• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How a US Citizen Came to Be in America's Cross Hairs

It was the culmination of years of painstaking intelligence work, intense deliberation by lawyers working for President Obama and turf fights between the Pentagon and the C.I.A., whose parallel drone wars converged on the killing grounds of Yemen. For what was apparently the first time since the Civil War, the United States government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial.

This lengthy apologia for Obama's drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16 year old son, and another American of marginal importance in Yemen is supposed to impress us with how meticulous the administration was about the legal issues surrounding the kill.

We learn that two lawyers who wrote "the definitive" critique of Bush's assertion of presidential wartime powers miraculously were able to find a way to justify the Obama administrations' actions with regard to Anwar-al-Awlaki. Well of course they were. They found a way to have their cake and eat it, too, saying that what Bush did, or rather how Bush's administration justified what was being done, was not legally correct and their justification for what Obama did was legally correct. A fine pair of cynical partisan lawyers they. I'm sure al-Awlaki is relieved to learn that his death was not the result of the President claiming too much authority but rather was the result of legal hair splitting over how much of an imminent threat to the US he, al-Awlaki, really was.

This article in the New York Times, linked above, also, I think, is supposed to impress us about how much of a one off thing al-Awlaki's assassination was and that this administration wouldn't consider killing American's anywhere without going through a painful and lengthy legal process. However, I come away with the impression that the administration's lawyers will find a way to justify whatever the President wants to do regardless of what it is even if it directly contradicts what those lawyers have written and opined in the past.

So, hypocritical as it might seem, they found their legal pretext to nail al-Awlaki, but not the other two. Not al-Awlaki's son or the guy whose sins against America amounted to publishing a blog. The latter two were taken out as collateral damage, a reminder that what we are talking about is war, a blunt instrument and one not well suited to legal niceties.

Failing to draw a hard line between war powers and civilian legalities does damage to both.
 
I prefer this zapping method to the "show trial" alternative used for UBL's son-in-law, or the GITMO "detainees". Yanking a Jihad "warrior" out of a foreign land, charging him with "cheerlleading" for the 9/11/2001 attacks and supplying him with US tax funded defense council is insane. The number of Muslim morons that cheered the 9/11 attacks is nearly endless, yet we pick only a select few for "special" treatment, some linger in GITMO, some in other jail cells, yet all at massive expense to US taxpayers.

Bin Laden son-in-law pleads not guilty, lawmakers blast move to use civilian courts | FM News Weekly
 
Targeting terrorists in foreign lands require some extreme measures. If they were hiding out in Michigan...then they would have been entitled to protections of the Constitution and subject to the law of the land. By becoming a terrorist and hiding out in foreign lands...well...all I can say is "Nice shootin' Tex." Obama should ABSOLUTELY continue to target terrorists at home and abroad. The rules change based on the playing field. Would you have been aghast had a republican president aggressively targeted terrorists in other lands, regardless of nationality?
 
The latter two were taken out as collateral damage, a reminder that what we are talking about is war, a blunt instrument and one not well suited to legal niceties.

Failing to draw a hard line between war powers and civilian legalities does damage to both.

Failing to clearly define the enemy is equally damaging. Who, exactly, are we at war against? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Syria? Mali? Yemen? Palestine? Lebanon? Egypt? The "terrorist"? The Islamist "extremist"? A religion called Islam? The Taliban (who we trained and armed)? Al-Qaida (who we trained as well, and seem to be as elusive and vaguely wide spread as "terrorism")?

Exactly who are we at war with?
 
The real problem here is what is defined as a "terrorist" considering the word is so subjective.

Is someone that defends their civil liberties a "terrorist?"

Is killing government officials who come to confiscate your guns a terrorist action or patriotism??? Waco and Ruby Ridge are good examples and certainly precedent.

Is someone that says "no" to the government an enemy combatant, hence authorizing drone strikes on their compound or home?
 
