Al-Awlaki Killed

[Ravenman]

He’s saying that there’s no proof that nobody has connected Oswald to the assassination, that the SAS probably killed Princess Diana, the Towers came down because of thermite explosions, and nobody here actually saw John Wilkes Booth pull the trigger.

[Marley23]

That’s my reading, yes. But the idiots who believe that moronic nonsense are usually kind enough, in their stupidity, to just come right out and announce the bullshit they’re peddling. So I’m not sure why newcomer is being hesitant.

[newcomer]

@Marley23

Now, what were you trying to say here?

In terms of available evidence my hypothesis and yours are equivalent.

[Marley23]

@newcomer

In terms of available evidence my hypothesis and yours are equivalent.

What’s your hypothesis?

[CoolHandCox]

So it begins (publicly at least - although the economy is still dominating the news)…Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney’s take on what needs to be done to the AUMF: (From THIS long PDF on his website)

The chief source of statutory authority for the war on terrorism — the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress shortly after the attack of September 11, 2001 — is only a few sentences long, its language is quite general, and it has not been updated since its enactment. While the statute clearly authorizes force against al Qaeda and the Taliban, it does not directly address what other groups might also be covered. Recent administrations have interpreted the AUMF expansively to include those who substantially support forces associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban, but as more time passes, the connections between those two groups and the terror threats we face will become more and more attenuated. These new terror groups — like al-Shabaab in Somalia — may share al Qaeda’s ideological objectives but lack close operational ties with the larger network. This leaves our counterterror forces to operate in a legal limbo, possibly hamstringing them when they should enjoy the full freedom of action and deserve the full protection of law. Romney will work with Congress to clarify this portion of the AUMF, amending it to authorize the use of force against any foreign terrorist entity that is waging war against the United States.

(my bolding and italics)

The AUMF will be expanded. Guaranteed. It’ll just be a debate over the details (who can be transferred, how, where; this trial or that trial, ect.). If it does pass, the “war against terrorists”, not even remotely related to AQ, paradigm is all but sealed for the foreseeable future.

This will all happen when the vote on the NDAA takes place; it hasn’t gotten much press (or even debate on the floor), but here’s a general overview of it:

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 would strengthen our nation’s terrorist detention and prosecution policies and procedures by:

Affirming that the United States is in armed conflict al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated Forces.

Requiring national security protocols governing detainee communications.

Prohibiting funds for facilities to house Guantanamo detainees in the United States.

Clarifying the right to plead guilty in trial of a capital offense by military commission.

Prohibiting family member visitation of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Prohibiting the transfer or release of certain detainees to or within the United States.

Prohibiting the transfer or release of certain detainees to or within foreign countries or entities without certification from the Secretary of Defense.

[masterbeta]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Every member of the Afghani armed forces? They’re all (a) engaged in direct hostilities, or (b) located at spots that need to be destroyed or captured? I thought some of 'em were just, y’know, walking around in uniform, as Members Of The Military, which makes them the designated targets who need to be destroyed or captured if they won’t surrender – rather like Members Of Al-Qaeda?

There is a strong presumption that members of Afghanistan’s military would have been engaging in the hostilities or located around military objects when the country was being attacked by the United States. That’s just commonsense; their job is to defend their country.

So yes unless they surrendered or were wounded then in the chaos they would have been killed. However, that still doesn’t prove they were targeted specifically as individuals like Awlaki was.

My understanding is that the only individuals that could be targeted specifically no matter where they were and what they were doing are those responsible for 9/11 in some way.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@masterbeta

There is a strong presumption that members of Afghanistan’s military would have been engaging in the hostilities or located around military objects when the country was being attacked by the United States.

What’s the strong presumption about members of Al-Qaeda?

[CoolHandCox]

Here’s some leaked information regarding the OLC “secret” memo stating the legal reasons why Awlaki could be targeted and killed. See article from NYT by Charlie Savage, Secret US Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen:

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

[T]he Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.

Among them was an executive order that bans assassinations. That order, the lawyers found, blocked unlawful killings of political leaders outside of war, but not the killing of a lawful target in an armed conflict.

A federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, the lawyers wrote, did not apply either, because it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war.

[re: due process] The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.

The Memo is titled, “Enhanced Life Shortening Techniques”

[The_Tooth]

Yes, I too am reminded of Bush having a memo written saying it’s okay to torture people. Only in this case I’m disappointed rather than disgusted, because I expected better from the Obama Administration.

[John_Mace]

@The_Tooth

Yes, I too am reminded of Bush having a memo written saying it’s okay to torture people. Only in this case I’m disappointed rather than disgusted, because I expected better from the Obama Administration.

Yes, and the NYT Public editor talks about that in his editorial in today’s paper.

“How can the U.S. government have rules that spell out when it can use lethal force, even against a U.S. citizen, and not let the rest of the citizens know what those rules are?” Jane Mayer, who has written about the drone program for The New Yorker, said in an e-mail to me. “The press ought to be able to get access to and describe the legal opinions that govern this program. As we saw with the torture memos, which eventually leaked, legal reasoning can be extraordinarily revealing, and important.”

<snip>

Kenneth Anderson, an American University law professor who told me he is a “centrist conservative” on national security issues, said he supports the use of drone technology for counterterrorism but cannot abide how the administration is handling the program publicly.

“One area in which I have been relentless in criticism of the Obama administration has been their refusal to say anything about it, and at the same time essentially conducting the foreign policy of the U.S. by leaked journalism,” he said. “I just don’t think that is acceptable.”