Administration Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones/ACLU and CCR Stmnt

[Catherina]

November 8, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones
ACLU and CCR Statement

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration's asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.

"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration's claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing."

The ACLU and CCR 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. The lawsuit asks the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asks the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.

"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, who presented arguments in the case. "It's the government's responsibility to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, but the courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that counterterrorism policies are consistent with the Constitution."

The government filed a brief in the case in September, claiming that the executive's targeted killing authority is a "political question" that should not be subject to judicial review. The government also asserted the "state secrets" privilege, contending that the case should be dismissed to avoid the disclosure of sensitive information.

The lawsuit was filed against CIA Director Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Barrack Obama in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and Jennifer Turner of the ACLU; Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital. Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).

For more information on the case, including fact sheets and legal papers, visit: www.aclu.org/targetedkillings and www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings


http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zone


The constitution means nothing anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. The Rubicon is behind you people

[peacebird]

2. W.T.F.?

[WinkyDink]

4. To whom and/or about what do you address your post?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[WinkyDink]

7. And it would have to be a king pre-1215.

[FiveGoodMen]

68. Knew it would get deleted.

Guess some who run this board want a king, too.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Dyler Turden]

6. I think I just became unstuck in time.

Is this still 2010?

[Celtic Raven]

70. No, it's 1210

Pre Magna Carta.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Clearly and utterly unconstitutional. Accepting this is beyond consideration.

[leftstreet]

9. This is so fucked up. Needing the govt's permission to rep a client

This is totally out of control

K&R

[liberalmuse]

10. BULLSHIT!

Please stop posting this incendiary shit.

[de novo]

12. What part is bullshit?

[boppers]

18. The part that assumes Anwar Al-Aulaqi is not engaged in armed conflict.

A few more parts in there are absurd, but that one sticks out to me.

[leftstreet]

20. That has nothing to do with the case

:shrug:

[boppers]

43. The case was filed on his behalf.

That would be the connection.

[de novo]

21. Where is the proof of that claim?

The Administration cannot just decree it and have it be so.

Are you suggesting we are at war in Yemen? Has Al-Awlaki fired upon US troops? On US civilians?

[boppers]

48. Al-Awlaki made that claim. There are countless examples.

Here's one: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/17/al.awlaki.message/index.html

Yes, we are at war in Yemen. Have you somehow missed that news?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html

[bread_and_roses]

65. And "we have always been at war with Eastasia" too (n/t)

[boppers]

137. This isn't High School.

War doesn't cease to exist because of great books about fake wars.

[Exilednight]

28. So, if we somehow end up with a President Palin .............

and she said that boppers from DU is engaged in armed conflict, we're not suppose to flinch.

I just want to make sure I get this straight so I know how much to support you if it happens.

[grahamhgreen]

78. I want him questioned about his meetings with the Pentagon.

[boppers]

138. He can turn himself in.

Let me guess about the probabilities of that.

[Exilednight]

16. Please tell us, what is bullshit about this? I'm really curious how anyone left of center..........

justifies this.

[TheKentuckian]

113. Fuck left of center, no AMERICAN regardless of politics should be able to justify such an overreach

[Catherina]

So the ACLU is lying? They never loved Obama and want Palin right?

Please stop with the knee-jerk apologetics.

Your unsubstantiated word or the ACLU's? What a hard choice. NOT.

[donco6]

39. What part is bullshit?

Did you even read the article?

[bread_and_roses]

66. So the ACLU is now a source of "incendiary shit?"

I'm sure glad I got under that bus early - there can't be any room left.

Just to be clear, FOX "News" is a source of "incendiary shit." The ACLU is an organization that works to protect and defend our Constitutional rights and liberties.

Hope that helps.

[Ignis]

69. Perhaps you should raise your concern to the evil, evil ACLU?

:eyes:

[pecwae]

74. Now an ACLU

press release is incendiary on a liberal site? Who's next?

