Killing Americans: On uncharted ground in attack

[Chape]

Where are our rights ?

No habeas corpus? Due process?

And the slippery slope gets slimier and slimier..

Best Regards

................................................

WASHINGTON (AP) —

President Barack Obama steered the nation's war machine into uncharted territory Friday

when a U.S. drone attacked a convoy in Yemen and killed two American citizens who had

become central figures in al-Qaida.

It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based

on secret intelligence and the president's say-so. And it raised major questions about the limitations

of presidential power.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the target of the U.S. drone attack, was one of the best-known al-Qaida figures

after Osama bin Laden. American intelligence officials had linked him to two nearly catastrophic

attacks on U.S.-bound planes, an airliner on Christmas 2009 and cargo planes last year.

The second American killed in the drone attack, Samir Kahn, was the editor of Inspire, a slick online

magazine aimed at al-Qaida sympathizers in the West.

Late Friday, two U.S. officials said intelligence indicated that the top al-Qaida bomb-maker in Yemen

also died in the strike. Ibrahim al-Asiri is the bomb-maker linked to the bomb hidden in the underwear

of a Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because al-Asiri's death has not officially been confirmed.

Authorities also believe he built the bombs that al-Qaida slipped into printers and shipped to the U.S.

last year in a nearly catastrophic attack.

Christopher Boucek, a scholar who studies Yemen and al-Qaida, said al-Asiri was so important to the

organization that his death would "overshadow" the news of al-Awlaki and Khan.

In announcing al-Awlaki's death, Obama said, "Al-Qaida and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere

in the world."

"Working with Yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate,

we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americansm" he said.

Republicans and Democrats alike applauded the decision to launch the fatal assault on the convoy in Yemen.

"It's something we had to do," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"The president is showing leadership. The president is showing guts."

"It's legal," said Maryland Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

"It's legitimate and we're taking out someone who has attempted to attack us on numerous occasions. And he was on that list."

That list is the roster of people the White House has authorized the CIA and Pentagon to kill or capture as terrorists.

The evidence against them almost always is classified. Targets never know for sure they are on the list, though some

surely wouldn't be surprised.

The list has included dozens of names, from little-known mid-level figures in the wilds of Pakistan to bin Laden,

who was killed in his compound in a comfortable Pakistani suburb.

Before al-Awlaki, no American had been on the list.

But the legal process that led to his death was set in motion a decade ago. On Sept. 17, 2001, President George W. Bush

signed a presidential order authorizing the CIA to hunt down terrorists worldwide. The authority was rooted in his power

as commander in chief, leading a nation at war with al-Qaida.

The order made no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens. If they posed a "continuing and imminent threat"

to the United States, they were eligible to be killed, former intelligence officials said.

The order was reviewed by top lawyers at the White House, CIA and Justice Department. With the ruins of the

World Trade Center still smoking, there was little discussion about whether U.S. citizens should have more protection,

the officials recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

The feeling was that the government needed — and had — broad authority to find and kill terrorists who were trying to strike the U.S.

The CIA first faced the issue in November 2002, when it launched a Predator drone attack in Yemen.

An American terror suspect who had fled there, Kamal Derwish, was killed by Hellfire missiles launched on his caravan.

The Bush administration said Derwish wasn't the target. The attack was intended for Yemeni al-Qaida leader Abu Ali al-Harithi.

But officials said even then that, if it ever came to it, they had the authority to kill an American.

"I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials,"

Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said. "He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his

constitutional authority."

Al-Awlaki had not then emerged as a leading al-Qaida figure. Before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the New Mexico-born

cleric had been a preacher at the northern Virginia mosque attended briefly by two hijackers. He was interviewed but never

charged by the FBI.

But at the CIA, the officers in charge of finding targets knew it was only a matter of time before they would set the Predator

drone's high-definition sights on an American.

"We knew at some point there would have to be a straight call made on this," one former senior intelligence official said.

It was Obama who ultimately made that call.

After the failed Christmas bombing, the Nigerian suspect told the FBI that he had met with al-Awlaki and said he was

instrumental in the plot. Al-Awlaki had also called for attacks on Americans and had attended meetings with senior

al-Qaida leaders in Yemen. Al-Awlaki had gone from an inspirational figure to an operational leader, officials said.

In April 2010, the White House added al-Awlaki's name to the kill-or-capture list. Senior administration officials said they

reviewed the Bush administration's executive order and discussed the ramifications of putting an American on the list

but said it was a short conversation. They concluded that the president had the authority, both under the congressional

declaration of war against al-Qaida and international law.

"Anwar al-Awlaki is acting as a regional commander for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," White House spokesman

Robert Gibbs told reporters in August 2010.

What if the U.S. was wrong, Gibbs was asked, what recourse does a citizen have to save himself? The CIA had misidentified

and imprisoned the wrong person before. Gibbs sidestepped the question.

