Judge Throws Out Challenge to Targeted Assassination

Judge Throws Out Challenge to Targeted Assassination

abcnews .go.com

In a victory for the Obama administration, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit today challenging the governments' authority to assassinate Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen hiding in Yemen.

Awlaki is a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). He has been linked to the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas day 2009, the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan and the recent seizure of bomb-making materials in the cargo of two planes.

(visit the link for the full news article)

We are on a very dangerous slope. Has it been proven that he is doing these things or is he a figurehead being used by both sides?

Innocent until proven guilty? in a court of law? Apparently doesn't apply anymore. These things at one time were considered American.

Don't get too caught up in the wikileaks thing that you miss out on other important things going on.

abcnews .go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The amendments to the Patriot Act would allow this....Basically, it states that if you're even suspected being involved (directly or indirectly not being addressed) in terrorist activity, authorities have the right to kill you off. No proof needed.

Yup, good ole Patriot Act, the most misnamed Act in US history.

You Americans didn't even protest it, not once.

You even reelected GWB as a thank you for keeping you safe.

The Patriot Act also gives the TSA authority for those full body airport scanners and pat downs.

Here is another just released news article:

WASHINGTON — A judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death, but questioned whether a president or his aides can unilaterally order a U.S. citizen assassinated for terrorist activity.
U.S. District Judge John Bates said in an 83-page opinion that he does not have the authority to review the president's military decisions and al-Awlaki's father does not have the legal right to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raised vital considerations of national security and for military and foreign affairs.
Among the "stark and perplexing questions" Bates said the case raises is why courts have authority to approve surveillance of Americans overseas but not their killing. And he questioned whether the president or his advisers can order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without "any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization."

Judge tosses bid......

National security and military and foreign affairs vs due process.

I hope the militias have added his name to the traitors.

Because he's one. A traitor to the constitution.

Does this mean that any US Citizen could be subject to assassination? Any Lawyers out there who could interpret this?

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I hope the militias have added his name to the traitors.

Because he's one. A traitor to the constitution.

He rendered his decision with a 85 page document. He can't by law over turn a military decision by the president. He does question the process or lack of any judical oversight.

He should have sent it to a higher court. Seriously a 85 page report and he tosses the case???

Well, in case anyone was still wondering who the real enemy is...

There's your answer. No matter what the justification may be, no matter what laws grant authority, such actions are treason against the people of the United States. No law can supersede the constitution, nor can it remove the rights enumerated therein.

Curious to see where this goes, or if it dies like everything else. The US Constitution outlines briefly the rights granted to counter such treason, but I highly doubt they will be exercised. I rather fear things will continue building until we see a complete collapse of the US or a French Revolution-style uprising. Neither of which are likely to end well for most citizens, I fear.

No one should be permitted to be above the law of the land Those who put themselves in such a position of power end in one of two ways: they use their power to abuse the citizens living under the law, or they are executed for their crimes, be it in a court or in, say, a theatre. Anyone want to take bets on how this one will end?

I'll take option one in a landslide.

www.nytimes.com...

In the new video, Mr. Awlaki appears at a desk wearing traditional Yemeni garb, including a ceremonial dagger, and says no special clerical ruling is required to kill Americans. “Don’t consult with anyone in fighting the Americans; fighting the devil doesn’t require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance,” Mr. Awlaki said.

Also in the video, Mr. Awlaki inveighs against Arab leaders who cooperate with the West, and he calls on religious scholars to declare such leaders infidels, making them legitimate targets for assassination. “Kings, emirs and presidents are now not qualified to lead the nation, or even a flock of sheep,” he said. “If the leaders are corrupt, the religious scholars have the responsibility to lead the nation.”

That pretty much answers anybodys question assassinating him. He pretty much doesn't want to be an American citizen anymore. No judicial proceedings on Jihad on Americans. No questions asked about killing Americans.

reply to post by deltaboy


His being an extremist does not eliminate his rights. As long as he is still a citizen, there should be due process. Why? Because someday you could be the one labelled an extremist. I do not dispute that he likely deserves to die; I do, however, dispute that the government has the authority to make that decision without due process.

Ultimately, the War on Terror, part II (as Reagan had his own War on Terror, as well,) is simply a disaster and a power grab. We have the means to prevent, or to set up the means to prevent, any significant attack on our homeland. That is where our focus should be...and yet we have open borders and millions crossing without documentation or any knowledge of what they may be smuggling. That fact alone reveals the War on Terror to be a sham. So if you believe that to be justification, think again.

What exactly is defined as "terrorist activity" worthy of killing of a citizen?
Did the judge provide a definition?

Originally posted by VeniVidi
Does this mean that any US Citizen could be subject to assassination? Any Lawyers out there who could interpret this?

It used to be the President used the CIA and had them secretly kill who they wanted dead.

Now our Federal Government has publicly came out saying they have the power to kill any American they wish.

The dying Empire is trying to subdue it's angry citizens and make them afraid to hold the crooks in power accountable.

The Judge, our President, and many other people have violated the Oath's they took to get their power. That should tell you something about where we are headed.

There is no purpose now to have Congressmen, Judges, Our President, or even or military to make oaths now.

They publicly state they are going to kill Americans without a trial.

Hasn't it been published in a few newspapers that Anwar was at the pentagon having dinner with the top brass shortly after 911??

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Well this is still in Senate judiciary.

If it goes all the way, we can be arrested and held indefinately with no trial, and no Miranda rights, right here in country, and it will be openly "legal".

S. 3081: Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010

A bill to provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes

This is for ALL. foreign and domestic.

www.govtrack.us...

I wish our military would grow some brains and balls, and go to war with the real terrorists....

reply to post by afaik


Yes, and that's probably the real reason they want him assassinated, to silence him.

second

I simply don't understand how any country can openly allow talk of assassination in this way, let alone for it to be condoned by the government and the judiciary. Assassination is just another name for cold blooded murder.

It is a terrible endictment on a society that a Governmet blatantly asserts the right to arbitrarily murder its own citizens without barely a murmor of protest from the people.

Very sad that America (and by extension Western Governments) are sinking to this level...

A big thumbs down from me

R.I.P America home of the free.. Welcome to the New Improved Totalitarian Amerika be good little patriots or else.. Remember the eyes of the state are on YOU !