[MNBrewer]

94. BULLSHIT! PLEASE ASK THE ADMINISTRATION TO STOP!

They are the ones doing the incendiary things. Not the ACLU!

[de novo]

11. Recommend. This is a disturbing and frightening violation of human rights.

If it was a repub, we'd all be outraged over it. Since it is our team, only us with 'pet issues' care.

[Celtic Raven]

72. Yes

I'll take my pony in an undisclosed location now.

[Karmadillo]

13. K&R. This administration goes from bad to worse. Hard to imagine where it's going to end up.

nt

[amborin]

14. K&R it's hard to be shocked anymore

[MadHound]

17. Yep, the Dems couldn't wait to get into power,

And play with Bushboy's new extra-constitutional powers. This needs to be stopped now before it becomes even more widespread than it has.

Obama is not a friend of civil liberties. That's why any pursuit of justice vis-a-vis the Bush administration quickly went out the window when Obama came into office.

More of that "change".

[Catherina]

24. Trillion dimensional chess. Constitutional scholar. Sarah Palin. Pony. n/t

[avaistheone1]

30. Why

should we be afraid of Palin? I don't think we can do much worse than execute Americans without due process.

[Catherina]

32. Good question. Each successive President will keep expanding the horror n/t

[Lorien]

120. and let's not forget "we don't deserve him" and "They're SUCH a cute couple"!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

:banghead:

Yeah, we DON'T deserve him because he hasn't turned out to be the same person as the "hope and change" candidate that we worked and voted for! The whole thing was a sick, cynical con job. As for "cute"; how "cute" is it to assassinate American citizens?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[treestar]

22. Unrec.

Don't even have to read to know it's twisted bullshit.

[de novo]

23. How can you possibly know that?

This is the ACLU and CCR, why do you so flippantly dismiss them?

You really should read it before you toss it aside. That approach really weakens any credibility you may have.

[Celtic Raven]

73. ... here's your answer

:evilgrin:

[Skittles]

139. OMG CELTIC STOP IT

:rofl:

[Autumn]

109. Because in a twisted universe it's not favorable to

Obama. Therefore it's crap. Under the bus goes the ACLU and CCR, seriously we need a bigger fucking bus.

[Marr]

25. Predictable.

Rec'd.

[Individualist]

44. Indeed!

[Karmadillo]

26. Not reading so as not to know is the key to being a good Democrat these days.

nt

[avaistheone1]

29. snap

[Catherina]

33. 72 years ago, Good Germans peeped out their windows on Nov 9 1938

and then buried their heads deeper. November 9, the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

[glinda]

105. interesting timing

[Octafish]

142. + Double-Plus Good

Incredible. What's weirder still is the pride in ignorance...

[Exilednight]

34. That's like writing a book review without reading the book. I think Fox news has an opening .......

as a book reviewer. You seem like you might be a good fit.

[tkmorris]

37. Seriously? You refuse to even read it?

This borders on religious fanaticism. How on earth can you know you are right about a thing when you deny yourself the ability to know what you are talking about? Closing your eyes does not change what can be seen and putting your fingers in your ears does not change what can be heard. It just leaves you behind everyone else in the knowledge department.

[donco6]

40. That's a little sad.

You choose to keep yourself uninformed . . . for what? How does that benefit you?

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. I think that's called "willful ignorance", which is the worst kind. n/t

[superduperfarleft]

62. No, willfull ignorance is just moderately frustrating.

This is an example of arrogantly ignorant, which you can clearly see in Sarah Palin and that crowd. Not only are they proud of being ignorant and purposely remain so, they actually castigate others for not doing the same thing.

[Dr.Phool]

67. When reality doesn't fit your beliefs, change reality.

[Forkboy]

49. This post sums you up better than you ever could have hoped for.

[superduperfarleft]

63. Actually, my sigline does an even better job. n/t

[kas125]

54. The "twisted bullshit" is that they claim to have the right

to execute us without a trial. But that you'd call it "twisted bullshit" without bothering to read it is certainly no surprise. Ugh!

