[Yahoo/AP] A judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting anti-American holy man Anwar al-Awlaki for death, but questioned whether a president or his aides can unilaterally order a U.S. citizen assassinated for terrorist activity.Why not if he's engaged in warfare against the U.S.? What's the diffo between al-Awlaki and Yamamoto?
U.S. District Judge John Bates said in an 83-page opinion that he does not have the authority to review the president's military decisions and al-Awlaki's father does not have the legal right to sue to stop the United States from killing his son.
"Case dismissed..." But instead he said:
But Bates also said the "unique and extraordinary case" raised vital considerations of national security and for military and foreign affairs.
Only if you go counterintuitively looking for them...
Among the "stark and perplexing questions" Bates said the case raises
"Yes, they're stark! Unrelieved white against deepest black! That's why I'm so perplexed! I can't quite make out the nuances, even though I'm sure they're there...
is why courts have authority to approve surveillance of Americans overseas but not their killing.
The courts have until recently kept their distance from the military chain of command...
And he questioned whether the president or his advisers can order the liquidation of a U.S. citizen without "any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization."
Probably from the time the intended victim assumes operational control of an enemy unit he should find himself on the wax list, whether he has a lawyer or not.
"The serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the assassination of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another nonjudicial forum," wrote Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush and an Army veteran.
Because there are some things the courts aren't in charge of.