8 ms·

“The cleric’s fiery sermons had helped inspire a dozen plots, including the shootings at Fort Hood. Then he had gone “operational,” plotting with Mr. Abdulmutal

“The cleric’s fiery sermons had helped inspire a dozen plots, including the shootings at Fort Hood. Then he had gone “operational,” plotting with Mr. Abdulmutallab and coaching him to ignite his explosives only after the airliner was over the United States. That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial? The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him. Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks. Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located. Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.” I think the point that needs to be asked is, at one point does a fellow American become justified as an enemy combatant?

yucky 4y ago
I'm aware of the pretzel logic used by people in the Bush and Obama Administrations to justify extrajudicial activities that are clearly unconstitutional. So let me ask you this - at what other point in US history have we decided that a US citizen is a bad enough person that we just put them on a hit list rather than even attempt to bring them to justice? I mean, we have held worse people in Guantanamo who aren't even US citizens and without trial, but a US citizen gets neither? You list out all of these "assertions" which may or may not be true, but they are assertions made by the people who killed him. So do we take that at face value because our government would never lie? Or is it fair that we would expect the government to prove those assertions in court, as we have throughout history? And if you are comfortable with Presidents like Obama making those extrajudicial assassination calls, are you comfortable with Presidents like Trump doing the same? If not, why not?
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  I mean…it’s circumstantial? The reason these societal contracts hold weight is because people give them weight. Ultimately it’s up to the people to hold government accountable. Did the public care about possible implications of Awlaki? Probably very few. Did people care about Waco? A lot more did. US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis on the premise of perceived threat. Look, I’m no legal scholar. These are social contracts, ultimately what’s legal is what society deems legal. Do you have any sources documenting legal challenges against the administration’s memo?
  - yucky 4y ago
    >US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis Not sure if your misquoting me is intentional or not, since it completely changes the meaning of what happened in this case. This was not a police shooting. This was not an in-the-moment decision, or a reaction on a battlefield. So I think you're not understanding what extrajudicial assassination means. You can read more about the Obama Kill List aka "The Disposition Matrix" by using Google and choosing your favorite source. But for the sake of this discussion, this list included people that the Obama Administration had decided needed to be assassinated rather than brought to justice (this part is key), some of them US citizens including Al-Awlaki. In fact, Al-Awlaki's father[1] who was not a US citizen, but a US educated government official in Yemen, found out that his son had been placed on this assassination list. He pleaded with the US Justice Department to bring charges against his son, so that he could have his son turn himself in. The US Government REFUSED to file charges against Anwar Al-Awlaki, since that would then require them to prove their case in court, which they didn't want to do. So please, stop trying to compare this to a police shooting, this was a targeted assassination of US Citizen who was on a hit list for 18 months before they finally killed him. That is an assassination by definition. [1] https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aulaqi-v-Obama-et-al/ https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aula...
    - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
      Targeted killing and assassination are two different things in the eyes of the law. Please stop conflating the two. Like I said, I’m no legal scholar. This is what I’ve come across for legal opinion: The criteria set by the following, outlining the circumstances of legal targeted killing of US citizens, here: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=vlr https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... In conjunction with the original memo arguing justification, here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-ruling-awlaki-olc-memo/65ac10d47e3cc031/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-r... …seems convincing to me. As long as a certain criteria is met, extrajudicial targeted killings of US citizens is probably legal: “The practice of targeted killing can be used in a manner that is consistent with U.S. and international laws. Permissible targets will be of a military nature, and killing them will serve a military objective. No laws, international or domestic, prohibit the practice if it is carried out by a state against an enemy of that state actively engaged in an armed conflict against that state. When the target is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. Constitution demands certain additional procedures before the U.S. government may kill the target. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause dictates these procedures. The procedures ensure a just determination of the target's permissibility as a military matter and the subjective intent of the target not to avail himself of the further protections to which he is entitled as an American citizen. A neutral decisionmaker should balance the targeted citizen's life against the risk he poses. If the decision comes out against him, then the military may launch a strike.” Do you have an official release of this disposition matrix, AKA kill list? It seems it’s existence has been confirmed via leak. I don’t see any info about who exactly is/has been on it. “The process determining criteria for killing is not public…” Knowing about it is not very useful if you don’t know the criteria. It’s not very helpful at all, in fact, in determining legality here.
ncmncm 4y ago
Something everybody seems to agree on is that he was not involved in any planning or execution, but only in publicity and recruiting. And his son and daughter, of course, neither. Something else authorities agree on is that making them into martyrs has caused much more harm than any of them ever did alive, so even had the logic justifying wasting them had been sound, on its own terms, it was still very, very stupid. Often principles are there to protect you from your own stupidity.
Maursault 4y ago
> meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority Like, say... the 5th Amendment?