[Ignis]

71. Oh yes, everything that comes from the ACLU is horrible.

:freak:

[MNBrewer]

95. Rec'ed due to your unrec

+1

[Lorien]

121. "I don't have to hear the facts to know what I believe"

I guess that the Freepers aren't alone in that, huh?

[Canuckistanian]

27. This is just enabling future despots

Can you imagine some Republican crazy like George Bush who has brains?

If this precedent is cited, the damage to the world and America's reputation would be irretrievable. It might even be be ranked with a certain OTHER country who tried to take over the world with RW ideology.

I don't know where this country is going anymore.

[Catherina]

31. Past the point of no return down that slippery slope to hell n/t

[Better Believe It]

35. Dictatorships have declared the right to murder "enemies of the state".

[Catherina]

36. It's a sad day when the ACLU warns citizens and it's unrec'd so cavalierly

First they came...

[donco6]

41. Without even reading the article!

Ridiculous. And they think we're supposed to take them seriously?

[Catherina]

51. It speaks volumes and explains why we're where we are now. n/t

[jeff47]

89. I read the article. The objections still don't make sense.

The Constitution gives the Executive branch full control of foreign policy, except for the Senate ratifying treaties and the declaration of war. Killing people outside the US is foreign policy.

Every president has asserted the right to do so. The first one to use it was the Jefferson administration in 1801. People in the Barbary Coast were killed without the US declaring war (thus Congressional oversight) or Judicial review. If you'd prefer more modern examples, there's plenty from the Clinton, HW, Reagan and Carter presidencies.

As for a Constitutional angle, it's foreign policy, thus the Constitution does not provide any judicial review. Additionally, the Constitution does not provide any special protection for US Citizens. The rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to all people in US territory, regardless of citizenship. But Yemen clearly isn't US territory.

So where's the new evil power being seized by the Obama administration, and how is this different from, say, the Jefferson administration?

[MNBrewer]

99. The Constitution carves out an exception to the Due Process requirement?

I did not know that! Which Article?

[dgibby]

38. Pretty disturbing stance for a Constitutional Scholar to take.

I'm beginning to wonder who's Constitution he studied.

[jeff47]

87. Um...ours?

The Constitution grants the President control of all matters of foreign policy, except the Senate ratifying treaties and declarations of war.

As the killings take place outside US territory, it is foreign policy. Meaning the Constitution grants the president free reign.

Perhaps you could cite where in the Constitution there is another exception to the Executive's control of foreign policy?

[Catherina]

118. Then that would make it all O.K. Corral mentality. Shoot first and ask questions later

What bizarre posts.

So now the president is above the law, and the assassins are above the law. Do we have any due process left? Anywhere?

Neither the executive nor the judiciary branch are allowed to deny life or liberty without due process.

If Mccain had done this, everyone would be out in the streets. All hail personality worship. Accepting this injustice is abject subservience.

[Exilednight]

126. That's not quite true ..........

The constitution is granted to all US citizens regardless of where they reside as it pertains to matters of US law. Now, this is not to be confused with the fact that if you commit a crime on foreign soil that you could, and probably will, be held accountable to their laws.

But as it pertains to crimes against the state, you still fall under US law no matter where you reside in the world.

I will also point out that the only crime covered by the constitution is treason.

[Individualist]

42. Change you can believe in?

[Solly Mack]

46. k/r

[inna]

47. K&R. Some "interesting" reactions in this thread.

x(

[Forkboy]

50. No worries, Surely, the Dems will be in power forever and ever, amen!

[galileoreloaded]

53. Because they would NEVER abuse power. hahahaha. n/t

[boppers]

56. Bill Clinton lobbing cruise missiles...

Shrub lobbing missiles...