Failing to clearly define the enemy is equally damaging. Who, exactly, are we at war against? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Syria? Mali? Yemen? Palestine? Lebanon? Egypt? The "terrorist"? The Islamist "extremist"? A religion called Islam? The Taliban (who we trained and armed)? Al-Qaida (who we trained as well, and seem to be as elusive and vaguely wide spread as "terrorism")?

Exactly who are we at war with?

I think our present government is at war with anyone (including US citizens) that say "no" to their loony demands.
 
I think our present government is at war with anyone (including US citizens) that say "no" to their loony demands.
so, you agree that this target was viewed as the 'enemy' of our nation
making him a legitimate military target, no matter his birth heritage
 
I can't help to think most republican opposition to the program is the same as most of the new found support for it among democrats: idiots playing team politics.

Sad that even an issue such as this becomes nothing more than fodder for political grievences
 
Failing to clearly define the enemy is equally damaging. Who, exactly, are we at war against? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Syria? Mali? Yemen? Palestine? Lebanon? Egypt? The "terrorist"? The Islamist "extremist"? A religion called Islam? The Taliban (who we trained and armed)? Al-Qaida (who we trained as well, and seem to be as elusive and vaguely wide spread as "terrorism")?

Exactly who are we at war with?

That's for the Commander in Chief to determine.
 
That's for the Commander in Chief to determine.

Wrong... Article 1 Section 8 provides Congress the power to declare war, which would include defining our enemy, not the whims of a single man.
 
That's for the Commander in Chief to determine.

and he sought a legal opinion to assist that determination when it was found that the enemy combatant was also of American birth
and his decision appears consistent with the proffered legal reasoning
 
I saw a proposal to create a special court to review the cases if any Americans overseas. The evidence would have to meet certain standards and "adequate proof" that capture was not plausible.

I agree with that approach as long as the committee was truly bi-partisan.
 
so, you agree that this target was viewed as the 'enemy' of our nation
making him a legitimate military target, no matter his birth heritage

Yes I do.

Anwar-al-Awlaki was a terrorist and was guilty of treason - a charge that carries the death penalty.

It's not like the guy was a militiaman defending the Bill of Rights - he was conspiring to destroy civil liberties.

As a libertarian I'm not a big fan of our government and it's policies, however they did right killing Anwar-al-Awlaki even if it wasn't for him being a tyrant. Of course his treason had nothing to do with him being blown to bits, he was just a simple enemy of the government that dared to say "no."
 
I saw a proposal to create a special court to review the cases if any Americans overseas. The evidence would have to meet certain standards and "adequate proof" that capture was not plausible.

I agree with that approach as long as the committee was truly bi-partisan.

Sometimes the evidence against an individual is so overwhelmingly blunt that due process would be moot. Anwar-al-Awlaki is a good example of that.

Does someone who murders someone on video tape then goes bragging about it and admitting it proudly really need due process?

It's not exactly like Anwar-al-Awlaki was shy about his plight....
 
and he sought a legal opinion to assist that determination when it was found that the enemy combatant was also of American birth
and his decision appears consistent with the proffered legal reasoning

So did Bush in many of the instances that legally defined his presidency. But I am far from believing that you view such legal opinions on par with law, or failed to see how such could be totally self serving
 
Anwar-al-Awlaki was a terrorist and was guilty of treason - a charge that carries the death penalty.

Article 3 Section 3
“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court… …The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”

Sometimes the evidence against an individual is so overwhelmingly blunt that due process would be moot.

How do you know what the evidence is if it was never presented in a court of law? Are you saying that media convictions, or the Executive simply saying so, under arbitrary legal precedent (as the OP points out) is sufficient?

Does someone who murders someone on video tape then goes bragging about it and admitting it proudly really need due process?

It is a crime that must be answered for, of course, but is targeting such a criminal for execution, prior to conviction, consistent with the rule of law? If someone murders someone else on video tape and then goes bragging about it, and admitting it proudly, do we really dismiss due process and execute him on the spot?

