Paul's Here

Assassination of Americans

34 posts in this topic

Does anyone have a problem with President Obama ordering the assignation of an American citizen who is overseas, without any Congressional or judicial oversight?

U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed

Correction:

assignation = assassination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have a problem with President Obama ordering the assignation of an American citizen who is overseas, without any Congressional or judicial oversight?

U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed

Correction:

assignation = assassination

Nope. Think treason.

So if The President claims someone committed treason, or asserts that someone has committed treason, the only judgment needed is the President who may then issue orders to carry out the execution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am perfectly fine with the President of the United States (in this particular case, he deserves the title) killing a dangerous terrorist instead of feeding him on taxpayer money and releasing him after 4 years for good conduct. I wish he did it more often. Once you infringe or attempt to infringe unsuccessfully the rights of others, you forego your rights. This man was scum, and certainly did not deserve his citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a 'citizen' declares war on his country, then the rules of war support removing the threat. It was not Obama who declared war first, it was the "citizen". The right of self defence comes into play. There is no cause make allowances for a thug at our expense and risk.

The facts are not in dispute. He wants to kill, and he must be stopped. You don't need a court to find that out. Self declared enemies should be taken at their word and treated accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am perfectly fine with the President of the United States (in this particular case, he deserves the title) killing a dangerous terrorist instead of feeding him on taxpayer money and releasing him after 4 years for good conduct. I wish he did it more often. Once you infringe or attempt to infringe unsuccessfully the rights of others, you forego your rights. This man was scum, and certainly did not deserve his citizenship.
When a 'citizen' declares war on his country, then the rules of war support removing the threat. It was not Obama who declared war first, it was the "citizen". The right of self defence comes into play. There is no cause make allowances for a thug at our expense and risk.

The facts are not in dispute. He wants to kill, and he must be stopped. You don't need a court to find that out. Self declared enemies should be taken at their word and treated accordingly.

None of these issues is under dispute. The question I've presented was, "is the President the only one who has to make the above judgments and then carry out the execution without the need to make anyone aware of his reasons or the need to seek any outside justification?" What happens if his judgment is wrong? What happens if his judgment is political?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have a problem with President Obama ordering the assignation of an American citizen who is overseas, without any Congressional or judicial oversight?

The Congressional oversight was the declaration of war and ongoing appropriations for it together with reviews of war policy that have not resulted in revocation. The individual actions of the "Commander in Chief" of the military are not subject to approval.

Nope. Think treason.

So if The President claims someone committed treason, or asserts that someone has committed treason, the only judgment needed is the President who may then issue orders to carry out the execution?

It was not punishment for the treason, it was a retaliation against and to stop acts of war during a war. If this turkey had been an enemy from Mars exactly the same action should have been taken. That said turkey was "treasonous" because he was still automatically a citizen by birth even though permanently living as a terrorist against us in another country is incidental.

Obama cannot unilaterally declare anyone he wants to be treasonous and assassinate him for it. If he could, by his perverted criteria most of us would not still be here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am perfectly fine with the President of the United States (in this particular case, he deserves the title) killing a dangerous terrorist instead of feeding him on taxpayer money and releasing him after 4 years for good conduct. I wish he did it more often.

You give him too much credit. He stayed out of the way of the decisions of others' in the CIA and military who know what they are doing and how to do it. Every time Obama "approves" some action like this we breathe a sigh of relief that he didn't block it. Obama's approval is a "man bites dog" story, not a credit to him and his thought processes. He knows what he has to do if he is going to run for re-election, and it doesn't include establishing a record of protecting terrorists against the US.

Once you infringe or attempt to infringe unsuccessfully the rights of others, you forego your rights. This man was scum, and certainly did not deserve his citizenship.

This does not address the procedure for determining that or justify a government official or anyone else acting on his own to enforce it. The context of a war matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

al-Awlaki was fomenting a rebellion against the U.S. government and the President can use force to put down a rebellion. Lincoln had Union soldiers kill Confederate soldiers -- all American citizens -- without "due process."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have a problem with President Obama ordering the assignation of an American citizen who is overseas, without any Congressional or judicial oversight?