The U.S. has been inconsistent in how it describes al-Awlaki. The Treasury Department called him a leader of al-Qaida in Yemen.

FBI Director Robert Mueller called him the leader. On Friday, Obama called him "the leader of external operations," the first time

he has been described that way.

When word leaked out that al-Awlaki's name was on the list, his family rushed to court to try to stop the government from killing him,

saying he had to be afforded the constitutional right to due process.

The idea of killing an American citizen provided critics with fodder for all sorts of comparisons showing the peculiarities of national

security law and policy. The government could not listen to al-Awlaki's phone calls without a judge's approval, for instance, but could

kill him on the president's say-so. The Obama administration opposed imprisoning terrorist suspects without due process but supported

killing them without due process.

"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any

American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said Friday.

U.S. District Judge John Bates refused to intervene in al-Awlaki's case.

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion — that there are circumstances in which the executive's

unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable,"

Bates wrote. "But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."

Like Derwish years ago, Khan, a North Carolina native, was called collateral damage in the drone attack, not the target.

Al-Awlaki may have been the perfect test case for the government. His sermons in English are posted all over the Internet and his

name has been associated with several attempted terrorist attacks. In the intelligence community, many regarded him as a bigger

threat than bin Laden because of his ability to inspire Westerners and his focus on attacking the U.S.

But in taking this step, the Obama administration raised questions about whom else the president has the authority to kill. In principle,

such an attack could probably not happen inside the United States because the CIA is forbidden from operating here and the military is

limited in what operations it can carry out domestically. But civil rights groups have questioned whether the government has opened the

door to that possibility.

At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney refused to even acknowledge the government's direct role in killing al-Awlaki.

He repeatedly ducked questions about the extent of Obama's authority and said only that al-Awlaki had been an operational leader for al-Qaida.

"Is there going to be any evidence presented?" Carney was asked.

"You know, I don't have anything for you on that," he responded.

King, the Republican lawmaker, said it was necessary that the president to have the authority to act against those at war with the U.S.

And it was no secret to the public, he said, that al-Awlaki was at war. But he acknowledged that it set a precedent that could make people uncomfortable.

"There could be a situation where nobody knows the evidence, where you're relying on the government to say what its intelligence is,"

King said. "With al-Awlaki, it was clear-cut. He made it a clear call."

http://news.yahoo.com/killing-americans-uncharted-ground-attack-212335475.html

___

Associated Press writers Kimberly Dozier and Adam Goldman in Washington and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

[TPSprayduster]

Well Chape i am sure alot of tree huggers will be complaining but if you were directly affected by this Radical Cleric i am sure you will be singing a different toon. I guess you forgot about September 11th. Everyone had all the rights and what about those folks who died then and those who have died since then? No one would be crying if there was not another President in office. Think about that for awhile. If you choose to ride with a different bunch then suffer the fallout. The Cleric did not think about that.

Best Regards,

Edited October 1, 2011 by TPSprayduster

[flatdawg]

I guess you forgot about September 11th.

Best Regards,

Inside job.

[dinar-racer]

Chape I applaud your willingness to be active in our politics but would bet the bank that if your mother were dead as a result of a terrorist attack planned by this guy that you would want to pull that trigger yourself.Then again maybe not.That is why we have brave men and women willing to do the tough jobs.Please take your political BS somewhere else.

[Loco01]

The guy was a bum dont care where he was born. The USA needs to do this more often.

Terrorize the Terrorists should be our motto

[Lutie]

Chape I applaud your willingness to be active in our politics but would bet the bank that if your mother were dead as a result of a terrorist attack planned by this guy that you would want to pull that trigger yourself.Then again maybe not.That is why we have brave men and women willing to do the tough jobs.Please take your political BS somewhere else.

NO I think he would accuse his father of having a hand in his mothers death. It's just the way his mind works.

[Off-the-grid]

I'm with these other responders in that I do not believe the attack should have been called off just because some of the evil doers were originally Americans (they weren't any more, were they). Better that we take them out than another power. However, that said, it does cause me some concern that killing them abroad was deemed more practical and politically convenient than capturing them and putting them on trial.

Peace and Prosperity

[HeyJonesy]

Plain and simple..

This is a USA born guy who left this country, joined a terrorist group, has publicly threatened to kill his own people on United States soil and organized many others to do the same.

He was all over the news threatening to use a variety of means of WMD's and has been known to be one of the biggest recruiters of wanna-be terrorists.

I personally don't care who gave the go ahead to take this guy out. The fingers pointed at Obama now that "he's killing" his own people is horse sh*t. To that fact, if Obama did nothing and Americans got killed based on Awlaki's doings, people would still point fingers saying Obama didn't do enough to protect this country.