It's a time honored tradition by now.

[MNBrewer]

100. Yes

1. Whatever Democrats do is OK because they're Democrats.
2. You better keep voting for Democrats to stay in power, or the Republicans might do the same thing if they get in power.

All clear now? ;)

[galileoreloaded]

52. Go Team!!! n/t

[ConsAreLiars]

55. K&R. The faith-based dittoheads across the whole political spectrum all deserve

a reality check, no matter how determined they are to resist.

[steve2470]

57. kick for importance !!! nt

[DirkGently]

58. "U.S. citizens on government kill lists." Indefensible.

And where are the conservatives claiming that healthcare reform is unacceptable because it will lead to "Government Death Panels."

We already have a Government Death Panel, apparently.

United States Constitution, Amendment V:

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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<1>

And no, the Bush administration's attempted rationale along the lines of "We're at always at war ... with whomever we deem to be a terrorist" does not wash. You can have a right to due process, or you can have a Unitary Executive. You cannot have both.

We all ought to be able to agree on this.

[emilyg]

59. k/r

[xocet]

60. Wonderful.... n/t (sarcasm)

[blackspade]

61. Unbelievable.

It is crap like this that underscores my discomfort with Obama and his administration.
This flies in the face of constitutional law even worse than warrant-less wire-tapping and suspending Habeas Corpus.
To call this a political issue is disingenuous at best.

It is pretty despicable actually, especially given the lack of Justice Department investigations into crimes committed in the last administration.
It shows that general lawlessness has pervaded the ruling class of this country.

[jeff47]

64. I don't quite get the hubub

The Constitution puts foreign policy entirely in the executive branch, with the exception of the Senate ratifying treaties and declarations of war.

Thus, presidents have asserted the right to kill anyone outside the US. And they've asserted this for...well I can't think of a president who didn't. Carter thought killing Iranians via the ill-fated hostage rescue would be just fine. Or Jefferson killing Barbary pirates in 1801 without the benefit of a declaration of war.

The Constitution does not create special rights for US citizens. The Constitution enumerates rights of all people, regardless of citizenship. A green-card holder still has 4th amendment protections, for example.

So why is it perfectly fine to kill a Yemeni in Yemen, but horrific to kill a US Citizen in Yemen? In my mind, either both killings have to be illegal, or both have to be legal. If the US Citizen has a constitutional right to US due process while in Yemen, so does that Yemeni.

I do not understand the distinction that the ACLU is trying to create.

[blackspade]

79. Try reading a little more of the article and briefs.

The hubbub is that there is nothing that prevents this or future presidents from declaring, say, you, as an enemy of the state and then assassinating you, anywhere.
It would be a unilateral decision, with no judicial oversight, and with no standards. Bang. Your dead.

[jeff47]

82. I suggest you read my post again

"The hubbub is that there is nothing that prevents this or future presidents from declaring, say, you, as an enemy of the state and then assassinating you, anywhere.
It would be a unilateral decision, with no judicial oversight, and with no standards. Bang. Your dead."

My point is that has always been the case. _ALL_ of the Presidents of the United States have asserted the right to kill people outside the US without any oversight. This is not a new power that they are seizing. It was first used against a recognized foreign government in 1801. It probably would have been used sooner if the Washington or Adams administrations had more foreign dealings.

In addition, there are no additional protections in the Constitution for US citizens, because the protections in the Constitution apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship. So why the canard about US citizens? If it's so upsetting to kill US citizens, why is it _NOT_ upsetting to kill foreigners?

[blackspade]

88. I read it fine.

I have made no mention of US citizens or killing people outside of the US.
If this administration is successful, there is nothing from stopping them from killing anyone within or outside of this country regardless of citizenship, again, based on a unilateral decision, with no judicial oversight, and with no standards.

