Government Memo justified killing Anwar al-Awlaki despite an executive order banning assassinations

[Better Believe It]

http://www.warpaintwarpaint.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/New+York+Times+Logo1.png
Secret US memo made legal case to kill Anwar al-Awlaki
Document provided justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
October 9, 2011

The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.

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 secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44833756/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

[SidDithers]

1. Then you should march yourself into your local police station...

and try to get Obama arrested for breaking they law.

Don't just cut and paste internet articles. Take action!!

Sid

[Scurrilous]

3. recommend

:thumbsup:

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. And what did the police tell you when you did just that?

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[Honeycombe8]

4. I think the U.S. has a ban on assassinations of other country's leaders. That

doesn't include those on the FBI's most wanted list, or key AQ members, etc.

I wonder what department, or who, in the O administration issued that memo. The W.H. doesn't issue legal memoranda, so it had to be an attorney. Either the W.H. counsel or the DOJ.

[Better Believe It]

6. I think the article may answer most of your questions. Please read it.

[Anatos]

9. DOJ

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2

According to the NYT, it was the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

I think it is worth contrasting this with the Bush Administration's "secret memos" regarding the so-called "War on Terror". I know there are probably plenty on this board who simply see the use of legal justification for a desired policy and want to simplistically dismiss it as all of a piece. But if you look at the details, you see the night-and-day evidence of the mendacious incompetence of W and the incomparable leadership of Mr. Obama.

[ProgressIn2008]

5. K&R, but still at zero. Which I frankly don't understand. Secret memos. Why unrec this? nt

[Better Believe It]

7. Perhaps because it doesn't back the killing of American citizens without a trial?

[Bobbie Jo]

8. Brilliant.

Yeah, that must be it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Neither Al-queda, the Mafia, or the United States government require trials for assassinations.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[Anatos]

12. Nor any religion, social organization, or club

As far as I know, you do not require trials for assassinations, either. I'm pretty sure nobody does, since that contradicts what the term "assassination" means. Still, it puts you in the same class as Al-Qaueda, and the Mafia, doesn't it?

[Anatos]

11. Your misreading

...provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war

You seem to be under the impression that the document failed to provide those justifications, when in fact it succeeded in doing so, which is why the article stated that the memo "provided the justification" despite those legal issues.

The problem of assassination does not exist because "assassination" means targeting a political leader in peacetime; it does not include killing of enemies, even enemy leaders, during a military conflict. The "law against murder", likewise, applies no more in this case than it would have against killing the British during the Revolution.

I am not personally a fan of military actions as foreign policy, as I don't believe it is successful in achieving its goals in any but very limited circumstances. But I don't consider it a service to the country (and the ideals of equal freedom on which it is based) to hobble its ability to succeed in those times when it is employed, whether I think that success is likely or not. For myself, I felt gratified to know that legalistic naivete did not provide this terrorist a sanctuary from responsibilities for his murderous actions.

[Honeycombe8]

14. I think this article is trying to make something more than this is.

It seems like a routine thing, sort of, to me. Taking a plan and determining whether the plan is legal, then setting out the analysis in memo form by the DOJ.

It seems pretty cut & dried to me, that Awlaki wouldn't fall under the executive order ban. He was not a "political leader" not involved in war.