DOJ to justify targeted citizen killings abroad

Anwar al-Awlaki, at left inset, speaks in a video message posted on radical websites. / AP Photo/SITE Intelligence Group

(AP) WASHINGTON - Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to outline the legal framework for the use of lethal force in targeted killings of Americans overseas in a major speech at Northwestern University law school, an Obama administration official said Sunday night.

Holder's speech Monday comes five months after the killing of U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in a drone attack.

The official said the attorney general plans to say that lethal force is legal under a Sept. 18, 2001, joint congressional resolution. The Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks authorizes the use of all necessary force in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.

The official said Holder also will address how the Obama administration reformed military commissions and how both the Obama and the George W. Bush administrations have successfully used civilian courts to convict and sentence terrorists. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the contents of the speech haven't been released.

In recent months, the Obama administration has engaged in an internal debate about how much to reveal about the legal justification for the al-Awlaki killing.

At least three recently filed lawsuits have sought to force the Obama administration to publicly release its legal justification for the drone strike that killed al-Awlaki. The justification is contained in a secret Justice Department memo.

The administration has provided some details about what al-Awlaki was doing that made him so dangerous to the United States. In that vein, the Justice Department disclosed that a Nigerian man who tried to blow up an international flight on Christmas 2009 told FBI agents that his mission was approved after a three-day visit with al-Awlaki.

The man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was sentenced last month to life in prison after admitting he attempted to blow up the plane with a bomb in his underwear as the plane approached Detroit.

[js2212]

I think the simple framework would be to install an expedited process whereby they are stripped of US citizenship and named an enemy of the state. Set a hearing, invite them to appear and plead their case. When they don't show up, like when you don't show up for a traffic ticket, render a default judgement against them, remove the citizenship and now we're all clear. Simple as that.

[oldman67]

Article III. Section III.

[js2212]

If you're outside the US and attempting to harm US interests domestically or abroad, I don't see anything wrong with one of our guys putting a cap in you.

[AOCGUY]

Why would they have to be outside the US?

[js2212]

Because that's what the article is talking about. As in enemy combatants who happen to be American citizens. It is a prickly issue because American enjoy, among other things, the right to due process. Within American borders, they'd necessarily have to first be caught, then tried, convicted and sentenced.

[jackobyte]

All this proves that the law is a mere fig leaf. It's easier to make laws that restrict rather than the other way around. I guess it always had been so except when a tougher band rationalizes it e.g. Magna Carta at Runnymead.

Also I am currently reading "in the garden of the beast" an apparently true rendering of the US Ambassador to Nazi Germany during Hitlers takeover. The similarities to present day US are quite uncanny as in "if you ain't with us you'r against us" and of course liberal use of assassinations. The major difference being perhaps less violence on proscribed groups, although you'll have to ask Muslims about that. I do know that 2 elderly Sikh men(wearing turbans) out for a stroll were simply gunned down dead in Sacramento. I suppose a lot is going on locally but probably not being nationally reported. As indeed the press was pretty compliant in Nazi Germany.

Obviously the next step will be legal assassinations of US citizens on US soil. Don't laugh it off, for all we plebs know it may already be here, what with Obama passing indefinite detention already (just like Nazi Germany again) although over there they called it the old protective custody and didn't bother coming up with any new fancy smancy laws for that ...

[berlinfoto-2009]

jackobyte, One should truly study the Weimar Republic, and how Adolf came to power, there really are some incredible similarities, it is in fact as though some one studied the Weimar Republic and wrote the script, of how to bring about the same, in the United States.
"The moment China, the oil-rich states, and other international investors stop buying U.S. Treasury Bonds, the dollar will become junk. Inflation will rocket upward. We will become Weimar Germany."page 188, "EMPIRE OF ILLUSION" Written by Chris Hedges.

[usunus]

Choose your enemy carefully.One day you will become him.That day has come.

[Smokey75]

by AOCGUY March 5, 2012 10:40 AM EST
Personally I would think it reasonable that the DOJ should be able to establish criteria for determining what activity would be defined as terrorism or terrorism related. Once that has been established then any individual(s) who satisfy that criteria and pose a threat to the US and are unable to be neutralized through other means (i.e. capture) can/should be targeted.
============================================================================================================================================

There was millions of left loon activist calling for Bush Cheney to be arrested for war crimes in his 8 years as president. Some even accosted Cheney and tried putting handcuffs on him.

This could be construed as terrorist activities. Would you have been ok with Bush's DOJ deciding they were terrorist and let Bush order the execution of the activist?

We have courts a legal system for a reason, and believe it or not it is mainly there to protect the criminals rights.

[AOCGUY]

Any attempt to assualt the elected VP would and should have been met with appropriate level of force neccesary to protect the VP, including lethal if the situation called for it. Al Awaki was not an activist, he gave material aid and support to people who killed and attempted to kill Americans. Had he not been killed it is likely he woudl have continued to do the same. And while I do remember individuals calling for Bush/Cheney to be charged with war crimes "millions" is an overexaggeration in the extreme whther left, loon, or activist.

[Smokey75]

Sorry AOCGUY I thought you were in the category of the Obama supporter who calls Bush a war criminal.

By the way I agree Obama did nothing wrong taking this terrorist out. Just as I believe Bush is not a war criminal.

[Smokey75]

by starving1968-3 March 5, 2012 9:21 AM EST
Citizenship and legality be dammned: If you're a terrorist and target America, you should be prepared to be eliminated. Period.
====================================================================================================================================
So you no longer believe bush is a war criminal then correct?

It is amazing how when there is a "Liberal" in the office the rule of law can be set a aside.

Let be clear here I don't think Bush or Obama are war criminals I just find it ironic the left loons call bush a war criminal yet give Obama a pass.

[KnowerseekerReturns]

This all needs to publicly fleshed out in carefully chosen legal language that restricts it properly. Otherwise, I'm ok with it.

[cbs_bull]

I think it's justified to kill anyone overseas who is plotting to kill Americans if we can't capture him or her(This is simply self-defense.). Terrorists should have no protection by the US constitution. I cheer this administration on dealing with terrorists more effectively and smartly than the previous one.

[AOCGUY]

Personally I would think it reasonable that the DOJ should be able to establish criteria for determining what activity would be defined as terrorism or terrorism related. Once that has been established then any individual(s) who satisfy that criteria and pose a threat to the US and are unable to be neutralized through other means (i.e. capture) can/should be targeted.

[jackobyte]

(this is simply self defense)? try using that argument in court: yeah your Honor my neighbor was plotting against me so I went to his house and "retired" him ...

[starving1968-3]

Citizenship and legality be dammned: If you're a terrorist and target America, you should be prepared to be eliminated. Period.

[starving1968-3]

NOW you need a definition of the word, after cheering on bush's "War on Terror" failures for 8 years?!?!

[AOCGUY]

Quite frankly the phrase "War on Terror" is stupid. One cannot wage war on a tactic. Nations wage war on other nations and nation states. We also conduct combat and police operations against organizations and groups who attack US citizens and US interests. By the strict definition of the word, the US has not entered into a war since WWII, Congressional authorization for use of force not withstanding.