Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josh_R, Dec 21, 2011.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who fucking cares?
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.
Anwar al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship the second he started actively plotting against the United States. He was an enemy combatant.
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.)
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...
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.
Anyone need a sig quote?
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.
Transparent? What did his father become his mother or sumptin'? tss...