[jeff47]

90. So you just wish to misstate the case

"If this administration is successful, there is nothing from stopping them from killing anyone within or outside of this country regardless of citizenship, again, based on a unilateral decision, with no judicial oversight, and with no standards."

The lawsuit is about killing someone outside the US. Again, a power the president has always had. How, exactly, would this power suddenly translate, today, to killing in the US when that's not what's actually the substance of the lawsuit?

The question before the court is literally "Can the President kill someone in Yemen without Congressional or Judicial approval?"
Can you cite somewhere in the Constitution that says "No"?

[blackspade]

92. Now you are being disingenuous.

The reason for the case is a US citizen in Yemen, but the implications and precedent that it would set go far beyond this particular case.
What the administration is arguing is that they have the authority to declare that anyone, anywhere can be assassinated on the president's or someone authorized by the president's say so. Nothing in the government's position provides any checks and balances, much less transparency, or oversight to this process.

[jeff47]

97. And you're being sensationalist

"The reason for the case is a US citizen in Yemen, but the implications and precedent that it would set go far beyond this particular case."

Except as the case is about someone outside the US, the judge shouldn't be ruling on the legality of the Administration's position inside the US regardless of the administration's argument.

My point underlying all this is we should not get ourselves into a tizzy so that we're set up for disappointment when the courts rule the President can do whatever he wants outside the US. Because that's how the Constitution is written.

As for inside the US, the administration is talking about the law as written by Congress. And the administration is required to defend the laws written by Congress as Congress wrote them. But having that part struck down will be a good thing.

But after all that, there's still no explanation for the ACLU's constant "US citizen!!" refrain.

[blackspade]

102. Now you are conflating things.

There is no Tizzy here.
This is a horrible precedent to set.
The notion that the President can assassinate anyone wherever they may be with no oversight, or recourse for the victim should be athema to all Americans.
This administration continues the shameful practice of hiding behind the states secrets "privilege" to the detriment of us all.

[Exilednight]

127. You have a basic assumption that is wrong .................

In addition, there are no additional protections in the Constitution for US citizens, because the protections in the Constitution apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship.

That's not true at all. The US constitution only applies to foreign aliens as long as they are within US borders. Whether they are here in a legal or illegal status makes no difference, but they have to be within US borders for the constitution to apply to them.

The only scenario in which the US constitution is applicable, as it pertains to your rights concerning crimes against the state, to a person residing outside of the US is if that person is a US citizen.

Here's another little caveat, even if you formally renounce your US citizenship, you are still a US citizen no matter where you reside.

[keepCAblue]

81. It allows the US to establish a military presense in Yemen without the approval of Congress...n/t

[jeff47]

83. Which first occurred in 1801. Still nothing new here. (nt)

[blackspade]

91. A little review of history might help.

Tripoli declared war on the US following the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson after he refused to pay an tribute to the Bashaw.
Hostilities had been ongoing with the Barbary states since 1785 and eventually lead to the founding of the US Navy in 1798.
Jefferson sent a naval expedition to the Mediterranean to protect US shipping. While no formal declaration of war was issued, the Congress did authorize the venture and had the president instruct the ships commanders to seize the vessels and property of the Bashaw of Tripoli and to institute hostilities as if a state of war existed.

Jefferson did not unilaterally make this decision, he did so with the backing of congress.

[jeff47]

93. Your timeline is off

Jefferson sent the ships. Then he asked Congress for approval, which they gave without declaring war.
In 1802, Jefferson got congressional approval before acting again.

[blackspade]

96. Not exactly

Jefferson sent ships in response to an act of war to defend American shipping.
Congress gave the president instructions on what the ship commanders were supposed to do.
That is prosecute the Bashaw of Tripoli and his possessions.

[jeff47]

98. Once again, timeline

Jefferson sent ships. Later, he asked Congress to approve. Meaning he sent the ships without Congress's approval.

If I remember correctly Congress wasn't in session, so pre-approval wasn't practical.

