Skip to main content

View Diary: Assassination Rationales Then & Now--And How Awlaki Didn't Meet Any of the Criteria (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The constitution is perfectly clear on this issue: (14+ / 0-)
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
    Contrary to Mr. Holder's misrepresentations, due process of law = judicial process, not a team meeting in the Oval office over pizza.

    For example, had Abdulmutallab testified before a Grand Jury concerning Awlaki's actions beyond mere speech that would be one thing.  But to base the decision to assassinate an American citizen based on material obtained through interrogations (and God knows just what that means) without review by a court is manifestly unconstitutional.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:44:23 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, as I've said. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Swig Mcjigger

      And I think it is inconsistent to argue "enemy combatants" have a right to trial but then argue that they can be killed when not on the battlefield. And I don't see a difference that one is an American.

      My point was that under the criteria set forth, Al-Awlaki met them.

      But then, again, inherent in this policy is the fact that there is no oversight. If you're going to put someone on a kill list, there should be either a trial in absentia or at least some type of judicial finding.  

      And I don't think we can lay this blame on Holder. Obama is the CIC. My one criticism of the man is how he has caved in on principles he once espoused and this is one of them.

      •  There is a difference being an American citizen... (6+ / 0-)

        and I'll explain briefly why:

        The constitutional protections of the 5th Amendment apply to all persons (not citizens) within the US or its territories.  Persons outside the US have no such guarantee, however, an American citizen ANYWHERE ON EARTH is entitled to constitutional protection with respect to the actions of the United States of America.

        While it may be horrific for the US to kill civilians with predator drones . . . it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to kill American citizens that way, and therefore an impeachable offense.

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by bobdevo on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:57:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  of course this administration disagrees (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobdevo, gerrilea

          with that quaint document.

          Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.
          As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.
          The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 12:13:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I do wish Alwaki had been indicted first. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobdevo, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      IMO that would've put to rest most concerns except for those who completely oppose military actions.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:39:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site