The Congressional oversight was the declaration of war and ongoing appropriations for it together with reviews of war policy that have not resulted in revocation. The individual actions of the "Commander in Chief" of the military are not subject to approval.

--------

When did Congress declare war against Yemen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------

Obama cannot unilaterally declare anyone he wants to be treasonous and assassinate him for it. If he could, by his perverted criteria most of us would not still be here.

What branch of govt. participated in the decision besides the executive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
al-Awlaki was fomenting a rebellion against the U.S. government and the President can use force to put down a rebellion. Lincoln had Union soldiers kill Confederate soldiers -- all American citizens -- without "due process."

I'm not sure of the full implementation but based upon this link, he summoned Congress to declare war.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do, hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. The Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the following information in this link:

On June 28, 2004, the Court ruled in two important cases challenging actions of the Bush Administration taken subsequent to the 9-11 acts of terrorism. In Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that Congress, in its 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, had given the President the power to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and deny him a trial in federal court. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority did, however, indicate that such persons cannot be held indefinitely and were entitled to contest the determination of their status with the assistance of counsel. Justice Scalia, somewhat surprisingly dissented, arguing that the Constitution entitled Hamdi to a criminal trial. He concluded:

"The Founders well understood the difficult tradeoff between safety and freedom. "Safety from external danger," Hamilton declared, "is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free." The Federalist No. 8, p. 33.

The Founders warned us about the risk, and equipped us with a Constitution designed to deal with it.

Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis-that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it. Because the Court has proceeded to meet the current emergency in a manner the Constitution does not envision, I respectfully dissent.

The Court in Hamdi did conclude, however, that under due process principles that citizens designated as enemy combatants were entitled to a written statement of the basis for that declaration, as well as a right to challenge it before a neutral decision-maker in a timely manner. In the other 9-11 case, Rasul v Bush, the Court ruled 6 to 3 that aliens detained in Guatanamo, Cuba had the right to challenge their detention in American courts, in part because the United States had exclusive jurisdiction and control over the base in Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have a problem with President Obama ordering the assignation of an American citizen who is overseas, without any Congressional or judicial oversight?

The Congressional oversight was the declaration of war and ongoing appropriations for it together with reviews of war policy that have not resulted in revocation. The individual actions of the "Commander in Chief" of the military are not subject to approval.

--------

When did Congress declare war against Yemen?

After 9/11 against the Islamic terrorists (in the usual wishy-washy language) acting on their own, not a government like Yemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have a problem with President Obama ordering the assignation of an American citizen who is overseas, without any Congressional or judicial oversight?

The Congressional oversight was the declaration of war and ongoing appropriations for it together with reviews of war policy that have not resulted in revocation. The individual actions of the "Commander in Chief" of the military are not subject to approval.

--------

When did Congress declare war against Yemen?

After 9/11 against the Islamic terrorists (in the usual wishy-washy language) acting on their own, not a government like Yemen.

I'd like to see the language that would declare war on a group anywhere on earth. I doubt if al-Awlaki would have been taken out with drones in Paris or London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------

Obama cannot unilaterally declare anyone he wants to be treasonous and assassinate him for it. If he could, by his perverted criteria most of us would not still be here.

What branch of govt. participated in the decision besides the executive?

None, but members of Congress may have been informally notified. Congress does not vote on Executive branch decisions once authorization and appropriations are passed. The Executive branch runs the government, and in particular the President is the Commander in Chief of the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found the following information in this link:
On June 28, 2004, the Court ruled in two important cases challenging actions of the Bush Administration taken subsequent to the 9-11 acts of terrorism. In Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that Congress, in its 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, had given the President the power to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and deny him a trial in federal court. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority did, however, indicate that such persons cannot be held indefinitely and were entitled to contest the determination of their status with the assistance of counsel...

The Court in Hamdi did conclude, however, that under due process principles that citizens designated as enemy combatants were entitled to a written statement of the basis for that declaration, as well as a right to challenge it before a neutral decision-maker in a timely manner. In the other 9-11 case, Rasul v Bush, the Court ruled 6 to 3 that aliens detained in Guatanamo, Cuba had the right to challenge their detention in American courts, in part because the United States had exclusive jurisdiction and control over the base in Cuba.

