The Awlaki memo and Marty Lederman - Glenn Greenwald

[MNBrewer]

Full article here <http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/>

"As the Bush years proved (and as anyone with any experience with lawsuits knows), lawyers can always find arguments to justify whatever they do. But I think any minimally rational person can immediately detect the extreme levels of sophistry at work here: according to Marty Lederman, it was outrageous to suggest in the Bush years that the AUMF could allow mere presidential detention or even eavesdropping targeted at American citizens accused of being involved with Al Qaeda, but during the Obama years, that same statute justifies presidential assassinations (and note that Padilla, whose treatment remains a symbol of Bush/Cheney radicalism, ultimately received a trial and at least the trappings of due process, whereas Anwar Awlaki did not and never will)."

[geek tragedy]

1. Greenwald has unlearned much of his legal training.

"That Padilla was already captured on U.S. soil may make a difference politically or morally, but it makes zero difference constitutionally or statutorily: the AUMF doesn’t even hint at any distinctions between enemy combatants inside the U.S. or outside, and a U.S. citizen doesn’t lose his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights against the U.S. Government when leaving the country."

1) Vastly different standards attach once someone is in the physical custody of the government. We can shoot the enemy, but we can't torture him after he surrenders.

2) Federal courts have jurisdiction over anything that happens inside the United States. They do not have jurisdiction over overseas military operations in the field.

[MNBrewer]

2. His point is that the standards are justified within the DOJ

using secret documents, to allow whatever the President wants to do.

Awlaki was murdered by the CIA, not the USAF.

[geek tragedy]

3. He was not murdered.

His terrorist-ass was killed by the United States before he could help kill more Americans.

He is not a victim. He is a dead enemy who got what he deserved.

[MNBrewer]

4. Without due process, in violation of the US Constitution

[geek tragedy]

5. Irrelevant. He joined with an enemy of the United

States in an effort to attack the United States. As such, the US was within its rights to kill him before he got the chance to participate in further armed attacks against the United States.

Become the enemy, get treated as the enemy.

Essentially, the people throwing a pity party for this traitor would have the government leave him alone in Yemen.

[MNBrewer]

7. Traitors get trials

except in the Bush, now Obama era.

[geek tragedy]

8. Enemies actively involved in trying to kill Americans

get Hellfires.

His status as a criminal does not trump his status as an enemy.

[MNBrewer]

10. actively involved in trying to kill Americans?

Where's the evidence?

[geek tragedy]

12. One does not hold a trial when acting in self-defense.

That's not how it works.

Trials are for punishment.

[MNBrewer]

13. Self-defense is a bullshit claim

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tama]

25. Can you say that aloud?

"US Constitution is irrelevant".

[geek tragedy]

36. The Constitution excludes federal courts from having

any role in the planning or execution of overseas military operations.

There are court cases establishing as much.

[Downwinder]

53. At that point the Geneva Convention applies.

[msanthrope]

54. Fine, Show us the protocol this broke? nt

[donquijoterocket]

30. too bad

There's no proof of your contentions. Guy was a rabble rouser, not an operations sort.If that alone would get you killed lardass limpballs would be long dead.My take is we're all safer having a government that recognizes and honors constitutional law. The pity party thing shows you to be of limited intelligence. Met any number of your sort during my walking tour of the sun and fun capitol of southeast Asia.If we were lucky we got to box them up and ship them home before they got some good man maimed or killed

[geek tragedy]

35. You seem convinced he was an innocent lamb who wasn't harming

anyone. How do you know of his innocence and that he did not participate in planning armed attacks?

Or do you just sympathize with that crowd in general?

[tama]

56. What happened to

"innocent until proven guilty"? You like to be the first one to throw the stone?

[geek tragedy]

57. Do you favor disarming all police? nt

[EFerrari]

6. Do you have some citation or a list of the Americans he killed? Thank you. n/t

[geek tragedy]

11. It's those that he was trying to kill that justify the taking of his life.

Now, fortunately, he will not get a chance to plan any more attacks to kill Americans.

