The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."

Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

[ProSense]

1. Hmmm?

"The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans"

When did "Americans" become the same as terrorists?

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi

On edit, maybe it's time to stop grasping at straws. I mean, does anyone think a strong argument against killing a terrorist is made by comparing them to all Americans? The comparison is beyond absurd.

Seven Face Terrorism Charges in N.C.

Too bad for al-Awlaki or bin Laden they weren't found hiding in someone's house inside the U.S.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Ahh, false equivalency in effort to distort the situation. Slick.

Nobody said "Americans" is the same as terrorists, nor did anyone compare terrorists "to all Americans."

But then, I'm guessing you knew that.

Nice, but transparent, try.

NGU.

[shraby]

2. I don't have a link, but I recall that the Bush administration

instituted this doctrine and the controversy surrounding the decision at the time.

[trueblue2007]

7. any president can kill americans. not just president obama... and of them could have

[leveymg]

3. "This isn't a military secret. not an instance of protecting CIA field assets" - not self-evident

to anyone at all familiar with how counter-terrorism operations are actually run.

[Ikonoklast]

4. The Obama Administration did *not*

"...wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination."

The father had NO STANDING to sue on behalf of his son, who was of legal age, deemed competent, and far from being a minor child.

That's kinda the way it would be adjudicated for, well, everyone in this country that tried to do the same.

[Bake]

8. And yet, as a survivor, the father could sue for wrongful death ...

Hmm. Makes you wonder about the dismissal for lack of standing ...

Bake, Esq.

[polmaven]

13. It doesn't make me "wonder" at all!

Even with my limited knowledge of the intricacies of the law, not having a law degree, who does and does not have standing is a pretty simple matter.

[Bake]

16. Well, I **am** a lawyer, and I think the dismissal was bullshit.

I understand standing as well as anybody, and have used it as a defense in many, many cases. Here, the father would have standing to sue for wrongful death, but not to PREVENT the death?

Something is wrong here. It may be "legal" but it's not "right." Moreover, the father could no longer appeal the dismissal because it's moot.

Bake

[treestar]

5. Why wasn't it controversial back when Clinton was trying

to kill OBL?

[RC]

6. The bu$h administration changed a lot of things - mostly for the worse.

And except for an aspirin factory, Clinton did not engage in nearly the tit for tat terrorism the following two Presidents did.

[MisterP]

9. we got AUMF retained, we got the Patriot Act renewed, we got "liberals" cheering airstrikes

in the name of "security" (or outright Islamophobia)

[Supersedeas]

11. it has been a slow but powerful transformation

[Cherchez la Femme]

10. Seems it paid to keep 'Bushie' State AG's

not to mention hiring Eric Holder

how conveeeeenient

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. If the President does it, its legal.

Right? It sucked way back when and it fucking sucks now.:puke:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Not so "secret" is it?

:shrug: