Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

[Synicus Maximus]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. In other words...

"kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye and watch what you say. We are!"

[azureblue]

2. and nary a word

about using the US military to target Right Wing militias and their agitators. Nope. They're 'Mericuns and would never try to overthrow the gubmint or that cullad fella that claims to be president, even tho we all know he's from kenya.....

[razorman]

3. Actually, the government has never been real particular about the philosophy of the folks

they target. I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge. More recently, the police actions against OWS, as well as the questionable tactics used against American citizens in the GWOT. Also, it does not seem to make much difference which party is in power. These things have occurred under both Dems and Repubs. I just try to always remember that there is no such thing as a benevolent government.

[mike_c]

5. +1

[AlbertCat]

8. I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Though I bet not very accurately. :eyes:

[marasinghe]

61. agreed. the party line is always a pale facade to con their end of the voting public.

it's always about grabbing power & sucking out wealth; same as in the jungle.
Dems may say it nice & Pukes say it nasty. but neither of them give a shit about real people.
of course with a very few, genuine exceptions - who get thrown to the curb soon enough.
i am fed up to the bone, with both these sets of assholes.

[AnneD]

88. ITA....

+1.

Every American has a right to free speech period. We are being divided (left/right)to distract us from the fact that we are being robbed blind of both our Treasury and our Rights. The sooner we wake up to this the better.

[msongs]

4. Barack W. Bush is that you? nt

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

6. and when the government declares OWS a terrorist organization ?

they will arrest me for donating ..... and probably you too.

[Amonester]

7. As soon as anyone in association with OWS would start blowing sh*t up.

Count.Me.Out.

(But.I'm.Sure.That.Will.Not.Happen.)

[tavalon]

85. Thing is, you don't get to decide when OWS gets branded a terrorist organization

This government does. And I've learned not to trust this incarnation any more than the last one.

You don't think Agents Provocateur will not start blowing shit up when TPTB decide they've had enough of us?

So don't be feeling all safe and shit. This isn't a case of "there's no reason to worry if you aren't breaking the law", ya know?

[indepat]

51. The language is so broad that literally anyone they want can be included.

After all, junior declared the Constitution to be just a piece of paper, and this pronouncement, like most of junior's ideas and initiatives, prevail. Eos. :patriot:

[msanthrope]

55. What language in the AUMF are you talking about? Can you cite it??? nt

[indepat]

100. Can't cite language in AUMF, but please refer to Jeh Johnson's interpretation

in the OP that the executive can decide who the enemy is. Do you not think a junior-type sitting in the WH wouldn't consider those who not with us (i.e., those who don't embrace our full PNAC pre-emptive war enchilada in its entirety) are a'gin us, and hence the enemy? :patriot:

[tavalon]

86. Exactly!

[wandago]

81. We are already guilty of thoughtcrime, brother.

I have often thought about OWS with favor.

[The Northerner]

9. Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said on Thursday.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers, CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, did not directly address the al-Awlaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawyers-citizens-targeted-war-us-154313473.html

[spotbird]

10. Would Obama defenders please explain the

difference between this and Bush? Obama is at least as contemptuous of constitutional freedoms as any Republican.

[AllTooEasy]

24. Obama Haters - please defend Anwar al-Awlaki!

This guy wanted to destroy America via war and terror. Not preserve Roe-v-Wade, not preserve our constitutional freedoms, not secure our electorial process, not defend the %99 against the %1, not promote gay equality, or do anything to make America better from our Progressive (or even Conservative) point of view.

He wanted to kill all of us AND he was entrenched on foreign soil with his fellow soldiers.

What was Obama's (or any president?) other option? Potentially sacrifice U.S. troops in a raid to bring this murderous bastard to justice alive?! Just because he's a US citizen? No member of Al-Qaeda is worth that.

If it was possible to arrest him alive at an airport, like Padilla, then do it. (btw Padilla's case, detention, etc. is whole other topic of discussion where I have problems with regard to how it's handled. So let's not get into that, because I probably agree with you) ...or surround his cabin and wait him out like we do those rural Right Wing Racist Gun-Monkeys every now and then. Unfortunately, those weren't options. I wish they were. We could have used al-Awlaki alive.

Plus, think about it this way...if we didn't bomb him in his entrenched position, then it sends a msg to al-Qaeda that as long as they have a US defector and Al-Qaeda member in close proximity, then they are safe from aerial bombing. Screw that!