yucky 4y ago

I'm aware of the pretzel logic used by people in the Bush and Obama Administrations to justify extrajudicial activities that are clearly unconstitutional. So let me ask you this - at what other point in US history have we decided that a US citizen is a bad enough person that we just put them on a hit list rather than even attempt to bring them to justice? I mean, we have held worse people in Guantanamo who aren't even US citizens and without trial, but a US citizen gets neither? You list out all of these "assertions" which may or may not be true, but they are assertions made by the people who killed him. So do we take that at face value because our government would never lie? Or is it fair that we would expect the government to prove those assertions in court, as we have throughout history? And if you are comfortable with Presidents like Obama making those extrajudicial assassination calls, are you comfortable with Presidents like Trump doing the same? If not, why not?

trevorboaconstr 4y ago
I mean…it’s circumstantial? The reason these societal contracts hold weight is because people give them weight. Ultimately it’s up to the people to hold government accountable. Did the public care about possible implications of Awlaki? Probably very few. Did people care about Waco? A lot more did. US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis on the premise of perceived threat. Look, I’m no legal scholar. These are social contracts, ultimately what’s legal is what society deems legal. Do you have any sources documenting legal challenges against the administration’s memo?
- yucky 4y ago
  >US governmental bodies carry out extrajudicially killings of US citizen on a daily basis Not sure if your misquoting me is intentional or not, since it completely changes the meaning of what happened in this case. This was not a police shooting. This was not an in-the-moment decision, or a reaction on a battlefield. So I think you're not understanding what extrajudicial assassination means. You can read more about the Obama Kill List aka "The Disposition Matrix" by using Google and choosing your favorite source. But for the sake of this discussion, this list included people that the Obama Administration had decided needed to be assassinated rather than brought to justice (this part is key), some of them US citizens including Al-Awlaki. In fact, Al-Awlaki's father[1] who was not a US citizen, but a US educated government official in Yemen, found out that his son had been placed on this assassination list. He pleaded with the US Justice Department to bring charges against his son, so that he could have his son turn himself in. The US Government REFUSED to file charges against Anwar Al-Awlaki, since that would then require them to prove their case in court, which they didn't want to do. So please, stop trying to compare this to a police shooting, this was a targeted assassination of US Citizen who was on a hit list for 18 months before they finally killed him. That is an assassination by definition. [1] https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aulaqi-v-Obama-et-al/ https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aula...
  - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
    Targeted killing and assassination are two different things in the eyes of the law. Please stop conflating the two. Like I said, I’m no legal scholar. This is what I’ve come across for legal opinion: The criteria set by the following, outlining the circumstances of legal targeted killing of US citizens, here: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=vlr https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... In conjunction with the original memo arguing justification, here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-ruling-awlaki-olc-memo/65ac10d47e3cc031/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/second-circuit-foia-r... …seems convincing to me. As long as a certain criteria is met, extrajudicial targeted killings of US citizens is probably legal: “The practice of targeted killing can be used in a manner that is consistent with U.S. and international laws. Permissible targets will be of a military nature, and killing them will serve a military objective. No laws, international or domestic, prohibit the practice if it is carried out by a state against an enemy of that state actively engaged in an armed conflict against that state. When the target is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. Constitution demands certain additional procedures before the U.S. government may kill the target. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause dictates these procedures. The procedures ensure a just determination of the target's permissibility as a military matter and the subjective intent of the target not to avail himself of the further protections to which he is entitled as an American citizen. A neutral decisionmaker should balance the targeted citizen's life against the risk he poses. If the decision comes out against him, then the military may launch a strike.” Do you have an official release of this disposition matrix, AKA kill list? It seems it’s existence has been confirmed via leak. I don’t see any info about who exactly is/has been on it. “The process determining criteria for killing is not public…” Knowing about it is not very useful if you don’t know the criteria. It’s not very helpful at all, in fact, in determining legality here.

ncmncm 4y ago

Something everybody seems to agree on is that he was not involved in any planning or execution, but only in publicity and recruiting. And his son and daughter, of course, neither. Something else authorities agree on is that making them into martyrs has caused much more harm than any of them ever did alive, so even had the logic justifying wasting them had been sound, on its own terms, it was still very, very stupid. Often principles are there to protect you from your own stupidity.

Maursault 4y ago

> meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority Like, say... the 5th Amendment?