Note, btw, that his fingerprints are on terrorist attacks such as 9/11 and the Ft Hood shootings (email penpals with Nidal Hasan, frequent contacts with 2 or three of the 9.11 hijackers) as well as his coaching of the underwear bomber etc etc etc.

[MNBrewer]

14. Excellent evidence to present to a Federal Grand Jury for an indictment

but now we're in the age of rule by Presidential Decree. So forget it.

[geek tragedy]

16. Grand juries don't stop terrorists.

Hellfires do.

[MNBrewer]

18. They don't stop dictatorships either

[geek tragedy]

41. So, you think Obama is both a traitor and a dictator?

What are you going to do about it, brave citizen?

[tama]

26. That applies also

to financial terrorists? Do you support bombing NYSE?

[_ed_]

29. You sound so scared of the Big, Bad Terrorists

Can you remind me how many Americans perished as a result of terrorism on the homeland from 2002-2011? Is it more or less than died on the highways? From cancer? From AIDS? As a result of violent crime? Lack of access to healthcare?

Your priorities seem aligned with the hysteria that reigned during the Bush era.

[geek tragedy]

33. What do you suppose has had more to do with preventing

terrorist attacks inside the US--disrupting their operations, organization, and membership overseas, or the blogging of Glenn Greenwald?

[EFerrari]

22. That's what I thought. Ciao. n/t

[Bandit]

27. They do not have jurisdiction over overseas military operations in the field.

That is why after capturing him on the streets of Chicago they whisked him off to a foreign country and under military control..They did not want him to have the protections of an American citizen and he did not receive them..

[AverageJoe90]

31. You do have a really good point here.

Unfortunately, we actually DID have the chance to arrest him at one point.

[Enrique]

62. John Walker Lindh

captured on an Afghanistan battlefield, tried in American federal court.

[DeSwiss]

17. K&R n/t

[Unvanguard]

19. Does Glenn Greenwald actually believe that?

I doubt very much that any reasonable interpretation of the AUMF would make no distinction between people under the jurisdiction of the United States and people who are not (nor meaningfully under the jurisdiction of an allied government.) Such a distinction seems much more natural and plausible to me than a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens: the constitutional prohibition on the deprivation of life without due process applies to all persons, not just to citizens. The relationship between the US government and people under its jurisdiction is not akin to the relationship between a country and the soldiers of its enemy, but citizenship has nothing to do with this: thus, what happened to Padilla was illegitimate, and what happened to al-Awlaki wasn't.

[MNBrewer]

20. The AUMF itself does not make those distinctions.

[Unvanguard]

21. The text of the AUMF itself does not explicitly make any distinctions.

But given that everyone agrees it allows the extra-judicial killing of some people (that's pretty inherent to the use of military force), denying any distinctions whatsoever would leave us with an extremely broad reading, one that I'm sure would leave Greenwald even less happy.

[EFerrari]

23. New York Review of Books: Killing Citizens in Secret

David Cole

Sunday’s New York Times reported that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has produced a fifty-page legal memo that purportedly authorized President Obama to order the killing of US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, without a trial. Last month, the US carried out that order with a drone strike in Yemen that killed al-Awlaki and another US citizen traveling with him. The strike was front-page news, and apparently was undertaken with the approval of Yemen authorities, yet as it was a “covert operation,” the Obama administration has declined even to acknowledge that it ordered the killing.

So now we know that there is a secret memo that authorized a secret killing of a US citizen—and both the memo and the killing remain officially “secret” despite having been reported on the front page of The New York Times. Whatever one thinks about the merits of presidents ordering that citizens be killed by remote-controlled missiles, surely there is something fundamentally wrong with a democracy that allows its leader to do so in “secret,” without even demanding that he defend his actions in public.

As I have argued here previously, it is not necessarily illegal, in wartime, to kill a citizen without a trial. Lincoln’s Union Army did it repeatedly, of course, during the Civil War. If US soldiers had confronted al-Awlaki carrying a gun on an Afghan battlefield, the laws of war would permit them to shoot him on the spot. No one could credibly maintain that they would have to wait till a jury of his peers convicted him and the Supreme Court denied review.