[stockholmer]

34. what about his 16 year old son (US citizen), assassinated 2 days after his father by drone strike,

with no judicial process?

:shrug:

[msanthrope]

47. It's unfortunate his parents allowed him to be in the company of the terrorist the strike targeted.

I think it's terrible when terrorists consort with minors, shielding themselves, then proclaim their bodies as some sort of trophy.

I think you should blame the peope responsible for this lad--his parents.

[JackRiddler]

90. Awlaki was so evil he even managed to do that posthumously.

[coalition_unwilling]

57. Extra-judicial executions are as American as cherry pie. - n/t

[msanthrope]

60. What is extra-judicial about the War Powers Act? Can you explain which part of the AUMF

of 9.18.2001 is extra-judicial?

[JackRiddler]

91. The part where you imagine it applies forever to all "combatants" globally by executive designation.

[No Elephants]

35. It's about the Constitution, not al-Awlaki and not Obama.

[msanthrope]

56. Yeah. Can you explain to us how the AUMF of 9.18.2001 is unconstitutional?? nt

[spotbird]

40. It's the constitution that needs defense

There will be an endless supply of despicable criminals.

Just because I'm not an Obama apologist doesn't mean I hate him. You, on the other hand, need to do something about your hate problem.

[JackRiddler]

89. Soon as you provide a bill of indictment against him, not just the PR statements...

about him being a bad man. (Which is not yet justification for vaporizing someone you can arrest instead.)

With citations backing up your claims of what he actually did, please. Thanks.

[msanthrope]

48. (Raising Hand!!) Bush lacked the fortitude to target our actual enemies.

I wish Mr. Bush had read the AUMF of 9.18.2001 correctly and targeted Al-Q.

Think about it--a drone taking out Osama in 2001??? Would have saved a lot of trouble.

It would have saved us from Iraq.

[JoeyT]

95. While Obama on the other hand is happy to target our enemies,

or at least who he says are our enemies. And their minor children, which is apparently ok now. Sure we'd have all been screaming bloody murder if Bush did it, but it's different now.

After all, if we can't trust the US government to never ever ever lie to us about anything ever, who can we trust?

[WilliamPitt]

11. Excuse me, I seem to have misplaced my due process.

*patting pockets*

It was just here.

[frylock]

12. it might be under here..

[WilliamPitt]

13. *wince*

:banghead:

[cstanleytech]

15. No, you still have it. I believe that this is in reference largely to say if someone from the US

were to leave the US and join a terrorist group like al-Qaida overseas like Anwar al-Awlaki did.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Are you sure?

Ask Jose Padilla how hard and fast that rule is.

[Angry Dragon]

18. They carry around membership cards now??

[EFerrari]

21. We don't know what Awlaki did. We only know what the government claims

he did.

[cstanleytech]

23. Actually we have video

right http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/anwar-al-awlakis-radical-message-12087685 or are you going to claim the video was faked using CGI?

[EFerrari]

27. So, where did you study Arabic?

[cstanleytech]

31. Do you?

Or are you trying to imply that I cant understand what is being said which is a silly attempt because if he wasnt saying what the story says he said someone would have already exposed it as a fraud.

[EFerrari]

39. I'm pointing out to you that you have no first hand knowledge

about this man but rely on multiple official stories.

It's not a bad idea to ask yourself how you know what you think you know. We call that "critical thinking".

[cstanleytech]

42. Ya might want to consider trying some

because if the video was faked and he didnt say then all that would need to be done would be to expose it, so do you have any proof that the video has been faked? A simple yes or no.

[msanthrope]

70. I believe Anthony Weiner. I think you forget his crusade on YouTube

to block the videos of recruitment for Al-Q that Al-Awlaki put out.

I think you forget the London/BA bomb plot.

I think you forget the PETN bombs.

The underwear bomber.

The Fort Hood shooting.

The stabbing of a British MP.

All these acts--fomented by Al-Awlaki. Fuck him. And damn those who would minimize the impact of terror.

Of course, you would not. You would not minimize the impact of terror, because having been reminded of all the acts he was involved in, I am sure you have done your research and can cite to us which actions Al-Awlaki is falsely accused of.

[No Elephants]

37. And that video might be admissible as evidence in court, if al Awaki had been granted due process,

as was his Constitutional right.