[Luminous Animal]

108. Jefferson used the authority that Congress established in the spring of '01.

On March 3, 1801, one day before Jefferson took office as president, Congress passed legislation to provide for a "naval peace establishment," a small but meaningful navy "to be kept in constant service in time of peace."

And that is Jefferson did. He sent the squadron to the Mediterranean, The Pasha of Tripoli declared war, Jefferson commanded the Navy from a defensive stance, conferred with Congress when they came back in session, and not only asked for Congress's sanction but also indicated that, "It was up to Congress to authorize "measures of offense also""

http://books.google.com/books?id=K-1jXBcSQMUC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22Louis+Fisher%22+tripoli&source=bl&ots=XgJR2WboMl&sig=lxMyyMPzHEj5FEbXS-Ta2bn2atw&hl=en&ei=xMPZTILiLof4sAPvwvXXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Luminous Animal]

101. In Jefferson's case, Tripoli declared war on the U.S. and Jefferson did defer to Congress

with how to deal with the Barbary pirates.

Louis Fisher in his book, The War Power: Original and Contemporary
http://books.google.com/books?id=K-1jXBcSQMUC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=%22Louis+Fisher%22+tripoli&source=bl&ots=XgJR2WboMl&sig=lxMyyMPzHEj5FEbXS-Ta2bn2atw&hl=en&ei=xMPZTILiLof4sAPvwvXXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

""Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison."

From Louis Fisher's congressional testimony:
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/fis041008.htm

"III. Barbary Wars

In your hearing on March 13, a question was raised whether President Thomas Jefferson exercised unilateral power to engage in military actions against the Barbary powers in the Mediterranean. Consistent with the principles stated above, his actions were of a defensive nature. He reported to Congress on what he had done, asking for legislative guidance. He told Congress that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanctions of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” Congress passed ten statutes authorizing Presidents Jefferson and Madison to use military force against the Barbary nations, resulting in a series of treaties in 1815 with Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli"

[blackspade]

104. Thank you!

I was just looking for this very thing.

[MNBrewer]

103. Which Article?

Citations, please. Or, STFU.

[blackspade]

106. Excuse me?

The ACLU article from the OP and the links to the briefs therein.

Thanks for the civility...

Edited for civility myself.

[MNBrewer]

107. Capital "A", as in Article of the Constitution.

You seem to think that the Constitution puts unlimited power in the hands of the POTUS. Which "A"rticle of the Constitution of the United States?

Get it now? Huh? Need more explanation?

(hostile much?)

[blackspade]

110. Again, excuse me?

I am arguing that the PONTUS does NOT have unlimited authority.
Recheck the thread.
My reference to the 'article' was in reference to the OP.
As for hostile, you started by telling me to STFU.

[blackspade]

123. Oops!

Sorry, I thought you were responding to me!
Maybe I should recheck the tread, eh?

:blush:

[Puregonzo1188]

114. Just curious, have you read the 14th Amendment?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Al-Queda makes the same claim to authority.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
Friedrich Nietzche

[truth2power]

76. So....this is different from the Bush administration, how???...

Gee, no pony there.

[jeff47]

86. This is different from every other administration, how???...

This is a power that every administration has claimed. W, Clinton, HW, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Ike, Truman, FDR and so on. First administration I can think of to use it was the Jefferson administration. My guess is the first two presidents didn't use it since they had very few foreign dealings.

Since this is a power the president has always had, why are you upset about it now?

[Puregonzo1188]

115. When did any of the administrations ever claim the right to assassinate a US citizen?

Hell, all administrations after Ford disavowed the right to assassination of anyone.


And please don't tell me about the Barbary pirates, they have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and even if they did several people up-thread have dismantled your argument.

[Lorien]

116. *crickets*

There is nothing, NOTHING, they won't defend in the name of Obama.

[Pavulon]

130. I believe he is no longer a citizen.

so he will be killed in an act of war, like his friends in pakistan. This is printed in your passport.

# taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
# entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

[TheMadMonk]

125. And exactly when did the rest of the world fall off the face of the Earth mate?

The unilatteral "right" to carry out targetted killings elsewhere in the world IS:

Conspiracy to commit murder.

under the laws of most of the rest of the world, no matter what a Judge IN THE USA might rule.

[Pavulon]

131. Good chance one of them will pickup the job..

depending on who finds him first. He will be lucky if we splatter him, rather than finding his way back to saudi or jordan in their custody.

[grahamhgreen]

77. When they show you who they are - believe them.

[fascisthunter]

85. damnit... whose quote was that?

[grahamhgreen]

112. Randi Rhodes!

[Celtic Raven]

141. Maya Angelou

"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them."
— Maya Angelou

More quotes: http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/3503.Maya_Angelou

[fascisthunter]

144. THANK You!

[Celtic Raven]

145. You're welcome

:hi:

I think I'm going to add it as my sigline.

[keepCAblue]

80. Amy Goodman - Democracy Now - reported on this several days ago. Video link -->

Rep. Keith Ellison on Tea Party Anti-Muslim Bigotry, US-backed Assassinations in Yemen, and the Firing of Juan Williams

Aired Nov. 1, 2010.

Video link: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/1/muslim_congressman_keith_ellison_on_tea

Transcript Excerpt:

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of what’s happening in Yemen, Congressman Ellison, the White House is considering adding armed CIA drones to the arsenal against militants in Yemen, mirroring the agency’s Pakistan campaign, and allowing the US military Special Operations Command units to operate under the CIA would giving US greater leeway to strike at militants without even an explicit approval from the Yemeni government. What are your thoughts on this? All of this of course coming out with the two bombs that were found on planes headed to Chicago, it looked like.

REP. KEITH ELLISON: You know, I’m concerned about that policy. I am concerned about it because, you know, I have endeavored to try to study terrorist ideology, and these people don’t expect to defeat the United States with these bombs and stuff. What they want to do is provoke a reaction, which they then can use to whip up—use as a communications tool against the United States. So, I think that what we may do is go slower here, think through the implications of it, think through the legalities of it, and really try to come up with a real counterterrorism strategy designed to undermine these people. I mean, these terrorist groups, I mean, they’re literally hoping to agitate the United States or the larger military power to come back at them, and then, when civilians die, they say, "See what the US did? And we’re the ones to help you; the US is not." So I think that it’s important to bear in mind what their strategic objectives are and not allow ourselves to be tricked into their game plan. I do—so I am concerned about it and really, really have reservations.

And then, on the other front, the whole idea of the drone program is something I think we need to have a real dialogue about, because talk about asymmetric warfare. I mean, this is the ultimate in being able to strike, but not be struck back against. And whenever that is the paradigm, you know, you kind of wonder whether or not your threshold for decision making gets lowered. I mean, for example, how many casualties are acceptable? How much evidence do we need before you do a targeted assassination? What is the due process implications? Are victims to be compensated? I mean, there is a whole range of important questions that I don’t think we’re answering, or even really asking. And so, I think that this raises some very critical issues that I’m very concerned with. I can tell you that the United States used to be a very popular country in Pakistan. Our popularity there has plummeted. I don’t think it’s a good idea to repeat that scenario in Yemen. And I do believe there’s got to be better ways to do this.

And let me also say this, Amy. You know, the fact is, is that, you know, we do need to strengthen diplomatic relations. I mean, Yemen is one of the poorest countries in the world. Yemen is a country where some transnational terrorists can sort of run around without a lot of scrutiny, because the Yemeni government is so weak. And so, you know, there are a lot of things that we should do before, you know, we kind of launch into a—we basically become a military presence in Yemen. And of course we would be one if we have military wherewithal—hardware, personnel—there and are engaged in fighting. Then we’re militarily in Yemen without the Congress ever saying a word about it. And the reason that Congress is not really focusing is because there are no body bags to worry about, nobody’s son or daughter is going to come back—and, of course, we don’t want that, but that then relieves us of the responsibility of really making the tough decisions. So, I don’t know. There’s a number of issues.