But al-Awlaki was not on the battlefield. He was in Yemen. And he was not even alleged to be a part of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, the two entities against whom Congress authorized the President to use military force in a resolution passed one week after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which continues to provide the legal basis for the war on al-Qaeda and the conflict in Afghanistan. Al-Awlaki was alleged to be a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), an organization in Yemen founded long after the September 11 attacks. He had never been tried, much less convicted, for any terrorist crime. He corresponded by email with Nidal Hasan six months before Hasan shot and killed 13 men at Fort Hood in November 2009, and was allegedly involved in planning the foiled airliner bombing near Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. But he was not charged in either crime. Neither attack, moreover, was carried out by al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Are unofficial “allegations” of encouragement of or involvement in terrorism enough to authorize the secret execution of a citizen?

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/oct/09/killing-citizens-secret/

[KoKo]

28. What's interesting, too is that the "news writer" that was killed with him

as collateral damage could be considered "a reporter or writer." He was an American Citizen who was writing what was considered "anti-American" viewpoints.

Is it illegal to write "anti-American" propaganda? Should anyone in any country who expresses differences with American policy be a target just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[geek tragedy]

34. He was not a journalist, he was a full-fledged member of Al Qaeda.

He was in the company of AQ operatives. He put himself in the line of fire. His citizenship did not create a magic shield around any AQ member in his company.

I suppose during WWII you would have bemoaned Joseph Goebbels having his first amendment rights trampled.

[KoKo]

37. I wonder what folks on some sides might think of Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn?

Think about it? They are urging a "new movement" in American Political System.

[geek tragedy]

38. You're equating Howard Zinn and Al Qaeda. Real cute. nt

[KoKo]

39. To the American Establishment Politico...They've always been...

"anti-establishment" which today under Bush/Obama seems to be "TERRORISTS." Just saying...if you can understand how the equation works in times of "high political theater."

[geek tragedy]

40. I understand that Chomsky and Zinn didn't kill thousands of people in New York.

You apparently think this is an irrelevant distinction.

[KoKo]

42. They could be seen as "advocating against the American Establishment."

Think!

[geek tragedy]

46. So what? Not all people opposed to the US are the same.

Some are good, some are evil. Some preach peace, some practice violence.

THINK.

[KoKo]

43. Neither did Alwaki or Sami Kahn.

[geek tragedy]

45. They joined the organization that did, and sought to advance its

agenda.

[KoKo]

47. We all should be able to express our views politcally. They didn't shoot down anyone...

and they were not accused of anything by Obama Administration. They just "took them out." Not even putting out evidence of why they were considered criminals... They just "Took Them Out."

[geek tragedy]

48. Courts have no jurisdiction over this sort of thing.

A federal court explicitly ruled that only Congress and the President have authority over overseas military operations.

[KoKo]

49. Go read Glenn Greenwald's article. He's a "real Constitution Lawyer" along with others

who are outraged. Unlike the "constitutional lawyer" who sits in the WH who allowed some kid in a room with a gaming remote sitting in in a "Secret US Location" to kill these two with a "click" and then went on with his/her life after doing the deed. Probably went out and had a big "yuck" with buddies after that one. Maybe one day he/she will write a book about how "I TOOK OUT TERRORISTS with just a CLICK from my US CERTIFIED GAME MACHINE!" WOOO HOOO!

I'm being too cruel to the gamer. They probably prayed over their decision and connected with their Priest, Pastor or Rabbi and asked forgiveness from their God before they did this deed. :puke:

[geek tragedy]

50. Greenwald largely shared and implicitly endorsed

Al Awlaki's preachings.

[KoKo]

52. NYTimes Sues Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT ACT

Given all of this, reporter Charlie Savage of the NY Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the federal government's interpretation of its own law... and had it refused. According to the federal government, its own interpretation of the law is classified. What sort of democracy are we living in when the government can refuse to even say how it's interpreting its own law? That's not democracy at all.