I think the point of the OP was saying that the same civilian rights which exist in a time of peace, must yield to precedent in time of war. I can agree. However, that is what leads me to insist on a definition of who we are at war with, and if we are legitimately at war at all.
 
Targeting terrorists in foreign lands require some extreme measures. If they were hiding out in Michigan...then they would have been entitled to protections of the Constitution and subject to the law of the land. By becoming a terrorist and hiding out in foreign lands...well...all I can say is "Nice shootin' Tex." Obama should ABSOLUTELY continue to target terrorists at home and abroad. The rules change based on the playing field. Would you have been aghast had a republican president aggressively targeted terrorists in other lands, regardless of nationality?

If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?

It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.
 
Article 3 Section 3
“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court… …The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”



How do you know what the evidence is if it was never presented in a court of law? Are you saying that media convictions, or the Executive simply saying so, under arbitrary legal precedent (as the OP points out) is sufficient?



It is a crime that must be answered for, of course, but is targeting such a criminal for execution, prior to conviction, consistent with the rule of law? If someone murders someone else on video tape and then goes bragging about it, and admitting it proudly, do we really dismiss due process and execute him on the spot?

I think the point of the OP was saying that the same civilian rights which exist in a time of peace, must yield to precedent in time of war. I can agree. However, that is what leads me to insist on a definition of who we are at war with, and if we are legitimately at war at all.

The problem is Anwar-al-Awlaki never denied what he did - he bragged about it - in my book that is an informal way of pleading guilty.

Would it really have been necessary to charge him with treason, murder and conspiracy to commit murder (among a slew of charges)?

We would have had to charge him, issue an arrest warrant - find him, capture him, bring him back to the US and once that impossible task was done and many were killed in the process, give Anwar-al-Awlaki a trial - which without question would be al-Awlaki on a soapbox....

As a libertarian I'm all for going through the correct channels of due process but a situation like al-Awlaki is a totally different scenario and beast.
 
So did Bush in many of the instances that legally defined his presidency. But I am far from believing that you view such legal opinions on par with law, or failed to see how such could be totally self serving
show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion
until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon
i suspect Obama would agree with that as would dicknbush
 
I think people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned terrorist is concerned. As such, the "Constituational - value driven perception" that has formulated does tend to remain fixed in legalism rather than fighting against tyranny or subvertive efforts against your homeland. Put another way: "Where IS the line drawn between protecting the Constituational rights of Americans who happen to live abroad yet continue to espouse apersions against American national security interests and defending against tyranny?"

It's a complex argument for sure. Let's ignore the first piece of the puzzle - who "created" Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen turned rouge Al-Qaeda propagandist. Forget for the moment that it all began with him first warning American Muslims about becoming unduly influenced by radical Muslims to fight against Americans. The question folks should really be asking themselves is "Why hasn't he come forward and turned himself in to U.S. authorities" so that he could be tried justly in U.S. courts for treason? People don't ask themselves such questions because they are concerned not with justice under the law, but rather which side is right and which is wrong based moreso on political ideology than adherence to the law.

So, you have this American citizen who at first has good intentions but somewhere along the line things change; he turns to the dark side as it were and becomes a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda. He eludes capture several times with the aid of his Muslim broth'ren. Our intelligence agencies finally track him down held up in a safe house in Yeman, the central hub of Al-Qaeda communications and terrorist plot formulations. (See NOVA documentary, "The Spy Factory" for details)

For those on the side of upholding al-Awlaki's "Bill of Rights", I would urge caution here. Let's not forget that in order to capture a fugitive of justice abroad you must have the cooperation of the foriegn government where the fugitive is in hiding. The Obama Administration had little cooperation from the Yemanise government until recently. But if you thing their uncooperative nature only began with the current Administration, go back to the Clinton-era post-USS Cole bombing and see just how cooperative things were. Then push forward throught the GWB years and see if that spirit of cooperation changed.