AMY GOODMAN: So, are you opposed to the—so, are you opposed, Congressman Ellison, to the targeted assassination of the American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who’s believed to be in Yemen now?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Let me say this about that. Anwar al-Awlaki is an extremely problematic individual. I think he is criminally culpable for promoting terrorism, and I don’t mean just in some vague way. I mean in some fairly direct ways. I do think Anwar al-Awlaki needs to be held responsible for what he did. But I would rather see Anwar al-Awlaki sitting up in a courtroom and the evidence being marshalled against him and him getting a sentence that he deserves, like if he can be proved to be responsible for the things I think he’s responsible for, getting a life sentence or something like that. But I think that when you do a character—I mean, when you do this assassination, you essentially give him what he wants, which is martyrdom. I mean, Anwar al-Awlaki is not scared to get killed. You know, he is somebody who wants—who has delusional, fantastic, crazy dreams of being some kind of a martyr. And so, why reward him with that? The last thing Anwar al-Awlaki wants to be called is a common criminal, which is what I think he is. So I would rather us pursue a strategy of arresting him and putting him on trial and then—and not allowing him to claim that he’s some sort of a victim. That would be, I think, the preferred way to do it.

[fascisthunter]

84. Americans should never speak of Freedom again until this shit is reversed

giving ANY government this power is suicidal and crazy.

[Lorien]

117. Yep. nt

[Pavulon]

132. They have had it. See gerry bull, diem, etc

this is just making the legal case clear. he is at war with the us so killing him is no different than shooting a man in a firefight. He chose his side, so he can own that call.

[Autumn]

111. The constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper

according to Bush, and Obama seems to agree. K/R

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Catherina]

122. There is no defense of this bullshit. At best you get 19 silent faith-based unrecs

without even reading the ACLU's statement.

[Pavulon]

128. Oh its nothing new. He just made it public.

this guy was going to end up bird shit one way or another. Every American president has used executive authority to carry out similar work.

On edit, if you have a passport, open it up. there are some things you can to do no longer be a citizen. This guy did them.

[Capitalocracy]

124. K&R from me. And I wonder

Why is noone talking about the effect of the administration's policy on war, torture and extrajudicial execution, etc., and the BP oil spill on the 2010 election? You don't think maybe these things had an effect on Dem turnout?

[Pavulon]

129. He is not a citizen, that is null under these laws..

He is clearly aligned with a party we are at war with, so is a marked man.

# taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
# entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

[Sirveri]

133. Then why are they asking for permission to kill American citizens...

If they can assassinate random non-American citizens, then why are they asking for the authority to assassinate American citizens if all they want to do is assassinate someone who has lost his citizenship.

[Pavulon]

134. Hey, maybe he will turn himself in to the CIA.

maybe not. his position is quite clear and he seems willing to be a martyr for it. Personally I hope the Egyptians or Jordanians catch him.

They are not asking permission, he is dead either way. Even if there was an injunction on the US the work would be subbed out.

[msanthrope]

143. The Obama Administration isn't asking for permission. It states it has the right to...

and if you read the ACLU's brief, they really are not disputing that the Administration has that right...

They argue that the power should only be used against Anwar Al-Aulaqi as a last resort, or facing imminent threat. Further, they want to know more about the process of putting him on the list.

[katandmoon]

135. K&R Disgusting. I sure as fuck didn't vote for Obama for this.

[lonestarnot]

136. Oh so that would mean if we had a Cambodia, we could friendly kill all we sent there in the first

place and just eliminate all future witnesses?

[Skittles]

140. I would have thought bush would have established this, er, "right"