IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Open your eyes.
Arresting a civilian, or issuing a warrant for a civilian, inside North America is very different from doing so for someone at "war" with the US from the deserts of Yemen.

You may not like it, you may not think it was sufficient (it's certainly debatable), but a legal process was followed in Awlaki's case.

http://www.washingto...x1bUAL_print.html

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

President Obama and various administration officials referred to Aulaqi publicly for the first time Friday as the “external operations” chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a label that may be intended to underscore his status as an operational leader who posed an imminent threat.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in national security law, said the government likely reviewed Aulaqi’s constitutional rights, but concluded that he was an imminent threat and was deliberately hiding in a place where neither the United States nor Yemen could realistically capture him.

Last year, the Obama administration invoked the state secrets privilege to argue successfully for the dismissal of a lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Washington by Aulaqi’s father, Nasser, seeking to block the targeting of his son. Judge John Bates found that in Aulaqi’s case, targeting was a “political question” to be decided by the executive branch.

The decision to place Aulaqi on a capture or kill list was made in early 2010, after intelligence officials concluded that he played a direct role in the plot to blow up a jet over Detroit and had become an operational figure within al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.


There are legal restraints in place on what the President can do. If you don't think they're sufficient: lobby your Congressman and Senator to have the laws changed; send money to the ACLU to file more lawsuits; picket the Pentagon; write advocacy posts.

Writing hyperbolic posts that are easily rebutted doesn't help your arguments. IMO.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Really?
There are legal restraints in place on what the President can do.

The president needs a written opinion that you are a danger to the country, an opinion that you can't read or challenge because it's natural security. I'm not seeing that as much of a restraint.

Jay
New Not much of one, but one none the less.
Do you think that Obama could get a Finding signed off by all the various lawyers that declared that Rep. Allen West was an "unlawful enemy combatant" (, ignoring for the moment that the Obama administration gave up using that term,) so that he could be sent to Guantanamo? How about Box?

I don't.

Rank-in-file federal officials - the ones who would have to sign off on such findings - swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. The vast majority take that oath seriously. And the federal courts can and do step in when asked. (Things have changed and been clarified since the days of Addington, Gonzales and Yoo.)

Hyperbolic language about Obama having unlimited power to lock people up and/or kill them doesn't help. Obama isn't Assad.

Review Padilla's case - http://en.wikipedia....la_%28prisoner%29

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New no different at all, yemen or Indian Territories
Again, how hard would it be to get the Fort Hood shooter federal judge to issue that warrant? That is simple, that is legal, not hyperbole. Its the admin which is going to extraordinary efforts to ensure there is NO juidicial oversight or constraint of the executive's actions in regards american citizens. A direct violation of the constitution.

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Of course!
Back to that.
     Anwar al-Awlaki taken out by drone strike - (jay) - (16)
         Re: Little doubt of his guilt - (hnick) - (8)
             assassination of an american citizen - (boxley) - (7)
                 Slippery-slope doesn't apply. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                     I saw that link, doesnt apply at all - (boxley) - (5)
                         A judge has to give permission for a policeman to shoot you? - (Another Scott) - (4)
                             yes, if said policeman is to hunt me down in my environment - (boxley) - (3)
                                 Let me know when they come for you. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                     they just rounded up 100 of my neighbors - (boxley) - (1)
                                         And that has what, exactly, to do with Awlaki? - (Another Scott)
         DangerRoom's take. - (Another Scott) - (6)
             there is a simple answer with plenty of precedent - (boxley) - (5)
                 Open your eyes. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     Really? - (jay) - (1)
                         Not much of one, but one none the less. - (Another Scott)
                     no different at all, yemen or Indian Territories - (boxley) - (1)
                         Of course! - (folkert)

You finding Ling-ling's head?
51 ms