Nazi soldiers captured in WWII had a "right" to "challenge" their "detention" in "American courts" because the US military had control over the prison camps near the European battlefield? We are talking about war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When did Congress declare war against Yemen?

After 9/11 against the Islamic terrorists (in the usual wishy-washy language) acting on their own, not a government like Yemen.

I'd like to see the language that would declare war on a group anywhere on earth.

Look up the original Congressional resolution after 9/11 and the later reaffirmation.

I doubt if al-Awlaki would have been taken out with drones in Paris or London.

Or any other city with other people around. According to the article you posted he was on a remote road and the Yemeni government helped; it wasn't an attack on Yemen:

A Yemeni government official told CNN that the killing was the result of a "successful joint intelligence-sharing operation" between Yemen and the United States. The official asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the news media...

Al-Awlaki was killed about 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the Yemeni town of Khashef, east of the capital, Sanaa, said Mohammed Basha, a spokesman for the Yemeni Embassy in Washington. He said the operation was launched at 9:55 a.m.

The Yemeni government official said Yemeni intelligence had recently located al-Awlaki's hideout in a house in Khashef, in Jawf province, which borders Saudi Arabia.

It was also well known in Washington that the turkey was targeted. From the same article:

Last year, Al-Awlaki's father filed a lawsuit against Obama, then-CIA chief Panetta and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to prevent the U.S. government from trying to target his son for assassination.

A district court judge threw out the case in December, leaving open the question of whether the government has the right to kill Americans abroad without a trial...

Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, said al-Awlaki was on a "special list" of individuals attempting to attack the United States that is approved by the National Security Council and the president. Targeting those individuals is legal and legitimate, said Ruppersberger, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who was in Yemen two months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay Leno said tonight that getting this turkey must be very demoralizing to the terrorists -- they're losing their will to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay Leno said tonight that getting this turkey must be very demoralizing to the terrorists -- they're losing their will to die.

What? Running out of virgins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay Leno said tonight that getting this turkey must be very demoralizing to the terrorists -- they're losing their will to die.

What? Running out of virgins?

No. The virgins were just not kind they were expecting.

Nuns%20Carrying%20Weapons.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
al-Awlaki was fomenting a rebellion against the U.S. government and the President can use force to put down a rebellion. Lincoln had Union soldiers kill Confederate soldiers -- all American citizens -- without "due process."

False argument. The whole point of the civil war was that the confederates didn't *want* to be part of America anymore. It's a little difficult to claim the citizenship of a country you're in the middle of fighting to secede from.

I don't think he should have been assassinated; not because he didn't richly deserve to be, but because I don't think assassination is a tool we should use on citizens. Extradite him if you can, kidnap him if you can't, try him for treason, and *then* shoot him. God knows a guilty verdict would have been easy enough to come by... or at least, by all reason and logic it should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a link on why the turkey was still and American "citizen":Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen?
"In order to lose his citizenship, it must be shown that the U.S. citizen joined the foreign military or swore allegiance to another state "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality" -- a very tough standard. There's no evidence that Awlaki ever formally renounced his U.S. citizenship. "
Now that is a truly stupid decision. Even if al-Awlaki joined a foreign military (and) swore allegiance to another state, he would still have to show "intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality." You can bet that no American-born terrorist will do that from now on, regardless of their treasonous actions.

al-Awlaki swore allegiance to Al Qaida and Islam and planned and encouraged attacks against U.S. citizens. I agree with Paul that the President is not judge and jury of citizenship, regardless of Obama's hopes and dreams, but al-Awlaki was at the least an enemy combatant. I do not mourn his passing. I think it's imperative for our military to eliminate those who are known to have acted and continue to plan on acting to murder Americans. They are certainly not there to rebuild Iraq or make deals with our enemies in Afghanistan.

I see Paul's point that the President should consider due process, but, I don't see why we should give any more consideration to a statutorily American citizen, acting against Americans in a foreign state, than a bank robber, home-grown psycho terrorist, or cornered gangster threatening American citizens in the local bank, 7-11 or college campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites