The Government Assassination of a kid from Denver.

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Now, as a Professor of Constitutional law I am extremely surprised that it seems the Obama Administration seems to be unaware or just ignores the 5th Amendment

I am a idiot, not a constitutional law professor

Let me be clear i was talking about Obama as a constitutional law professor not myself, I did not realize how that line sounded until I read it back.

Just want to make it clear I was talking about Obama who once taught constitutional law

That's what we in the noble Order of the Grammar Snobs call a dangling modifier.

And yes, it does sound like you, OP, are a constitutional law professor. Thanks for clearing the matter up.

This is why there are grammar rules. Without them communication would break down and people would get hurt, and then civilization would perish. Grammar: there are reasons for the rules.

And much kudos for this thread and your other one on Obama's war crime in cluster bombing the Yemeni village.

We haven't lived under the protections of the constitution for a long time.

Our current legal situation has been said to most closely resemble old British wartime naval law. We are living under exceptions to our law designed to keep potentially mutinous sailors who are confined with their officers on a ship under close control. We have allowed Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, and now Obama to slowly convert our peacetime republic into a giant wartime ship where we are all knavish swashbucklers kept in line only by the vigilance of our kind and watchful government.

If you expect to have the rights guaranteed to you in the Bill of Rights, you do, but just not at the moment. When will you get them back? When we aren't at war. When will that be? Don't ask unpatriotic questions, or patriotic ones for that matter either.

Really seems like we are living in a grand Joseph Heller novel, doesn't it?

XionZap

Raxoxane

 

So sick this, infuriating and heartbreaking.The US government is a terrorist itself!

The US government is "terrorism" itself. 99% of the terrorist(ic) activities throughout the world are actively engendered by US terror policies aka "The War on Terror," which of itself is the creator of terrorism.

edit on 31-10-2013 by XionZap because: (no reason given)

[snip]

Seriously. The US creates 99% of terrorism in the world? How laughable.

Well I have to admit, children who lose parents are usually motivated to carry on their parent's legacy in some way. Assassinating this young man may have prevented millions of innocent deaths in future years.

wmv7766
Well I have to admit, children who lose parents are usually motivated to carry on their parent's legacy in some way. Assassinating this young man may have prevented millions of innocent deaths in future years.

edit on 1-11-2013 by wmv7766 because: (no reason given)

It could have just as easily prevented the birth of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

As far as ANYONE knows.

reply to post by deadcalm


Edited for brevity

[snip]

To this end, the President has directed me to disclose certain information that until now has been properly classified. You and other Members of your Committee have on numerous occasions expressed a particular interest in the Administration's use of lethal force against U.S. citizens. In light of this fact, I am writing to disclose to you certain information about the number of U.S. citizens who have been killed by U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of areas of active hostilities.

Since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qa'ida and its associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities, has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi.

The United States is further aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, 'Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.

As I noted in my speech at Northwestern, "it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact" that a "small number" of U.S. citizens "have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad." Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear and logical that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. Rather, it means that the government must take special care and take into account all relevant constitutional considerations, the laws of war, and other law with respect to U.S. citizens -- even those who are leading efforts to kill their fellow, innocent Americans.

Such considerations allow for the use of lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill
Americans, in the following circumstances:

(1) the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;
(2) capture is not feasible; and
(3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

Anwar al-Aulaqi plainly satisfied all of the conditions I outlined in my speech at Northwestern.

Let me be more specific. Al-Aulaqi was a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the most dangerous regional affiliate of al-Qa'ida and a group that has committed numerous terrorist attacks overseas and attempted multiple times to conduct terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland. And al-Aulaqi was not just a senior leader of AQAP -- he was the group's chief of external operations, intimately involved in detailed planning and putting in place plots against U.S. persons.

In this role, al-Aulaqi repeatedly made clear his intent to attack U.S. persons and his hope that these attacks would take American lives.

Part two next post.

reply to post by Indigo5

For example. in a message to Muslims living in the United States, he noted that he had come "to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able
Muslim." But it was not al-Aulaqi's words that led the United States to act against him: they only served to demonstrate his intentions and state of mind, that he "pray[ed] that Allah [would] destro America and all its allies."
Rather, it was al-Aulaqi's actions --and, in particular, his direct personal involvement in the continued planning and execution of terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland -- that made him a lawful target and led the United States to take action.

For example, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab -- the individual who attempted to blow up an airplane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day 2009 -- went to Yemen in 2009, al--Aulaqi arranged an introduction via text message.
Abdulmutallab told U.S. officials that he stayed at al-Aulaqi's house for three days, and then spent two weeks at an AQAP training camp. Al-Aulaqi planned a suicide operation for Abdulmutallab, helped Abdulmutallab draft a statement for a video to be shown after the attack, and directed him to take down a U.S. airliner. Al-Aulaqi's last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil.

Al-Aulaqi also played a key role in the October 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S.-bound cargo planes: he not only helped plan and oversee the plot, but was also directly involved in the details of its execution to the point that he took part in the development and testing of the explosive devices that were placed on the planes. Moreover, information that remains classified to protect sensitive sources and methods evidences al-Aulaqi's involvement in the planning of numerous plots against U.S. and Western interests and makes clear he was continuing to plot attacks when he was killed.

Based on this information, high-level U.S. government officials appropriately concluded that al-Aulaqi posed a continuing and imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. Before carrying out the operation that killed al-Aulaqi, senior officials also determined, based on a careful evaluation of the circumstances at the time, that it was not feasible to capture al-Aulaqi.

In addition, senior officials determined that the operation would be conducted consistent with applicable law of war principles, including the cardinal principles of
(1) necessity -- the requirement that the target have definite military value;
(2) distinction -- the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted;
(3) proportionality -- the notion that the anticipated collateral damage of an action cannot be excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage; and
(4) humanity -- a principle that requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. The operation was also undertaken consistent with Yemeni sovereignty.

While a substantial amount of information indicated that Anwar al-Aulaqi was a senior AQAP leader actively plotting to kill Americans, the decision that he was a lawful target was not taken The decision to use lethal force is one of the gravest that our government, at every level, can face. The operation to target Anwar a1--Aulaqi was thus subjected to an exceptionally rigorous interagency legal review: not only did I and other Department of Justice lawyers conclude after a thorough and searching review that the operation was lawful, but so too did other departments and agencies within the U.S. government.
[snip]
The Supreme Court has long "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004); Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.
578, 5 87 (1952). But the Court's case law and longstanding practice and principle also make clear that the Constitution does not prohibit the Government it establishes from taking action to protect the American people from the threats posed by terrorists who hide in faraway countries and continually plan and launch plots against the U.S. homeland.

The decision to target Anwar al-Aulaqi was lawful, it was considered, and it was just.

[snip]
While that document remains classified, it makes clear that a cornerstone of the Administration's policy is one of the principles I noted in my speech at Northwestern: that lethal force should not be used when it is feasible to capture a terrorist suspect. For circumstances in which capture is feasible, the policy outlines standards and procedures to ensure that operations to take into custody a terrorist suspect are conducted in accordance with all applicable law, including the laws of war.

When capture is not feasible, the policy provides that lethal force may be used only when a terrorist target poses a continuing, imminent threat to Americans, and when certain other preconditions, including a requirement that no other
reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat, are satisfied. And in all circumstances there must be a legal basis for using force against the target.

[snip]

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


There is this guy who runs a department at my business. He is a total moron in that he gives away services and makes his employees hate him for being inconsistent in everything except being a moron. One of the things he says is, "I always make sure i...". I know he is full of it, because the results speak for themselves.

Same with the government. When they say, "We always...", i know they are lying. Especially when there is zero transparency.

Due process is not something I accept there being shortcuts for. End of story. Because even when due process is afforded, we have proven cases where people were wrongfully executed (Cameron Todd Willingham, to start).

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I get you...But my bottom line is, believe it or not, their are folks out there cheered when innocent folks leapt from the towers on 9-11...choosing to die in an only slightly less horrific way than being consumed by flames...They are out there and working hard to inflict as much carnage and horror on as many innocent Americans as possible. I will not judge those who squeeze the trigger when those monsters are in their sites.

Indigo5
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I get you...But my bottom line is, believe it or not, their are folks out there cheered when innocent folks leapt from the towers on 9-11...choosing to die in an only slightly less horrific way than being consumed by flames...They are out there and working hard to inflict as much carnage and horror on as many innocent Americans as possible. I will not judge those who squeeze the trigger when those monsters are in their sites.

So what is the difference between the two following:

- a Hamas backed man enters an Israeli bus with a suicide vest and detonates it

- a US drone fires a missile into a cafe they they claim has a terrorist inside

Why is one an "act of terror", but the other is not?

If you could actually claim a moral high ground, your argument would be valid. But if no moral high ground can be had......

....but given how poor our track record of "intelligence" is, I am not sure any moral high ground can be had. Recall the quality of info we got on the WMD's in Iraq, or Benghazi. Is information about a possible target being in a cafe really valid, in light of the prior debacles? Valid enough to risk killing innocents? "In their sights"....that essentially means, "Someone told us so". Are we really going to believe that, given all the little infights that happen in the region, we actually get decent intelligence free of personal bias?

butcherguy

wmv7766
Well I have to admit, children who lose parents are usually motivated to carry on their parent's legacy in some way. Assassinating this young man may have prevented millions of innocent deaths in future years.

edit on 1-11-2013 by wmv7766 because: (no reason given)

It could have just as easily prevented the birth of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

As far as ANYONE knows.

Both are possible...but he was killed in error according to intelligence sources that have spoke about it. He was thought to still be in the desert with his father. Don't know who the CIA thought they had in their sites, but from most accounts he was mistakenly targeted.

wmv7766
Well I have to admit, children who lose parents are usually motivated to carry on their parent's legacy in some way. Assassinating this young man may have prevented millions of innocent deaths in future years.

edit on 1-11-2013 by wmv7766 because: (no reason given)

Attitudes like this infuriate me

Essentially you are saying that it is ok for the American government to assassinate anyone based on on what they have done but what they might be. This "lets bomb them all" doctrine makes more terrorists that it gets rid of.

Indigo5

butcherguy

wmv7766
Well I have to admit, children who lose parents are usually motivated to carry on their parent's legacy in some way. Assassinating this young man may have prevented millions of innocent deaths in future years.

edit on 1-11-2013 by wmv7766 because: (no reason given)

It could have just as easily prevented the birth of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

As far as ANYONE knows.

Both are possible...but he was killed in error according to intelligence sources that have spoke about it. He was thought to still be in the desert with his father. Don't know who the CIA thought they had in their sites, but from most accounts he was mistakenly targeted.

Lo and behold....you made my point for me.

"in their sights"....and they were wholly wrong. And you want them to continue just shooting at whatever is in their sites?

And you don't call this "terror"? While you cheer it on, in the same way that was done as people jumped from the WTC?

If you don't see the irony in the hypocrisy, please have another look.

bigfatfurrytexan

Indigo5
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I get you...But my bottom line is, believe it or not, their are folks out there cheered when innocent folks leapt from the towers on 9-11...choosing to die in an only slightly less horrific way than being consumed by flames...They are out there and working hard to inflict as much carnage and horror on as many innocent Americans as possible. I will not judge those who squeeze the trigger when those monsters are in their sites.

So what is the difference between the two following:

- a Hamas backed man enters an Israeli bus with a suicide vest and detonates it

- a US drone fires a missile into a cafe they they claim has a terrorist inside

Why is one an "act of terror", but the other is not?

The Hamas Terrorist is targeting innocent civilians.

The US Drone is targeting terrorists who target innocent civilians.

The Hamas Terrorist's intent is to kill as many innocent people as possible.

The US Drone's intent is to limit collateral damage and deaths as much as possible.

The strike at the "Café" you cited did not kill anyone aside from the target.

The Terrorists measure of success is the death toll.