Pull up your big girl panties and realize that this terrorist wanted to kill you and your family... it doesn't matter if he just happened to be born here, he wanted to kill you. Get it?

Personally, I'm not losing a bit of sleep over this guy.

Just sayin'....

[firemans35]

First they came for the Communist and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionist and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Trade Unionist

Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me!

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Now I am not saying I agree with the terrorist or that they are right in any way. I think most of us would agree terrorism is wrong. What most of us will not agree on is what should be done and how it should be done. According to the post we flew a drone into another country, (assuming without permission) and assassinated a terrorist. How many laws did the U.S. break all because we were attacked and we think we have a right to disregard laws, treaties etc. What if one day the U.S. Government decided they wanted to do the same thing Germany did. We have laws that are suppose to protect us against Governmental abuses, everyone is entitled to there day in court. The U.S. Government should have made an attempt to capture this person and bring him to trial and if found guilty sentenced to death. JMO

[mojack]

Chape - this is another time that you read the first 2 paragraphs and posted something.

Fireman - isn't war time different?

Edited October 1, 2011 by mojack

[uncirculd]

Geez, imagine that. I don't know about you, but if you job is to do nothing but plot to kill brothers, how productive is that? And what is the punishment for a traitor? He declared war on Americans, so he's a soldier of WAR and not an American Soldier. Look up his radical indoctrinating our students here in the US. He got called out and then ran out to YEMEN.

[Francie26]

I find very little reason to applaud Obama for anything. But this is the exception. I have to give credit to him for recognizing that getting rid of our enemies is paramount to American interests. This guy had the chance to be a real American, but he made another choice, and he had to live and die by it. As far as I'm concerned, he gave up his citizenship when he chose to attack US citizens whether here or elsewhere. I have no sympathy for him, and if I had been in Obama's shoes (Oh, Lord!! Praise God I'm not!!), I would have done the same thing. This guy had no compunction against killing his fellow-Americans, and he proved that he would have done it again and again, without hesitation. So he had to go. It was clear his American citizenship was for him a mere formality, with no meaning beyond hatred, and he turned his back on his citizenship when he turned his back on America. It's hard to imagine how many real American lives were saved by the death of that traitor.

So you may never see this again, but this one time only, I give Obama credit for finally getting this guy as well as for taking out Osama (although this was set in motion by the Bush administration), but killing both was in our American interests and was, thus, the truly right, decent, and good thing to do. On the other hand, Obama had better hope that a future administration doesn't follow the path he and his administration blazed and hold their feet to the fire for killing either of these evil men.

[Sann]

This tees me off. In your last statement you said the US should have made an attempt to capture first. That would have involved sending some American's father, son, brother, or husband into undoubtedly a dangerous situation. Why risk the lives of our brave men and women when we don't have to. This scum was not worth it. Let a drone do it and let it do it again if men like this of absolutely no compassion for any human life wants to rise to fame and dominance by executing such vile acts against humanity let's send them something to think about, "With the same measure that you mete, you will be measured." This man gave up his rights to citizenship when he began training young men who no doubt are desensitized to human anquish by their own life experience and ignorance, I reserve my pain and regret for them. Now if you want to war against a person's constitutional right to own a gun to defend their home, I'm with you. If you want to debate the constitutional right of any true citizen for due process, I'm with you: but, if you want to rally me to your side because one less terror for all american's has been escounged from the world, just go jump in a lake.

[HeyJonesy]

We have laws that are suppose to protect us against Governmental abuses, everyone is entitled to there day in court. The U.S. Government should have made an attempt to capture this person and bring him to trial and if found guilty sentenced to death. JMO

Fireman, although your point is well taken, I will respectfully disagree.

This overall action was in conjunction with other allied countries. Although we don't know every single detail that led up to this guys ultimate assassination, bottom line is he was recruiting and organizing people to kill us.. here on our own soil. This Awlaki character made it publicly known of his intentions.

If there was a guy in my front yard with an assault rifle pointed at my front door that openly admitted what he was doing and his intentions... what would my thoughts be? It would not be.. "I hope they capture this guy, take care of him, feed and cloth him, put him into our court system, allow our US citizens to foot the bill of huge dollars over a period of years, only to prove that yes, he was standing in my front yard with a assault rifle attempting to kill me and my family."

Maybe it's just me.. but if a terrorist openly admits he's going to kill as many Americans as he possibly can, AND during war time, I'd like to think it's open season on him too.

[Francie26]

Inside job.

Ridiculous!!! Beyond the sheer stupidity of that remark, it also shows that you drank the Obama-kook-aid.

[dog53]

hahahah dude seriously. I read this news already and wondered what moron would bring it here to this sight. hahahah looks like you won. I am not a Obama fan with that being said. this Guy that's now the aforementioned corpse. He was not a American. He may have been born here but no he was not a American. He Was al qaeda. He needed to get greased. This is a success story not a affront on our personal liberty's. This was nothing more then killing the enemy. By trying to make it more then that you undermine the whole process known as freedom. We desperately need common sense in this country like we have never needed it before. So please try to use some when posting garbage such as this. Good riddance Awlaki I hope you burn in he!!

