Not Cool

I'm not cool with it no matter who is President. I just don't understand what's wrong with people who think it's ok to assassinate an American citizen with no due process. It's really creepy to watch people defend this.

[emilyg]

3. I'm not cool with it at all.

[Tx4obama]

4. Perhaps more of the story will help folks put things into better context

The drone was NOT 'targeting' al-Awlaki's son

The drone was targeting an Egyptian man named al Bana.
---


And regarding al-Awlaki and his son ...


Anwar al-Awlaki

SNIP

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad". Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies." He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not." On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against American soldiers, and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."
SNIP
http://www.aabout.biz/2011/09/anwar-al-awlaki.html
---

Did you catch that? " ... raise children "on the love of Jihad."

He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son.
al-Awlaki's son has lived in Yemen since 2002 - he was NOT raised like an American,
The son was raised 'on the love of Jihad'.

Some folks have said that the 'son' was targeted - that is not true, it was an Egyptian named al Bana that was the target.
The son was killed in the drone attack that killed al Bana.
There is no evidence that the 'son' was innocent or evidence that he was a member of Al Qaeda.
But considering the son has lived with his TERRORIST father in Yemen since 2002, and his father believe everyone should raise their children 'on the love of Jihad' --- there is NO logical way to say that the 'son' was a peace loving American citizen.
And the 'son' was not some innocent bystander that some criminal grabbed as a hostage, the son went there to Shabwa were the Al Qaeda members were on the night of the drone attack on his own free will, even the family said the son went to Shabwa from Sana after he heard about the attack on his father.

---

And there was NO barbeque - that was only some misinformation that al-Awlaki's family put out into the media.
The two drone attacks in Shabwa were on a building that housed an Al Qaeda meeting and on two vehicles that Al Qaeda members were riding in.

---


If the SON is innocent then - Why was al-Awlaki's son in the vehicles that the drone attacked when al Bana a top Al Qaeda member was targeted?

It was reported that al-Awlakis' SON was killed in the SAME drone attack that killed al Bana.
al Bana was killed when a drone hit two sport vehicles that were transporting TERRORISTS.
If everyone thinks the son was completely 'innocent' then what was the son doing hanging around with a TOP AL QAEDA TERRORIST? Please answer that one.
I for one think that the US did not know that al-Awlaki's son was in the car with al Bana.

Regarding what the drones hit in Shabwa see below ...



SNIP

The first strike late Friday targeted a house in the Azan district of Shabwa, but hit just after Al Qaeda militants had a meeting in the building, security officials and tribal elders said.

They said a second strike then targeted two sport utility vehicles in which al-Bana and the six others were traveling, destroying the vehicles and leaving the men's bodies charred. It was not clear whether other participants in the meeting were targeted in separate strikes.

SNIP

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Did I refer to al-Awlaki's son?

I don't think so.

Will you be cool with a Republican executing anyone, anytime, with zero oversight?

[MADem]

13. Let's not be coy--you didn't need to. There have only been a couple

of drone hits in the news lately, and it's plain that your query emanated from those reports.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Let's not put words in other people's mouths. The question is the question.

Either you can answer it well, or you cannot.

[MADem]

22. I answered it--you did, by inference. Unless you're the only one here

who has been living in a cave for the last few months, and is unaware of recent headlines (and somehow I doubt that).

[whatchamacallit]

21. Out both ends at once

Your posts on this matter follow a pattern. First you emphatically state the son was not a target. Then you use supposition to paint the kid as a likely terrorist anyway. Got your bases covered.

[MADem]

23. Well, that's not base-covering, IMO. That's probably pretty accurate.

It is far more accurate than painting a kid who has lived in tribal Yemen for the bulk of his sentient life as Richie Cunningham, just about to get his license and ask his best gal for a first date.

[whatchamacallit]

31. Maybe

but there's that presumption of innocence thing we used to hold so dear...

[Vincardog]

5. I am not happy that BO claims illegal unconstitutional powers and I will not be cool with anyone

else doing it

[Marnie]

42. I totally agree. Who does it is not the issue.

It is purely murdering Americans and others for political purposes, even if it is international politics.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. It's extremely creepy and fascinating at the same time

[SanchoPanza]

7. The President cannot use force against anyone, anywhere.

Within the jurisdiction of the United States, the executive is limited by the Constitution and Congressional statute.

Outside the jurisdiction of the United States, the executive is limited by treaty obligations and Congressional statute.

This is not a new theory. It's pretty old and pretty basic stuff.

The relevant limitation in the al-Alwaki case is Congressional statute and, specifically, that statute is the http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html">9/18/2001 AUMF.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Which the current President interprets to mean he can execute anybody, anywhere

If he claims the victim is a terrorist. No? If not, what limits does he admit?

[SanchoPanza]

11. No.

It doesn't matter what limits the executive admits. What limits the executive is, as I stated, the Constitution (within the jurisdiction of the United States), treaty obligations (outside the jurisdiction of the United States) and Congressional statute. In either area, where there is a conflict, Congressional statute will automatically lose.

In other words, if al-Awlaki (or Bin Laden, for that matter) had been in, say, Utah on a camping trip, the executive would have been limited by the Fifth Amendment (specifically, due process). If he had been in a nation where the use of force was limited by treaty obligation, that treaty obligation would represent the limitation. Absent either of those, Congressional statute applies. And Congressional statute has given the executive broad powers to use force against anyone the executive designates as being members of organizations responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Is it overly broad? Quite possibly. But, in practical terms, you'll never lose money betting against Congress in a War Powers fight.

This isn't something Obama made up. The AUMF was passed in 2001, while he was still a state senator. And even the Bush Administration implicitly recognized the limitations of the AUMF when it made the (absurd) claim that Guantanamo Bay existed outside the jurisdiction of the United States in the Boumediene case. Even they understood that the President cannot execute anyone, anywhere.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Why would the Fifth Amendment not apply outside of the US?

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/10/141213273/op-ed-obama-devastating-for-civil-liberties?ps=cprs

"It takes years to execute someone to get it right, but the president can simply take that offline by writing a name on a piece of paper and say, I am confident." - Jonathan Turley

[SanchoPanza]

44. Because outside of the United States is not within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Anyone may make a request for injunctive relief, but if its an issue of foreign affairs or war making powers, the Federal courts would almost reflexively toss it out under the political question doctrine. In other words, it would be treated as a matter between Congress and the Executive, or an issue in which the Judiciary will not involve itself. This is not something new or earth-shattering.

There's also the tricky issue of standing, because such a case would almost certainly entail someone bringing such a request on behalf of a person who did not solicit their representation (as al-Alwaki did not solicit the representation of his father, who did issue such a request). In that event, the case would be thrown out over lack of standing.

Not sure what Turley is on about. This is basic Con Law stuff.

[Vattel]

40. Congress can't authorize the president to ignore due process.

[SanchoPanza]

45. You're making the assumption that due process is a right of citizenship.

It isn't. Due Process is extended to any person within U.S. jurisdiction. Citizens, non-resident aliens, etc. The NYPD can't indefinitely jail a French citizen. The rights held by U.S. citizens are the right to work, the right to vote, the right to enter and leave the United States, and the right to run for public office. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with citizenship.

A U.S. citizen may, when outside the jurisdiction of the United States, apply for due process protections through a U.S. consulate or embassy. Al-Awlaki did not do that. Probably because he would have to actually walk into a U.S. consulate or embassy to do so, at which point men with guns would come out and arrest him.

[ashling]

10. I am reminded that Richard Nixon justified

everything with two words: "national security" and famously said "If the president does it, i's not illegal."

[msongs]

12. bush did it = bad, obama does it = good. go figure nt

[TheKentuckian]

14. By definition they are quite cozy with the idea. To support these powers under Obama

one has to think that they would be appropriate for Liz Cheney, were fine for Bush/Cheney, Nixon should have had them, and that this is appropriately unchecked, unquestionable, and secret power for the Presidency meaning essentially they are pro-fascist, pro-police state Dark Agers.

In a nation that believes in checks on power to the point that two houses of Congress and the President have to agree before we spend a damn cent it is a mockery to even suggest such overwhelming, unlimited, unchecked, unsupervised, and secret power operative anywhere on the globe without time limit, on targets without creed, nationality, faith, or government.

Not that it matters because if any theoretical (and mostly rhetorical) limits exist, there is no way to insure they are adhered to or consequences if they aren't. Shit, since it is a judgment call, legally there is effectively no such thing as incompetence or abuse. Not to mention, little way to know because you don't have to be told.

If they select less noticeable methods like poisons, radiation, and sabotage then accidents and bad health could be the methods and the target appears to be unfortunate and no one is the wiser, if it doesn't stay undercover they are cloaked in national security. If that fails they need only be labeled a terrorist.

This is stark raving mad.

[sofa king]

15. It's supporting something that's been going full speed for a long time.

While most of you are trying to wrap your minds around the murder of one person designated by the President, just wait until you have to come to terms with the fact that we oversaw the murder of thousands of people.

Johnson's and Nixon's support for the Phoenix Program is well documented and no longer in dispute, though the US still tries hard to downplay the number of people it killed and helped kill:

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

Not yet admitted (which is why Dick Cheney rolls out before the cameras whenever the torture issue comes up) but still painfully obvious is a similar program conducted in Iraq. All of you read the "dozens of tortured dead bodies found dumped" stories every week coming out of Iraq for four long years, from 2003-2007.

Not one of you read one story of one truck full of dead bodies being intercepted, even though the US conducted roving checkpoints all that time. The closest we came to that was when US soldiers were sickened by ice which was shipped in a KBR truck that had been carrying dead bodies on a prior shipment and which was not properly cleaned out. They continue to delay that lawsuit against them, last I checked.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/110065/kbr_sued_for_giving_soldiers_ice_with_%27traces_of_body_fluids_and_putrefied_remains%27/

The obvious answer is that our Constitution is a sham to keep the masses believing they have some control over their lives. It's been so freely violated and ignored that American policy bears as little relation to our own Constitution as it does to Syria's constitution. We, like everyone else, do whatever is expedient at the time, and get away with it every time.

[jefferson_dem]

16. The "creeped outness" is only in your mind.

I've not seen anyone say "the President can execute anyone, anywhere, without any oversight." Sorry.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Well, we can agree that one of us is fantasizing.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/10/141213273/op-ed-obama-devastating-for-civil-liberties?ps=cprs

"It takes years to execute someone to get it right, but the president can simply take that offline by writing a name on a piece of paper and say, I am confident. So it becomes a presidential prerogative to take the whole system offline."
- Jonathan Turley

[MADem]

24. +1. Someone needed to rachet down the hyperbole. NT

[baldguy]

20. The fact that al-Awlaki was a US citizen & that his son was a minor shouldn't matter.

You wish to deny the US federal govt in the person of the President the responsibility to defend the country. Al-Awlaki was killed on the field of battle after he took up arms against the USA, and he brought his son into harm's way. Obama was just doing what we expect any President to do: preventing the people who seek to kill us the freedom to do so - by any means necessary and legal.

If we cheered when bin Laden was killed, we shouldn't cry for Al-Awlaki.

[MADem]

25. He renounced his country, too. How long does a nation offer protection to

people who have renounced them and are actively at war to destroy them?

Well said, baldguy.

[treestar]

28. Amen, and as a person over 18, he is required to

choose his citizenship. Doesn't sound like he chose US citizenship.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. He was 16. Not 21 as our government claimed.

If they can't get his age right... amazing.