The US Drones measure of success is number of lives saved by killing known, active, terrorists.

bigfatfurrytexan

Indigo5

butcherguy

wmv7766
Well I have to admit, children who lose parents are usually motivated to carry on their parent's legacy in some way. Assassinating this young man may have prevented millions of innocent deaths in future years.

edit on 1-11-2013 by wmv7766 because: (no reason given)

It could have just as easily prevented the birth of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

As far as ANYONE knows.

Both are possible...but he was killed in error according to intelligence sources that have spoke about it. He was thought to still be in the desert with his father. Don't know who the CIA thought they had in their sites, but from most accounts he was mistakenly targeted.

Lo and behold....you made my point for me.

"in their sights"....and they were wholly wrong. And you want them to continue just shooting at whatever is in their sites?

And you don't call this "terror"? While you cheer it on, in the same way that was done as people jumped from the WTC?

If you don't see the irony in the hypocrisy, please have another look.

I have little concern on whether you think I made some point for you?

The facts have no allegiance to neither you or I...and yes they effed up on the Café strike.

A former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman’s killing, the president was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation." The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. "We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone," the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, "It was a mistake, a bad mistake." However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review."

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Are we to only defend ourselves when their is a guarantee of zero margin of error?

The error does not discredit the need to defend ourselves.

What makes us different is the fact that we strive for Zero innocent lives lost, while terrorists goal is the precise opposite.

reply to post by Indigo5

I breezed through it.

Didn't see anything about proof in court that the guy did anything he was accused of doing. We don't need those silly trials anymore..... just accuse and execute.

Indigo5

butcherguy

wmv7766
Well I have to admit, children who lose parents are usually motivated to carry on their parent's legacy in some way. Assassinating this young man may have prevented millions of innocent deaths in future years.

edit on 1-11-2013 by wmv7766 because: (no reason given)

It could have just as easily prevented the birth of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

As far as ANYONE knows.

Both are possible...but he was killed in error according to intelligence sources that have spoke about it. He was thought to still be in the desert with his father. Don't know who the CIA thought they had in their sites, but from most accounts he was mistakenly targeted.

They knew exactly who was in the kill zone when they pulled the strike.
Have you ever watched gun camera videos of attacks against insurgents in Iraq, done under the rules of engagement?
This was a drone strike, the drone loiters over the site for hours waiting for the targeted individual to arrive, watching the coming and going of everyone there. Yes, mistakenly targeted. The guy that they did target didn't get the benefit of a trial.
Accused and executed. I don't support that.

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I breezed through it.

Didn't see anything about proof in court that the guy did anything he was accused of doing. We don't need those silly trials anymore..... just accuse and execute.

You are suggesting that we hope and wait for foreign governments to apprehend and try active terrorists rather than defending ourselves?

Indigo5

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I breezed through it.

Didn't see anything about proof in court that the guy did anything he was accused of doing. We don't need those silly trials anymore..... just accuse and execute.

You are suggesting that we hope and wait for foreign governments to apprehend and try active terrorists rather than defending ourselves?

No, I am saying that if we rely on the government declaring someone an active terrorist, and allowing them to execute them without the benefit of a trial, we are treading down a dangerous path.

Remember, there is oversight of the NSA by the government. Do you trust them to bypass the Constitution in newer ways every time they decide to do it?

Should we just shoot suspects because they have been indicted for crimes?

butcherguy

Indigo5

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I breezed through it.

Didn't see anything about proof in court that the guy did anything he was accused of doing. We don't need those silly trials anymore..... just accuse and execute.

You are suggesting that we hope and wait for foreign governments to apprehend and try active terrorists rather than defending ourselves?

No, I am saying that if we rely on the government declaring someone an active terrorist, and allowing them to execute them without the benefit of a trial, we are treading down a dangerous path.

So, what alternative to the CIA/Pentagon would you suggest for identifying active terrorists? Or are you suggesting we do nothing about it when active plotters on foreign soil are identified?

butcherguy
Should we just shoot suspects because they have been indicted for crimes?

edit on 1-11-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Extra-Judicial vs. US Soil where our courts and law enforcement have jurisdiction