[Francie26]

This tees me off. In your last statement you said the US should have made an attempt to capture first. That would have involved sending some American's father, son, brother, or husband into undoubtedly a dangerous situation. Why risk the lives of our brave men and women when we don't have to. This scum was not worth it. Let a drone do it and let it do it again if men like this of absolutely no compassion for any human life wants to rise to fame and dominance by executing such vile acts against humanity let's send them something to think about, "With the same measure that you mete, you will be measured." This man gave up his rights to citizenship when he began training young men who no doubt are desensitized to human anquish by their own life experience and ignorance, I reserve my pain and regret for them. Now if you want to war against a person's constitutional right to own a gun to defend their home, I'm with you. If you want to debate the constitutional right of any true citizen for due process, I'm with you: but, if you want to rally me to your side because one less terror for all american's has been escounged from the world, just go jump in a lake.

"Now if you want to war against a person's constitutional right to own a gun to defend their home, I'm with you." Based on the tenor of the rest of your post, I think you may have intended to say, "If you want to war for a person's constitutional right . . . " I'm just pointing out the confusing line. It's up to you to let us know for sure . . .

[mojack]

Ridiculous!!! Beyond the sheer stupidity of that remark, it also shows that you drank the Obama-kook-aid.

Tell me how his remark relate to O.

[flatdawg]

Ridiculous!!! Beyond the sheer stupidity of that remark, it also shows that you drank the Obama-kook-aid.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[NonLinear]

"Now if you want to war against a person's constitutional right to own a gun to defend their home, I'm with you." Based on the tenor of the rest of your post, I think you may have intended to say, "If you want to war for a person's constitutional right . . . " I'm just pointing out the confusing line. It's up to you to let us know for sure . . .

HA! HA! Good catch! You ARE a rather sharp blade...

[jeepguy]

bammm !!!!! looks like all are on the same page {almost} ,,,, if only we had a timmothy mcvey waring light,,, of ted jaskinsky { not sure if that is spelled right}, even the jackass who shot up arozonia,, take-em out back ,,never see them again,,save tax dollars on room and board, keep them from infecting small time criminals, if my kid did a haynous crime as these guys ,,, take them out back ,,,, i would feel responsible for the kids actions in a long way around position!!!! but it does though out a insider look at what rights the real u s public has,, what about those souls that died ,because of these ding-a-lings,,, { if my kid was killed by one of the din-a-lings, i would get a visitor pass meet the good fellow in the pen,,, drop a granada on the ground and take that guy out, or good hand cannon up close eye too eye,, tell`um my kid sent me!!! BAMMMMMM { but would my kid want that for me??? }

Edited October 1, 2011 by jeepguy

[mojack]

"Now if you want to war against a person's constitutional right to own a gun to defend their home, I'm with you." Based on the tenor of the rest of your post, I think you may have intended to say, "If you want to war for a person's constitutional right . . . " I'm just pointing out the confusing line. It's up to you to let us know for sure . . .

That was cheap Francie... you read it - can't you interpret clearly? It wasn't that far out of context.

[uncirculd]

This tees me off. In your last statement you said the US should have made an attempt to capture first. That would have involved sending some American's father, son, brother, or husband into undoubtedly a dangerous situation. Why risk the lives of our brave men and women when we don't have to. This scum was not worth it. Let a drone do it and let it do it again if men like this of absolutely no compassion for any human life wants to rise to fame and dominance by executing such vile acts against humanity let's send them something to think about, "With the same measure that you mete, you will be measured." This man gave up his rights to citizenship when he began training young men who no doubt are desensitized to human anquish by their own life experience and ignorance, I reserve my pain and regret for them. Now if you want to war against a person's constitutional right to own a gun to defend their home, I'm with you. If you want to debate the constitutional right of any true citizen for due process, I'm with you: but, if you want to rally me to your side because one less terror for all american's has been escounged from the world, just go jump in a lake.

H@ll why have due process for citizens, we don't have it for illegals crossing the borders and killing our farmers. Their illegal entry is welcome, you can get government money to have your children here and feed your family by just stealing an identity or hell, some states will give you one. So, the truth is, due process is a joke. Recognize, if the controlled media is on your side you may get due process, otherwise sleep it off. This is not the American we all had dreams of, it is a totally different nation. And I am wondering, who's in charge???

Edited October 1, 2011 by uncirculd

[desimo]

I think this is probably the first time this President actually applied the Constitution. It was called treason and treason results in death.

[mikep05]

i assume that since it was obama who pulled the trigger it was wrong huh? i can feel the love in this country.....quit playing politics