[treestar]

46. The father was, though

There were many posts about how he was a US citizen.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

27. that's not the theory

no one ever said it was.

No way is it brand new. I recall the Republicans blaming the Clinton Administration for not getting OBL. The idea of getting him was therefore in existence during the Clinton Administration. And before that, it could only have been worse than you described. Surely there were killings surrounding WWII that equalled or exceeded this.

[Honeycombe8]

29. Your assumption in the first place is incorrect.

You state "the Obama Administration's brand-new theory that the President can execute anyone, anywhere, without any oversight, if the President decides that they are a terrorist and puts them on a secret execution list."

That is an incorrect statement.

Who do you think the President has executed by putting them on a secret execution list because he personally decided they are a terrorist, and there was no oversight?

[MannyGoldstein]

33. We don't know what Obama did - it's secret, but

under Obama's theory, what's to prevent him execute anyone, anywhere, without any oversight, if he decides that they are a terrorist and puts them on a secret execution list? Where's the judicial or Congressional review?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. No, and nor can a Democratic president.

However, a president currently can (certainly) and probably should be able to (I think, although I can see arguments against) order the extrajudicial assassination of any member of that small subset of Americans who are actively engaged in waging war against America and it is not feasible to arrest and try.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. And what are the objective criteria for deciding that a person

is waging war against America?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Off the top of my head:

"They need to be actively involved in large-scale violence against Americans, and to have access to sufficient force to make that threat credible" probably covers most of it*. I'm not sure what the edge cases would be, but I don't think that "senior Al quaeda member at AQ training camp" is an edge case.


*Most of the definition of "waging war", that is; please note the "and be protected against arrest" clause I added; if the president starts using assassination as an alternative to arrest, even against certifiably Bad People (TM), I'd be much more concerned. I don't think Al Quaeda officers are necessarily worse than, say, the Unabomber or drug lords, but I think that it's legitimate to treat them as combatants rather than criminals when there's an army in the way of arresting them.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Is that *your* definition, or the White House's? nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. It's barely even mine, I just came up with it on the spur of the moment

and it's probably not 100% right. I have no idea under what circumstances, if any, the current President considers assassination appropriate.

For what it's worth, though, if you're looking for cause for concern in the White House's actions, I'd worry about the assassination of Bin Laden, not that of Al-Awlaki. In the former case, arrest may well have been an option; in the latter, it looks like it wasn't. I think the fact that Al-Awlaki was an American citizen is entirely irrelevant - I think that killing people you are treating as enemy combatants is legitimate (although often not justifiable); I think that deliberately killing civilian criminals is not; I don't think that that nationality comes into it.

For me, what the issue boils down to is "under what circumstances should we apply the laws and protections of civil society, and under what circumstances is it legitimate to use the much looser standards applied in wartime". I think that Al-Awlaki was probably sufficiently protected that it was legitimate to treat him as a military rather than a criminal target, although I don't know all the details (e.g. how viable an attempt to arrest him in Yemen would have been; I suspect the answer is "not"); I think that Bin Laden probably wasn't (although again I don't know the details, in particular the extent of Pakistani complicity in his presence).

[Fearless]

32. A Democrat did. I find that to be the bigger issue.

[slackmaster]

37. Only if he's at least half African-American

:nuke:

[Marnie]

41. That is the main point of having a civilian goverment and

military and having elections and having each branch being its own power.

It was designed that way to try to keep sadists and megalomaniacs and wanna be Papa Docs from gaining too much power.

There is nothing now, thanks to Obama to keep Richard Nixon from droning demonstrators at the WH fence.

Remember the military was used against Americans in the 60's and military helicopters were used to keep an eye on peaceful campus demonstrations, and police snipers were on roof tops on American campuses, and along march routes.
There is nothing in the way force is used these days to stop them firing to kill simply because a mayor, governor, or POTUS, or pig with an attitude, doesn't like the sound of the shouts.

[and-justice-for-all]

47. It is part of their theocratic fascist wet dream...nt