Court orders U.S. to release legal memo that authorized drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters

By Reuters
Monday, April 21, 2014 13:23 EDT

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over key portions of a memorandum justifying the government’s targeted killing of people linked to terrorism, including Americans.

In a case pitting executive power against the public’s right to know what its government does, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling preserving the secrecy of the legal rationale for the killings, such as the death of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

Ruling for the New York Times, a unanimous three-judge panel said the government waived its right to secrecy by making repeated public statements justifying targeted killings.

These included a Justice Department “white paper,” as well as speeches or statements by officials like Attorney General Eric Holder and former Obama administration counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, endorsing the practice.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/21/court-orders-u-s-to-release-legal-memo-that-authorized-drone-strike-on-anwar-al-awlaki/

[2banon]

1. Outstanding! k&r'd!

Important news, thank you for posting.

Now let's see how this (secret policy) gets defended when it winds upwards to SCOTUS.. (assuming that it will eventually)

[joshcryer]

2. Good stuff.

I suspect the administration won't comply.

[msanthrope]

7. I suspect they will, but will first appeal, as the law allows. Too bad--I think the administration

was more than justified in targeting in Anwar al-Awlaki, and I think the white paper will reflect well on the President.

Frankly, I suspect the Jeb Bush camp will not want this released.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Good luck with that. The White House is too busy "lookin' forward."

[DeSwiss]

10. They sure don't want to look back to this:

- Anwar Alawaki denouncing terrorism explains why he had to be killed by the WH terrorists......

It's all a big-ass lie folks. One after the other. Believe them at your own peril.....

[FiveGoodMen]

18. Very interesting!

Thanks for posting that.

[rhett o rick]

4. I believe the WH will comply. Their commitment to transparency is well known.

[Enthusiast]

13. Yes.

[rhett o rick]

15. Why dont I think you are taking me seriously?

[Enthusiast]

19. I always take you seriously.

And I know you would never cast aspersions on the Obama Administration.

[rhett o rick]

23. Hey, I am having aspersions for dinner and a nice chianti. nm

[Enthusiast]

26. We are chianti fans too.

[840high]

28. Yeah, right.

[DeSwiss]

5. These criminal asshats will just ignore it.

- But it was a good thought. We'll remember you fondly after the revolution is over.

K&R

[center][/center]

[msanthrope]

8. I seriously doubt that career attorneys at the DOJ will ignore it. They will appeal, no doubt, as

the law allows.

[msanthrope]

6. I expect the DOJ to appeal, but I would like to see this particular white paper--I think the

targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki was more than justified by this administration.

[bvar22]

9. We all KNOW you do...

...without even looking at the evidence in the White Paper,
you have already passed judgement.

Some of us here still believe in that quaint old antique document that limited the secret assassination powers of our government,
and that our government should be accountable to The People.

I applaud this decision,
and look forward to examining the Evidence before passing judgement.
Didn't they assassinate his son too?
or am I thinking about another secret assassination?

[msanthrope]

11. You conflate assassination with lawful killing, thus making a facile legal argument

that is simply defeated with the following question:

Was Osama Bin Laden lawfully targeted? So was Awlaki.

As for evidence, I think what has been presented is more than enough.

I mean...are you suggesting that the Yemenis are wrong in their murder conviction?

The British courts--Rajib Karim is falsely convicted?

Awlaki lied in his own YouTube videos?

Are you suggesting the BA bomb plot was not enough?

The PETN bombs were not enough?

Times Square was not enough?

The underwear bomber was not enough?

Molly Norris? Threats to her were not enough?

Are you suggesting that the President of the United States unlawfully assassinated Mr. Awlaki?

[bvar22]

27. Fine.

Then indict him,
get an international Warrant,
and after Due Process,
do what has to be done,
but ONLY after Due Process.

Secret Tribunals and Secret Assassination orders?
Not the way to go.

[cstanleytech]

12. What do you then suggest they do when confronted with a case were someone is hiding in a

foreign country and aiding such groups?
I mean sure in a perfect world a warrant is issued and the other country honors it except then what do you do if the other country says "Screw you" or is unable to carry it out because they either are rife with corruption or there are those in power there providing aid in order for them to hide? Just throw our hands up in the air and walk away shaking our heads saying "well there isnt anything we can do" or would you then start calling for a full scale invasion in order to arrest them?


P.S. FYI I am not a big fan of the whole invasion option as it tends to be both expensive both in $$ costs and in lives for everyone involved not to mention it can end up causing even worse problems down the road.

[rhett o rick]

16. I kinda see your point. Because we are the biggest bully, we should be able to kill anyone

we wish to in any country. But, no one else gets that same consideration. What's the need for "rule of law" when you are the biggest bully*.

*We better get busy because China is rapidly catching up.

[cstanleytech]

20. If the US was a real bully the US would just use nukes

on countries like Yemen but it hasnt.

[rhett o rick]

21. I think you are just quibbling about big of a bully are we. We were

a huge bully to illegally invade Iraq and we still are now that we are killing people in sovereign countries in violation of international law. But who is going to stop us with our nucs and 11 nuclear carriers and untold nuclear subs?

[cstanleytech]

24. You will get no argument from me over the issue of Iraq.

Facts are facts and the US led by Bush screwed up badly on that one but thankfully the US led by Obama hasnt made that mistake when it came to Iran or N Korean not to mention Syria.

[JoeyT]

31. Can't feed no-bid contracts to your buddies if you nuke something.

The resources are kind of hard to get to afterward too. We wouldn't want to irradiate the ground above our oil or minerals, would we?

[cstanleytech]

32. Then they could use neutron bombs if that truly was a factor.

No, I think the real reason they dont is because they know that most of us wouldnt put up with them doing something like that.

[bvar22]

22. Bill Clionton managed to capture and convict ALL of the criminals...

...involved in the first WTC bombing.
He did so without:
*Invading & Occupying any other countries

* Without a Patriot Act or NDAA

*Without killing any innocent civilians

*Without any secret assassination tribunals

*Without spending 4 TRILLION Dollars

*Without violating anybody's Constitutional Rights

*Without a Homeland Security Department

*Without a Surveillance/Security State

*Without Drone Assassination Robots

He used International Law Enforcement to capture these criminals,
and our Court system to convict them.


I prefer Bill Clinton's method of dealing with small groups of International criminals.

[cstanleytech]

25. And I prefer that method as well however not every case is exactly the same either. nt

[EX500rider]

29. Didn't he also cruise missile some camps in Afgh and a "milk factory" in Yemen?

[Enthusiast]

14. +1 an entire shit load.

[rhett o rick]

17. John (fuk) Yoo is writing the justification for the killing. It should be good.

And another thing, about the death of his son, that can easily be rationalized away. He had bee associating with a know terrorist since his birth.

[GoneFishin]

33. They executed his son because he had solid standing to challenge the

government's execution of his father without a trial.

He was accused of no crime, he was a minor, a US citizen, and his father, also a US citizen, was murdered by his own government.

He may have been able to draw a lot of attention, and more importantly, sympathy.

There was no way in hell that they were going to allow that. The had to kill him.

[Jesus Malverde]

30. If it's anything like the Yoo memos...nt