[cstanleytech]

43. Hey I would have liked there to be a trial but he made no attempt that I am aware of to turn himself

in, are you aware of such an attempt? A person fleeing authorities like he did can be shot in some circumstances so in this case it could be argued that is what he did by not turning himself and continuing to aid bin ladens people.

[bvar22]

46. Was there a Warrant issued by a Judge for his arrest...

...based on "evidence" presented before the Court?

If not, then WHY should he "turn himself in"?,
and for WHAT? :shrug:

There IS a reason WHY this country was designed with 3 branches of government,
and it has worked pretty well up till now.
Why do you want to change it?



Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[msanthrope]

52. Actually, yes. He had been convicted in Yemen. They could not obtain him.

Luckily, we did not need a warrant to pursue him.

We passed an AUMF on 9.18.2001. it authorized us to treat the members of al-Qaeda the same way we treated other people we were at war with...capture, or kill.

Too bad Bush didn't use this against Osama.

it would have saved us Iraq.

[bvar22]

58. LOL. Yemen does NOT even have an Extradition Treaty with the US.

Would YOU have the US Government honor the Courts of every country in the World and serve as their enforcement arms?
How about those countries with Sharia Law?
They have "courts" too, just like Yemen.

[msanthrope]

64. Oh, no--we didn't need the Yemeni crime, or the British one. We've had the authorization

since 2001.

[bvar22]

69. Onward with the Bush legacy of a Unitary Executive!!!!

All HAIL the New American Century!

We don't need no stinkin Warrants!

We don't need no stinkin courts & trials.

Those are for pussies!

Rumsfeld and Cheney were RIGHT!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

[msanthrope]

73. We don't need a trial to pursue people we are at war with. Like Confederates. Nazis.

Or members of Al-Qaeda.

Rumsfeld and Cheney were not right--they lacked the fortitude to target Al-Qaeda.

They went into Iraq, instead.

Tell me...

Would you have wrung your hands so much had Osama been blown out of Tora Bora in 2001? Without a trial, natch?

[bvar22]

93. How about the children of those "accused" of being "terrorists"?

Do you know the meaning of "accused"?

:shrug:

[shanti]

94. it would have saved us iraq?

like that was the only reason *ush/cheney wanted to be there? we were there for the $$$ to be made, not for OBL.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. To ALLEGEDLY aid bin ladens people. If the government accused

you of doing something, wouldn't you expect to get a trial before you were thrown in the clink or executed? Probably not, based on the thrust of your arguments heretofore.

Hence my modest proposal that, trials accruing excessive costs to the public, henceforth, executions immediately ensue without trial upon mere proclamation by the chief executive that a capital offense has been committed.

[msanthrope]

66. No. You don't get a trial in this case.

Let me 'splain.

Sort of been the law of the land since this whole shebang started.

When you declare yourself part of 'x' group, and 'x' group has been declared war on, you have a choice.

You can lay down your arms and surrender. Or you can be killed or captured. Marines choice.

You see, this is why we were able to kill lots of Confederates and Nazi's and all sorts of bad apples. Without trial.

We declared war on Al-Q on 9.18.2001. Really. You can look it up.

[cstanleytech]

67. No, not allegedly since he is on videos working hard for them or are you claiming the videos fake or

that he was unaware of what he was doing when he made the videos?

[coalition_unwilling]

71. Yes "allegedly" - until the defense has a chance to challenge the

authenticity of said evidence, you can make no absolute claims about its probative value. Jeesh!

[cstanleytech]

82. He had plenty of time to dispute them, years in fact so its kinda of moot issue.

[msanthrope]

53. Explain how his due process was violated, specifically????

Cite the statute broken????

He's covered under th AUMF of 9/18/2001.

Explain how he was denied his due process???

[Demit]

26. No. The administration does not want any legal checks on its unitary executive power.

Obama wants "covered persons" to be anyone he says is covered, and he doesn't want Congress to have any say in what action he takes against them. He doesn't want anything codified, anything in writing, any law, that limits him. And that includes action against American citizens on American soil.

[stockholmer]

33. +1000

[stockholmer]

32. your wrong, it leaves it wide open for anyone, anywhere to be designated a terrorist and Obama wants

sole power for the Executive branch to determine who is a terrorist. Obama's veto threat is because he doesn't want to have to report to Congress on any action he takes in this regard.


"Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy."



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/30/efforts-to-combat-levin-mccain-dont-do-anything-to-prohibit-indefinite-detention-of-americans/

Efforts to Combat Levin-McCain Don’t Do Anything to Prohibit Indefinite Detention of Americans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-new-national-defense-authorization-act-is-ridiculously-scary-2011-11


The New National Defense Authorization Act Is Ridiculously Scary

[No Elephants]

36. You are conflating substance and due process.

[msanthrope]

49. Tell me how the AUMF of 9.17.2001 violates due process??? nt

[DJ13]

14. Part of our Constitutionally granted Rights is to be against the government

.... if said government ceases to be representative of the people.

This sounds ominously like a declaration of intent to quell a potential uprising that could take place if the government refuses to change their policies that benefit only the 1%.

[harun]

16. +1, it's about OWS not Terror.

[AllTooEasy]

25. Bullshit

OWS has never declared war against America or annouced an intention to kill anybody. OWS wants to restore America. Al-Qaeda wants to kill all of us. Pa-lease! It's insulting to the people who PEACEFULLY struggle against police brutality and bitter cold evernight across this country to restore economic rightousness for you to mix these apples and oranges.

In addition, it's insulting to Obama to assume he can't make such an obvious difference. Heck, I don't think Bush was that stupid. Perry - maybe.

[EFerrari]

28. Wrong. Even people you dislike and disagree with are entitled

to their First Amendments rights, which are not subject to the whims of any president.

[mvd]

62. I agree. Every American citizen deserves a trial, even at war..

and if they are fighting for the enemy. Every attempt at capture/arrest should be made. Plus, he process of killing enemies who American citizens has the potential to be very selective (much like the death penalty) and set a bad precedent.

[msanthrope]

74. He should have shown up to his trial, then??? Any of them?

He had one in Yemen. For fomenting murder.

One in Britian, too, where he was a a co-conspirator in the BA bomb plot.

One here, in the US, where his Dad filed suit.

He didn't show for any of them.

Who did you expect to make the attempt at capture/arrest? You? Your relatives?

[mvd]

76. I do not support killing him and..

have no idea why people here do. Again, do what you can to capture him; he doesn't worry me that much anyway. AQ is overrated. I'm not going to change my opinion on this; it's my value system.

[msanthrope]

77. "AQ is overrated"? I call a Poe. nt

[mvd]

80. They are.

Conversation over!

[harun]

30. I'd rather not have to trust any of them and have the law stay the way it is.

[coalition_unwilling]

63. Actually, al-Qaeda is not the monolithic entity upon which your

claim is premised. The clearest enunciation of a long-term aim by anything remotely resembling an AQ cadre is for the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate from Morocco to Indonesia. I've never seen any AQ declaration of an intent to 'kill all of us.' However, I'll take back this post if you can document your claim with a link to a source other than the Project for a New American Century.

It's not whether Obama can or cannot make such an obvious difference (sic) but whether, that power once vested in the executive without checks, that power be turned against any "inconvenient" enemies of the state.

[hugo_from_TN]

98. Please see 1861-1865 in US History for a precedent.

[AverageJoe90]

101. I kinda disagree, I see it more as 1929-39 and the '50s combined.

A terrible economic rut and lots of 'N.W.O.' hysteria.....kinda reminds me of the Red Scare.

[mckara]

19. And We Thought the Right Had a Monopoly on Reactionary Paranoia!!!

[slutticus]

20. Does this also include those clinging to the idea of the Confederacy?

Or the militia wingers that have arms stockpiles? Or is this only for the "brown ones"?

[Bacchus39]

87. no, but it did apply to Confederate soldiers. n/t

s

[sinkingfeeling]

22. Is there any doubt who runs the government? 'CIA counsel' and 'Pentagon counsel' are now doing the

job of the Supreme Court: interpreting the Constitution.

[Democracydiva]

29. First they came for...

JKF,RFK, MLK, 911...If you don't buy into the official conspiracy theory (OCT), you might be considered a homegrown terrorist whether your are an attorney, a pilot , an architect, and engineer, a scientist or just citizen who sees beyond the lies.
http://911investigate.blogspot.com/2011/07/ae911truthorg-homegrown-terrorists.html

[No Elephants]

38. Yet another DU thread demonstrating "De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt" and idolatry is not

only about figures made in the desert of gold.

[bvar22]

41. When the President does it, that means it is NOT illegal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8


Do all those you who support Obama's Unitary Executive Powers
also support Bush-the Lesser when he grabbed those extra-Constitutional Powers
for The Presidency,
and will you continue to support these new Presidential powers when the Republicans retake the White House?

