Rights Groups File Lawsuit to Allow Challenge to Targeted Killing Without Due Process

[Hissyspit]

Source: Center For Constitutional Rights

Rights Groups File Lawsuit To Allow Challenge To Targeted Killing Without Due Process
CCR And ACLU Charge It’s Illegal For Government To Deny Counsel To Targets On Kill List

August 3, 2010, Washington, DC and New York – The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to challenge their refusal to grant a license that would allow the groups to file a lawsuit challenging the government’s asserted authority to use lethal force against U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield without charge, trial, or judicial process of any kind.

In early July, CCR and the ACLU were retained by Nasser al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government’s decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi, whom the CIA and Defense Department have targeted for death. On July 16, however, the Secretary of the Treasury labeled Anwar al-Aulaqi a “specially designated global terrorist,” which makes it a crime for lawyers to provide representation for his benefit without first seeking a license from OFAC. CCR and the ACLU have sought a license, but the government has not yet issued one despite the urgency created by an outstanding execution order. CCR and the ACLU have not had contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi.

“The government is targeting an American citizen for death without any legal process whatsoever, while at the same time impeding lawyers from challenging that death sentence and the government’s sweeping claim of authority to issue it. This is a dual blow to some of our most precious liberties, and such an alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “Attorneys shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission in order to challenge the constitutionality of the government’s conduct."

Read more: http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-groups-file-lawsuit-allow-challenge-targeted-killing-without-due-process

[sinkingfeeling]

1. We've let the cat out of the bag....

Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) is a designation under US terrorism sanction regulations (specifically, under Executive Order 13224,<1> which President George W. Bush signed pursuant to, among other authorities, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, National Emergencies Act, and United Nations Participation Act two weeks after the 9/11 attacks to obstruct terrorist funding) by the US of individuals, businesses, charities, and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities.<1><2>

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

[DirkGently]

2. We simply can't afford to let this policy stand.

This is a real "death of democracy" issue.

[Ignis]

4. Agreed.

It doesn't matter whether it's Our Guy or Their Guy that does it: This policy is antithetical to and incompatible with a democracy.

[zipplewrath]

3. Obama can fix this

There's no obstructionist congress to deal with here, and it is completely within his authority to tell the Treasury Department to issue the license. This ain't Gitmo, it doesn't require any authorization from congress.

Issue the license before someone gets killed.

[cstanleytech]

6. You mean an executive order? Ya he could.

I wouldnt hold my breath on it though because the republicans will hold his feet to the fire if he does such a thing by slamming him as soft on terrorists so he might not feel its worth it politically especially since hes already being attacked by alot of his own party as it is already including some here on this forum who are having a hissy fit that hes to moderate.

[zipplewrath]

8. Not sure how this helps

If he hasn't learned by now, the GOP will slam him no matter what he does. Allowing an American citizen to have counsel isn't exactly going to burn bridges anywhere except in the Tea Party circles. Alternately as you point out, he does have a community of people who would look favorably upon such an act, and it is the crowd that will otherwise see him as too moderate.

[cstanleytech]

9. Oh of course the GOP will slam him regardless but

usually its harder for them to sway the moderate independents unless he provides them some sort of ammo which such an executive order would probably provide.
In the end its really a no win situation for him.

[zipplewrath]

11. Other than doing the right thing you mean?

I don't think the independents and moderates will be particularly swayed by accusations that he allowed an accused citizen legal counsel. It will be very meaningful to the liberal democrats. But I guess that wouldn't be a "win" in his mind.

[cstanleytech]

12. Yup other than the right thing which this would be but sadly often

whats right does not work out to be whats best politically.
As for them not being swayed we shall just have to wait and see if and when he makes a decision, its all we really can do in the end.

[zipplewrath]

13. Oh we can do more

It's called petitioning your government for a redress of grievences. And despite what several congress critters might tell you, you have a constitutional right to do such things, including "lobbying" and filing lawsuits, as well as using ones first amendment rights in forums such as this. It seems to be a process that is playing out with the Warren nomination. Could work here too.

[Liberation Angel]

5. This is what Fascism smells like and Obama should know better

Paper walls and all that allowed the Nazis to exterminate MILLIONS - but especially those who opposed fascism.

Does opposing this policy make US (me and you) fit the criteria for being " specially designated global terrorists"?


It is a bloody, greasy and treacherous slippery slope. And not a long one.




ANYONE who opposes such fascism might be so designated. Is that a drone I sense?

Duck and cover!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

7. Catch 22

A Catch-22, coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, is a logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired by not being in that very situation; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible. Catch-22s are often spoken with regard to rules, regulations, procedures, or situations in which one has knowledge of being or becoming a victim but has no control over it occurring.
-Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29

[The Stranger]

10. It is considered a crime to provide legal representation to this person?

The government is going to prosecute an attorney for representing someone charged with a crime?

Are you fucking kidding me?

To say this would be unconstitutional, and a violation of legal ethics, and every known notion of due process, just doesn't really quite capture it, does it?