Julian Sanchez points us to the news that Savage and the NY Times have now sued the federal government for not revealing its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, pointing out that if parts of the interpretation contain classified material, the Justice Department should black that out and reveal the rest, but simply refusing to reveal the interpretation entirely is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. You can bet that the feds will do everything they can to get out of this lawsuit, just as they did with the various lawsuits concerning warrantless wiretapping. Here's hoping the court systems don't let them. No matter what you think of this administration (or the last one) and how it's handling the threat of terrorism, I'm curious how anyone can make the argument that the US government should not reveal how it interprets the very laws under which it's required to operate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2094491

[tama]

58. Let's assume

you have a son who is anti-establishment communist who talks about violent revolution. He crosses border to Cuba. I'm the president and order your son to be killed in "overseas military operation" because of his vocal anti-american attitudes.

You are saying you are OK with that, legalwise. But are you really?

[geek tragedy]

59. Did my son join an enemy of the US against which

Congress had explicitly authorized lethal force? Was my son linked to several terrorist tacks against the US? Is there evidence my son participated in planning such attacks?

This guy was not killed merely for being an asshole.

[tama]

60. Nit-pick details

You are willing to give president the power and any legal nit-pick justification to kill fellow human beings just for being an asshole - assholenes being judged according to presidential authority alone. You are defending extremely slippery sloap.

[geek tragedy]

61. No, I'm defending the President's authority to take action

legally declared enemies to prevent them from killing Americans. Your belief that whether someone is actively trying to kill Americans as part of an enemy organization is nit-picking indicates you do not understand the relevant law.

[Enrique]

63. Angela Davis

Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn. J Edgar Hoover didnt have drones, but he could have had one of his men plant car bombs on those terrorists as he judged them to be, and I guess it would have been ok with you if he did that.

[geek tragedy]

64. Inside the US vs outside, not authorized by Congress. nt

[bvar22]

66. "legally declared enemies "

Please show documentation to the process necessary to have someone legally declared an enemy?

Were you as supportive of Bush-the-Lesser when he grabbed the powers of a Unitary Executive?
I wasn't.
I'm still not supportive of a Unitary Executive.
This country was designed with a Cross Check among the 3 branches of government for a reason.

IF this guy was an IMMINENT and IMMEDIATE THREAT to the USA and its citizens,
then a warrant from the Judicial Branch would be easy to obtain upon the presentation of evidence to a Judge.

If we are going to kill somebody,
it is a good idea to keep it very legal and transparent.
Get some signatures and share the responsibility among the 3 branches.

[geek tragedy]

67. There are no judicial warrants for military action.

They don't exist because the Constitution excluded the courts from oversight of overseas military operations.

[bvar22]

68. YOU used the term "legally declared enemy".

Where & When was he "declared" a "legal enemy".
Please post a copy of this "Legal Declaration".

Words DO have meaning.

[geek tragedy]

69. Al Qaeda is a legally declared enemy per the AUMF

of October 2001. Congress authorized military action against AQ.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

32. The Administration's Justification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[KoKo]

44. It's so dreadful....it made me sick when I first heard it...

:-(

[red dog 1]

51. Will Lederman become A.J. if Holder lied to Judiciary Committee?

http://homenews/house/185403-smith-wants-special-council-to-find-out-if-holder-lied-to-congress/

[BlueCheese]

55. Arguments, then and now.

Padilla: We're at war. Padilla is a member of Al Qaeda and therefore an enemy combatant. Thus we can hold him without charge, even though he's a US citizen. Did we give trials to all those German soldiers we captured in World War II? Thought not. How do we know he's an enemy combatant? Because the president says so.

Awlaki: We're at war. Awlaki is a member of Al Qaeda and therefore an enemy combatant. Thus we can blow him to pieces, even though he's a US citizen. Did we give trials to all those German soldiers we killed in World War II? Thought not. How do we know he's an enemy combatant? Because the president says so.

[geek tragedy]

65. There's a big difference in the case of Padilla, namely that

he was already in custody and wasn't a threat. Plus, he was captured inside the United States.