Article

2010-11-10 Arabia

Awlaki's father says CIA "kill list" unconstitutional

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-11-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top
File under: al-Qaeda

#1 Devil citing scripture.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-11-10 04:22|| 2010-11-10 04:22|| Front Page Top

#2 Last time I checked the Constitution, Congress had this authority -

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-11-10 06:42|| 2010-11-10 06:42|| Front Page Top

#3 How is going after him any different than going after OBL, Zarqawi, Saddam or any other terrorist who is trying to murder us?

Posted by JohnQC 2010-11-10 08:39|| 2010-11-10 08:39|| Front Page Top

Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which along with the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken Awlaki's case, accused the U.S. government of imposing the death penalty without trial.

Declared war, enemy combatant -- shove it up your ass, ACLU. Or does Jameel (which mosque does he attend, hmmm?) want to be added to the list?

Posted by Rob Crawford 2010-11-10 09:22|| 2010-11-10 09:22|| Front Page Top

#5 There is the precedent of the "Wanted: Dead or Alive" poster. This is no different.

I hope they get Awlaki's killing on video. When it happens, I'd like to be the one who tells Major Hasan his Imam is a fried fricassee.

Posted by penguin 2010-11-10 09:25|| 2010-11-10 09:25|| Front Page Top

#6 The administration is empowered to use lethal force against American citizens deemed an imminent threat to national security

That's all I need to know. Happy hunting!

Posted by Uleatch Dribble8106 2010-11-10 10:47|| 2010-11-10 10:47|| Front Page Top

#7 That's ok, pops. In the case of shit-weasels like your son, we're willing to make an exception.

Posted by mojo 2010-11-10 11:07|| 2010-11-10 11:07|| Front Page Top

#8 How is going after him any different than going after OBL, Zarqawi, Saddam or any other terrorist who is trying to murder us?

Anwar al-Awlaki is a US Citizen. OBL, Zarqawi, and Saddam are not. Having the President ordering the extermination of a US citizen simply because he thinks he is a threat is unconstitutional. I believe it's called due process. However, there is a solution. P2K lists the legal basis above. But first he must be designated as an enemy combatant and/or strip him of his citizenship. Then have the military (Not the CIA) take him out. This is prolly the basis for recent reports about special ops hanging with the Spooks in Yemen.

Posted by DepotGuy 2010-11-10 11:38|| 2010-11-10 11:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Depot Guy,
During WW2 a number of US citizens got caught on the wrong side of the Ocean by Pearl Harbor. Many of them got drafted by the other side.

Nobody needed specific authority to take them out. They were enemy combatants, citizens or not. Awlaki has recruited people to kill Americans, and announced the desire to kill more. If he is not an enemy, I don't know who is.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2010-11-10 11:53|| 2010-11-10 11:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Legally, he has turned his coat and is considered a traitor. The government can use any ability to capture, or kill him to limit the damage done.

Posted by DarthVader 2010-11-10 12:24|| 2010-11-10 12:24|| Front Page Top

#11 persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

As is well documented, Awlaki was directly associated with the group that committed the 9/11 attack, and provided spiritual guidance.

He's not just "any" terrorist, he's a "person" specifically covered by that Act.

Posted by KBK 2010-11-10 14:36|| 2010-11-10 14:36|| Front Page Top

#12 al-Awlaki's case is unprecendented. He is the first US citizen to be targeted for assassination even while no warrant for his arrest has been issued in the US. His imminent threat status is because of his influence on others and may incite future violence. Can you say slippery slope?

Posted by DepotGuy 2010-11-10 15:28|| 2010-11-10 15:28|| Front Page Top

#13 I think this is a bit far from the slope - he did it first, a US citizen calling for the death of other US citizens.

Besides, he knew what he was getting into and revoked his own US citizenship when pledging alliegence to this non-state armed political group responsible for numberour man made disasters or WTF ever it is called now. Point is, him being a US citizen still is or should be only a paperwork formality.

The slippory slop I see is having a US citizen as a SOP in leadership or personal bodyguard, gonna see a lawsuit every dronezap, snatch and grab, etc.