The right to Due Process and Public Trials are NOT just to protect the "accused",
they were put in place to Protect YOU.
They were put in place so that our government would remain accountable to The People,
and so that EVERY American could fulfill their democratic obligation to provide OVERSIGHT.


Depriving those "accused" of terrorism of Habeas Rights, a Defense, and a Public Trial
deprives EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN of the RIGHT and OBLIGATION to observe our government carrying out its duties.

It is my RIGHT and OBLIGATION as an American citizen to attend these trials,
to be able to examine the evidence against the accused,
and to hear the governments case against them.
Anything LESS is an infringement of MY rights.

I am amazed that people posting on a "Liberal" website would think this is a little thing
not worth worrying about.






Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[The Northerner]

44. +1 I wonder how those supportive of this policy would react if

they, a family member, a relative, or a friend of theirs was targeted by this policy.

[msanthrope]

50. If I had a family member in Al-Qaeda, I would turn them in.

Right after I informed my family members in the NYFD, the NYPD, and the family members in the unions who cleaned up from 9/11.

[bvar22]

97. We KNOW you would,

..but would you support having them and their families KILLED without a trial or even an arrest warrant issued?
...on YOUR "accusation" ONLY? :shrug:

You failed to address the pertinent points of MY post,
which were:

"Depriving those "accused" of terrorism of Habeas Rights, a Defense, and a Public Trial
deprives EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN of the RIGHT and OBLIGATION to observe our government carrying out its duties.

It is my RIGHT and OBLIGATION as an American citizen to attend these trials,
to be able to examine the evidence against the accused,
and to hear the governments case against them.
Anything LESS is an infringement of MY rights.


---quote from post # 41 by bvar22

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[coalition_unwilling]

65. Bravo! Due process is not there to protect 'them' but to protect 'us' - n/t

[rug]

45. The next Republican president will put Obama on Rushmore for this.

[msanthrope]

54. The authorization for this was passed under a Republican.

Mr. Bush could have done this under the AUMF of 9.18.2001.

He chose to go into Iraq rather than target Al-Q.

Perhaps you should ask why the Professional Left why it spends its time wringing its hands about a terrorist rather than asking why Mr. Bush isn't being held accountable for not blasting Osama and refraining from Iraq???

[rug]

68. I could but this current piece of shit action is more pertinent.

[msanthrope]

72. The current action was authorized 10 years ago. Too bad W. lacked the intestiinal fortitude,

It would have saved us Iraq.

[Zhade]

75. Remember your words when they come for you, lickspittle.

The irony will burn hot.

[msanthrope]

78. Aw, sweetie. I suspect I won't be the one up against the wall. nt

[a simple pattern]

84. Ain't that always the way

[U4ikLefty]

83. Professional Left?

:puke:

[JoeyT]

96. Obama promised to return us to the rule of law.

Good thing he was lying through his teeth when he said it.

Bush isn't being held accountable because Obama and his squad of right wingers won't prosecute him. How's that for an answer?
Obama is complicit in every crime Bush ever committed by refusing to prosecute them. So if you want to know why Bush isn't being held accountable, go ask him instead of us. We don't have the power to prosecute, he does.

The only two possible answers are cowardice or corruption, so you probably won't like the answer. Or you might. Who can tell?

[AverageJoe90]

102. I agree, but S.1867 has me worried still.

IMO, It's not so much the bill itself, TBH, but rather the rather wide possibilities for abuse.

[ProSense]

79. Why

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

The courts in habeas cases, such as those involving whether a detainee should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, make the determination of who can be considered an enemy combatant.

...is that controversial? The courts were not making decision during an ongoing war. The courts are not determining who is targeted in Afghanistan.

The court is not without recourse if the military abuses its authority, as the cases of soldiers tried and convicted for actions on the battlefield over the years show.

Still, in combat, the determination is made made by the military. It does not defer battlefield decisions to the court during war.

[doublethink]

92. So I guess this is a mute point now ......

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.” end quote

sad.

But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States. Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy. -snip-

This plays right into the hands of the recent legislation in making the "United States" part of that battlefield doesn't it?
Peace.

[hugo_from_TN]

99. mute point

:rofl:

[doublethink]

103. Okay moot ..... got me lol ...

;) hahaha ..... playing with my guitar amps too much lately. My volume goes to 11!! :thumbsup: