OpieRadio Logo
Compound Media Logo
Jim Norton Logo

Most Transparent Administration sued for... keeping secrets.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josh_R, Dec 21, 2011.

  1. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/21/the-new-york-times-is-suing-the-doj-over
     
  2. Lord Zero

    Lord Zero Viciously Silly

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    54,071
    Likes Received:
    12,882
    Anwar al-Awlaki was an agent of al-Qaeda. We're at war with al-Qaeda. By extension, we're at war with Anwar al-Awlaki, his superiors, his underlings (if he had any), and anyone who provided him with material support. His assassination was 100% justifiable (although, maybe not exactly legal). The New York Times can go eat a decomposing dick.
     
  3. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    There should be no such thing in the United States government. Now, the NY Times does not seem to be saying it was illegal, they just want to know exactly what legal justification was reached by the Obama administration's lawyers. This is no different than the media requesting the memos that the Bush administration used to justify the use of waterboarding. If the administration determined that it was permissible to assassinate an American citizen without first even charging him with anything, then they should at least have to show how they came to that legal decision.
     
  4. lajikal

    lajikal Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    15,470
    Likes Received:
    3,802
    That's what's taught in school/government classes, but the extent and overwhelming legal and other power the president/cinc has in reality is not broadcast.
     
  5. Lord Zero

    Lord Zero Viciously Silly

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    54,071
    Likes Received:
    12,882
    The "not exactly legal" part was in reference to international laws of war which I'm not familiar with. I was saying that I don't know if it was legal or not under those laws and that I'm not really concerned with those laws. It was an admission of ignorance and contempt. As far as the justification for the assassination goes under U.S. law goes, it's very clear. Anwar al-Awlaki was fair game. Killing him was no different than killing Osama bin Laden.
     
  6. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    Then why did they have special legal memos drafted just to cover this instance? Has a President ever authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen before? Also, the point of posting this article is not to debate the legality of their actions, but to point out the humor/hypocrisy in the "most transparent administration" being sued because they refuse to be transparent about a guy that is already dead.
     
  7. NuttyJim

    NuttyJim Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    13,708
    Likes Received:
    6,180
    Who fucking cares?
     
  8. Norm Stansfield

    Norm Stansfield 私は亀が好きだ。

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    15,949
    Likes Received:
    4,077
    Here's that memo: We're at war, al-Awlaki was an enemy (insert classified info on why he is the enemy, and how we know that). So we killed him (insert classified info on how). The end.

    And yes, it was entirely legal, on account that the war is entirely legal.

    I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing it had to do with facilitating congressional and judicial oversight of the action and the reasoning behind it.

    What I do know for sure is that the existence of the memo has no logical bearing on the legality of the action, and there is no logical reason to bring it up at all, when debating said legality. What you should be bringing up is some kind of a law that differentiates between citizens and non-citizens among wartime enemies, and bans the killing of those enemies if they are citizens.

    You mean the killing of US citizens fighting for the enemy, on purpose? Yes, of course, pretty much any time there was a major war, some American citizens ended up fighting for the other side, and the US military ended up killing some of them, on purpose, just like they killed all the non-citizen enemies. Everything the US military ever does is done with the full sanction of its commander in chief, the President.

    There are no American laws making any kind of distinction whatsoever between regular enemies and enemies with US citizenship, in war. The legality of killing an American citizen in war is exactly the same as the legality of killing a foreign citizen in war.
    They refuse to be transparent about a memo that obviously contains information on why he's dead and how he died. Disclosing either would disclose our methods of gathering information and carrying out the war. No sane person would disclose that.

    If you want to point out the Obama admin's lack of transparency, they are keeping plenty of secrets not related to the war. Pick on one of those.
     
  9. Lord Zero

    Lord Zero Viciously Silly

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    54,071
    Likes Received:
    12,882
    Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship the second he started actively plotting against the United States. He was an enemy combatant.

    Edit:

    That's a good point that I agree with but that post made me realize that we're debating too different things. You were talking about the article itself while I was talking about the actual lawsuit. (I say that as if you didn't point it out first. I'm an ass.)
     
  10. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    Yeah, I am a total idiot for even bringing it up. No one else (with far better credentials than me) has ever even mentioned it...

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/four-thoughts-on-the-anwar-al-awlaki-assassination/
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12085
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12140
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13783
    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/awlaki-and-due-process/
    http://www.npr.org/2011/09/30/140959250/debate-erupts-over-legality-of-al-awlakis-killing
    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-30/...i-yemeni-embassy-drone-missile?_s=PM:POLITICS
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/awlaki-killed-american-cl_n_988929.html
    http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/30/was-killing-american-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-legal/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/30/anwar-awlaki-extrajudicial-murder


    Yeah, I think we already debated the Al-Awlaki killing in another thread, I was just trying to be funny in this one. Apparently I failed.
     
  11. MayrMeninoCrash

    MayrMeninoCrash Liberal Psycopath

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    24,059
    Likes Received:
    8,328
    Anyone need a sig quote? :action-sm
     
  12. Josh_R

    Josh_R Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    5,847
    Likes Received:
    458
    lol
     
  13. Lord Zero

    Lord Zero Viciously Silly

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    54,071
    Likes Received:
    12,882
    Goddammit!

    Nice to see a fellow Cato reader (unfortunately, I haven't been on there recently due to my partial hiatus). I ordered a pocket Constitution from them a few months back.
     
  14. Neon

    Neon ネオン
    Donator

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    51,651
    Likes Received:
    18,420
    Transparent? What did his father become his mother or sumptin'? tss...
     
  15. Lord Zero

    Lord Zero Viciously Silly

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    54,071
    Likes Received:
    12,882
    Oh, Chip. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page