I thought that is what the lawfare departments had been working on in regards to terror lists, that pledging alliegience or otherwise assisting a documented and defined terror group was grounds for citizenship dismissal. And if I shouldn't yell fire in a theatre then this goat dick needs to hang from an F-16 tail during speed testing.

So sorry pops. Your son is an asshole and had been working on it his whole life. Bet you are an asshole as well.

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-11-10 15:50|| 2010-11-10 15:50|| Front Page Top

#14 If al-Awlaki were not a native born citizen the decision would be simpler for stripping him of citizenship and then targeting him for his terrorist activities.

Sen. Lieberman proposed legislation that would enable the stripping of citizenship from a citizen if they engaged in terror activities. There was considerable pushback on the issue.

The Supreme Court in 1958 upheld a citizenship-stripping law in Perez v. Brownell. But then in 1967, the Warren Court overruled Perez by a 5−4 vote. The court held that Congress cannot strip anyone of citizenship unless that person voluntarily renounces it.

In the 1980 case of Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court split the difference, moving back in the opposite direction. The Court modified its 1967 holding to clarify that in addition to renouncing American citizenship verbally or in writing, a person can renounce their citizenship by their conduct. The Court also held that whether their conduct amounts to renouncing citizenship can be determined by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the odds only need to be better than 50−50, instead of a higher standard such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The law seems to be somewhat murky with regards to the stripping citizens of there citizenship rights.

Citizens should have concerns about citizenship rights being stripped from citizens too easily.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-11-10 15:55|| 2010-11-10 15:55|| Front Page Top

#15 their not ~~there~~.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-11-10 15:57|| 2010-11-10 15:57|| Front Page Top

#16 With Rahm back in Chicago perhaps I can be more comfortable, but the thought of the Federal government identifying individual U. S. citizens for termination by hit squads without due process of law does not make me sleep well at night and is not that far down the slope. Consider the domestic violence now occurring in EUrope. We are not that far away from that here if we do not get our fiscal house in order. How far would a New Black Panther Party go and how far could the USG go to stop them once this precedent is established?

The AUMF authorizes combat. If Awlaki dies in combat, such are the fortunes of war. But, this kind of activity, targeting a U. S. citizen individually without due process, is right on the edge overseas, and over the edge in CONUS. It is particularly troubling that this is being done without the participation of the legislative branch in formulating the law necessary to give the President such immense authority. Awlaki should be told to turn himself in for criminal prosecution or stripped of his citizenship before he is made a target.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-11-10 17:00|| 2010-11-10 17:00|| Front Page Top

#17 Good points. Perhaps an opportunity to get this figured out considering there are US Citizens running stints with al-shabaab and others.

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-11-10 18:20|| 2010-11-10 18:20|| Front Page Top

#18 "I hope they get Awlaki's killing on video."

Penguin, if they do that, and put it on pay-per-view, we could easily pay off the national debt with the proceeds.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-11-10 18:29|| 2010-11-10 18:29|| Front Page Top

#19 There is no "slippery slope" or any other bullshit. Awlaki has declared war on the United States and Americans, here and elsewhere. This is an act of rebellion, and can be suppressed without any other paperwork being necessary. Awlaki is in rebellion against the legitimate government of the United States, and is therefore a target. Pops and the ACLU should go play "chicken" on the local Interstate - in dark clothes, on a moonless night, miles from any light source.

Posted by Old Patriot 2010-11-10 19:33|| 2010-11-10 19:33|| Front Page Top

23:31 trailing wife
23:21 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
23:17 trailing wife
23:12 trailing wife
23:01 trailing wife
22:39 Broadhead6
22:31 Frank G
22:31 Frank G
22:29 Frank G
22:05 Barbara Skolaut
21:08 rjschwarz
20:47 newc
20:33 newc
20:33 eLarson
20:31 lotp
20:25 twobyfour
20:22 Water Modem
20:20 anymouse
19:37 Rambler in Virginia
19:33 Old Patriot
19:27 Rambler in Virginia
19:08 Besoeker
18:39 SR-71
18:35 Matt