On a personal note: I've struggle with the issue of drone strikes against Americans abroad for some time now, but only came to the conclusion recently that such strikes are justifiable but only after all other avenues to capture said fugative have been exsaulted. Think the American terrorist that was captured hiding out in an Al-Quaed training camp in Afghanistan when the War on Terror first began, John Phillip Walker Lindh. Notice from the Wiki bio where Lindh went to study Arabic prior to going to Afghanistan to fight against his fellow American soldiers...

Yes, that's right: YEMEN!

For those like myself who have concluded that when all else fails, go capture or kill the enemy where he may hide, I say there's only one difference between Lindh and al-Awlaki - we were able to capture Lindh (never knowing beforehand he was over there in the first place, mind you, but we did capture him) and as such were able to give him a fair trail. Thus, preserving his Constitutiona rights as an American citizen who turned against his fellow countrymen. We weren't so fortunate in our efforts to provide al-Awlaki this same right. Thus, when all else failed and the insurrection did not stop, our government authorized a drone strike to dispense justice. Now, for those who think all al-Awlaki did was exercise his 1st Amendment right to free speech, let me remind you that such rights STOP once you:

1) flee the country;

2) speak out against American national security interest;

3) aid and abet the enemy;

4) use the enemy as a sheild to protect you or elude capture; or,

5) refuse to turn yourself in to the proper authorities.

Taken together, I don't think the President had much choice. Frankly, I would rather we did capture the guy and give him his day in court, but apparently that wasn't possible. So, he got what he got.

Case closed.
 
If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?

It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.

Perhaps you should read these articles before condemning the Obama Administration's efforts to going after al-Alawki using drones.

Source: How an American was killed by the secretive U.S. drone program - The Globe and Mail

Source: Anwar al-Awlaki Targeted By U.S. Drones After Osama Bin Laden Raid - ABC News

Source: CIA seeks new authority to expand Yemen drone campaign - Washington Post

Source: Pakistani Attorney Blasts U.S. For Yemen Drone Strike Authorization - US News and World Report

Get the jist of what's really going on before issues your own brand of condemnation. It's not like the U.S. is just going into Yemen of their own accord without considering the effects of their actions. Contrary to what many may think, protecting the lives of innocent civilians is taken into account. Besides, as the ABCNews article makes clear, all al-Alwlaki has (or had) to do is turn himself in and the drone strikes would end...

...that is until the next Al-Quaeda hinchmen presents himself.
 
Last edited:
show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion
until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon
i suspect Obama would agree with that as would dicknbush

You mean the memos that they have, until very recently, kept in secret? How generous of you, and of course I am sure such latitude was shown towards Bush, as well
 
You mean the memos that they have, until very recently, kept in secret? How generous of you, and of course I am sure such latitude was shown towards Bush, as well

Come now. You act as if this is the first time a sitting President has kept executive memos out of the public eye. In my lifetime, from JFK to Obama, they've all done it.
 
Come now. You act as if this is the first time a sitting President has kept executive memos out of the public eye. I my lifetime, from JFK to Obama, they've all done it.

No, I am not. I am responding to someone who wrote "show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon" to support his attempt to equate law with opinion of WH legal counsel
 
If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?

It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.

Good afternoon, CJ.

It's scary to think you are probably correct! The regimes we don't currently agree with seem to change with regularity,and we are left to wonder why, and how it became our responsibility to meddle and make changes. I know that many times it's the rebellious segment of the population that have asked us for help, and lots of money, BTW, but then we learn we have simply changed one despot for another in many cases, and the populous are no better off than they were before, if not worst. Great Britain and Russia went through the same thing in their desire to expand their influence, and created a mess which is still playing out today in many cases. I am all for letting other countries handle their own problems! Our country has its own problems to handle, IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom