"UM, yes, it is contested and an expansion from Clinton who did not claim he could kill anyone anywhere and that his right was unreviewable."
...more excuses for Clinton, who did bomb Afghanistan, Sudan and engage in covert operations in several countries.
The ACLU is trying to define a battlefield, that's fine. But invoking al-Awlaki's U.S. citizenship and claiming that the killing of a terrorist in any situation is off limits is nonsense. He was a terrorist.
ACLU Lens: American Citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi Killed Without Judicial Process Today in Yemen, U.S. air strikes killed American citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Al-Aulaqi has never been charged with a crime. Last year, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights represented Al-Aulaqi's father in a
lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone. We argued that such killings violate the Constitution and international law, but the case was dismissed in federal court last December.
In response to today's killing of Al-Aulaqi, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:
The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific, and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President — any President — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.
<...>
(emphasis added)
Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of AulaqiThe 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 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.
<...>
The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.
<...>
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights argued on behalf of Aulaqi’s father last year that there is no “battlefield” in Yemen and that the administration should be forced to articulate publicly its legal standards for killing any citizen outside the United States who is suspected of terrorism.
<...>
That's basically the ACLU's argument, that there is no "battlefield" in Yemen, and that's
debatable. That argument is also the basis of the claim that Obama has expanded the policy, but, again, it requires accepting that there is no battlefield in Yemen.
When Clinton bombed a target in Afghanistan in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden in 1998, was the country a battlefield?
Any member of al Qaeda can surrender, but it's clear that members of the group risk death because of their ongoing activities. That's not a novel concept, nor is it one limited to post 2001 counterterrorism.
From the 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force<...>
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
<...>
In 1996, Clinton signed the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996<...>
The Congress finds that—
(1) international terrorism is among the most serious transnational threats faced by the United States and its allies, far eclipsing the dangers posed by population growth or pollution;
(2) the President should continue to make efforts to counter international terrorism a national security priority;
(3) because the United Nations has been an inadequate forum for the discussion of cooperative, multilateral responses to the threat of international terrorism, the President should undertake immediate efforts to develop effective multilateral responses to international terrorism as a complement to national counter terrorist efforts;
(4) the President should use all necessary means, including covert action and military force, to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy international infrastructure used by international terrorists, including overseas terrorist training facilities and safe havens;
(5) the Congress deplores decisions to ease, evade, or end international sanctions on state sponsors of terrorism, including the recent decision by the United Nations Sanctions Committee to allow airline flights to and from Libya despite Libya’s noncompliance with United Nations resolutions; and
(6) the President should continue to undertake efforts to increase the international isolation of state sponsors of international terrorism, including efforts to strengthen international sanctions, and should oppose any future initiatives to ease sanctions on Libya or other state sponsors of terrorism.
<...>
(emphasis added)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
