Obama invokes state secrets privelage in assassination case

[GarfieldtheCat]

CNN link

I don't know how anyone could think this is a good idea, but Obama and the DoJ is invoking the state secrets privilege to get a lawsuit thrown out.

If this privilege is upheld, that means that the President will have unilateral authority to execute any US citizen without any due process.

The current lawsuit is about the ability of the President to basically put a US citizen on an execution list without any oversight. So if upheld, anyone that gets unilaterally sentenced to death (which is what the execution list basically is) will not be able to challenge his/her inclusion on the list.

Disgusting. And how anyone thinks Obama is a liberal socialist while doing this is crazy too.

 

[Freshgeardude]

And how anyone thinks Obama is a liberal socialist while doing this is crazy too.

when the person they want to kill has been linked to ALL the recent terror attack/attempts, has rescinded their american citizen ship, calls for the destruction of the US AND is one of the heads in charge of Al-Qeada.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

when the person they want to kill has been linked to ALL the recent terror attack/attempts, has rescinded their american citizen ship, calls for the destruction of the US AND is one of the heads in charge of Al-Qeada.

So you are good with a President being able to have unchecked authority to have people killed?

I have to say he's as "good" as GWB ever was.

 

[Freshgeardude]

So you are good with a President being able to have unchecked authority to have people killed?

I have to say he's as "good" as GWB ever was.

Kill people? well he does have the authority to move troops to anywhere in the world he wants.

Americans?

No. I dont.

but I wouldnt care if they used a special privilege to kill anwar al alwaki, who BY THE WAY, like I SAID, RESCINDED his CITIZENSHIP? No, because according to anwar, he doesnt consider himself an american citizen.

But only if it is well documented for each person the president uses this privilege and the person has to be documented as a great enemy of the country, like in this case anwar al alwaki is.


But I love this double standard for some people. Let some crazy people in the middle east ( bin laden) do something, we will take 10 years in a war to destroy them.
Have an american born terrorist trying to do the same, and then there is a lawsuit to stop the killing of him.


Besides, lets be for real here. If US troops has the option of capturing al awlaki alive, why the fuck wouldnt they do it to take information out of him.

In a military operation, do they stop defending themselves if they know the enemy is an american? I am sure the US has killed some low level terrorist operatives that were born in the US in military operations in the middle east before, simply because they were fighting with the enemy and died in the fire fight.


This is NO different then targeting, say bin laden. Both are behind terrorist attacks/ attempts, both are part of al-qeada, both want to destroy the US.

The only difference is a retarded lawsuit by a father of a radical islam, (who by the way is probably a radical himself) who is using the very laws his son wants to destroy to protect his son. This lawsuit better get thrown out.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

when the person they want to kill has been linked to ALL the recent terror attack/attempts, has rescinded their american citizen ship, calls for the destruction of the US AND is one of the heads in charge of Al-Qeada.

Wait, what? Link to proof that he is behind ALL (your emphasis) recent terror attacks? Proof that he is leader of AQ? Proof that he committed a crime? Proof that he has had due process?

Proof that any of the BS you said even matters, since he is a US citizen, and has rights, no matter what he does?

Or are you just talking out of your a$$ again? Show me where we are just allowed to ignore US laws again?

 

[Darwin333]

CNN link

I don't know how anyone could think this is a good idea, but Obama and the DoJ is invoking the state secrets privilege to get a lawsuit thrown out.

If this privilege is upheld, that means that the President will have unilateral authority to execute any US citizen without any due process.

The current lawsuit is about the ability of the President to basically put a US citizen on an execution list without any oversight. So if upheld, anyone that gets unilaterally sentenced to death (which is what the execution list basically is) will not be able to challenge his/her inclusion on the list.

Disgusting. And how anyone thinks Obama is a liberal socialist while doing this is crazy too.

Pretty sure they wouldn't be able to challenge their inclusion on the list anyway, at least not once they found out they were on the list in the first place. Unless the assassin is a bad shot I guess.

But this is some bullshit, if they are a US citizen the .gov should NEVER EVER have the ability to execute someone without due process. The fact that a single person can do it is even worse. It doesn't really matter what their crimes are, we are talking about executing US citizens without even a secret trial. I can understand the "bring em back dead or alive" thing but assassinate??? Oh hell no.

I though Obama was all for giving accused terrorists trials in American courts? Now he is all for having the ability to assassinate US citizens without due process? WTF? 1+1 ain't equaling two here.

 

[Darwin333]

But only if it is well documented for each person the president uses this privilege and the person has to be documented as a great enemy of the country, like in this case anwar al alwaki is.


But I love this double standard for some people. Let some crazy people in the middle east ( bin laden) do something, we will take 10 years in a war to destroy them.
Have an american born terrorist trying to do the same, and then there is a lawsuit to stop the killing of him.

Is he legally a citizen?

In a military operation, do they stop defending themselves if they know the enemy is an american? I am sure the US has killed some low level terrorist operatives that were born in the US in military operations in the middle east before, simply because they were fighting with the enemy and died in the fire fight.

Huge MF'n difference between someone dying in a fire fight and someone being assassinated. They aren't even in the same playbook. If a US citizen is killed in an attempt to capture him so he can be questioned and stand trial, no harm no foul. The bad guy made the choice to fight back. Sending someone(s) on a mission to assassinate an American citizen is an entirely different subject and last I checked it was illegal. How the fuck it is supposedly legal now I don't know but it shouldn't be. Did someone take a sharpie to the "due process" part of the Bill of Rights or something? THAT above ALL else should be upheld, if that means some home grown terrorist scum bag gets to steal a little bit more of our air before we strap him into ole' sparky then so be it.

This is NO different then targeting, say bin laden.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


What part of that do you need help with understanding?

The only difference is a retarded lawsuit by a father of a radical islam, (who by the way is probably a radical himself) who is using the very laws his son wants to destroy to protect his son. This lawsuit better get thrown out.

Exactly what is wrong with attempting to capture him, if he fights back and dies then fuck him it was his choice, putting him on trial and then sending him to ole' sparky? If we have enough evidence for the President of the United States to order his assassination then we should damn sure be able to convict his ass and fry him.

 

[BoberFett]

Hope and change?

 

[Freshgeardude]

Wait, what? Link to proof that he is behind ALL (your emphasis) recent terror attacks? Proof that he is leader of AQ? Proof that he committed a crime? Proof that he has had due process?

Proof that any of the BS you said even matters, since he is a US citizen, and has rights, no matter what he does?

Or are you just talking out of your a$$ again? Show me where we are just allowed to ignore US laws again?

My mistake, ALL US attack/attempts. not worldwide.

But that assumption can be made since we are talking about him and the reason the US wants to kill him.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Other_connections

Fort hood attack, christmas bomb, time square, and Seattle Weekly cartoonist death threat.


I did not say he was THE leader, but he definitely someone in charge, if he orchastrated all of these attack/attempts.

wiki says: Accused of being senior Al-Qaeda recruiter and motivator linked to various terrorists, and committed to carrying out deadly attacks on Americans and others worldwide.


Oh please. Proof he commited a crime?

Lets just get out of the way, where he was charged TWICE with soliciting a prostitute.

Al-Awlaki was arrested in San Diego in August 1996 and in April 1997 for soliciting prostitutes.[14][38][58][59] In the first instance, he pled guilty to a lesser charge on condition of entering an AIDS education program and paying $400 in fines and restitution.[59] The second time, he pled guilty to soliciting a prostitute, and was sentenced to three years' probation, fined $240, and ordered to perform 12 days of community service.[59]

And really? He isnt linked to AQ, he hasnt done anything bad his whole life. He is completely innocent.

FUCK NO.

Do you honestly think the US would put him on a CIA kill list if he was innocent of terrorism?



Lets see here:

Planning for the 9/11 attack and USS Cole bombing was discussed at the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit. Among the planners were two of the 9/11 hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, (Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Almihdhar). They then flew to Los Angeles and traveled to San Diego where witnesses told the FBI they had a close relationship with al-Awlaki in 2000. Awlaki served as their spiritual adviser, and the two were also frequently visited there by 9/11 pilot Hani Hanjour.[14][43][61] The 9/11 Commission Report indicated that the hijackers also "reportedly respected [al-Awlaki] as a religious figure."[41] Authorities say the two hijackers regularly attended the mosque al-Awlaki led in San Diego, and he had many long closed-door meetings with them, which led investigators to believe al-Awlaki knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.[14][15][37]

Knew about, and probably helped plan 9/11

Soon afterward, his sermons were attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers (Al-Hazmi again, and Hani Hanjour, which the 9/11 Commission Report concluded "may not have been coincidental"), and by Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.[14][15][50][68] When police investigating the 9/11 attacks raided the Hamburg, Germany, apartment of Ramzi Binalshibh (the "20th hijacker"), his telephone number was found among Binalshibh's personal contact information.[7][43][69]

in contact with 9/11 hijacker.

In June 2002, a Denver federal judge signed off on an arrest warrant for al-Awlaki for passport fraud.[71] On October 9, the Denver U.S. Attorney's Office rescinded it.[7][14] The prosecutors withdrew the warrant because they felt they ultimately lacked evidence of a crime, according to U.S. Attorney Dave Gaouette, who authorized its withdrawal.[3] While al-Awlaki had listed Yemen as his place of birth (which the prosecutors believed was false) on his original application for a U.S. social security number in 1990, which he then used to obtain a passport in 1993, he later changed his place of birth information to Las Cruces, New Mexico.[3][72] Prosecutors could not charge him, because a 10-year statute of limitations on lying to the Social Security Administration had expired.[73] As a result, agents were unable to arrest him when he returned to John F. Kennedy International Airport in the U.S. on October 10, 2002—the following day after the warrant had been rescinded.[7][14]

Passport fraud.

Al-Awlaki then returned briefly to Northern Virginia, where he visited radical Islamic cleric Ali al-Timimi, and asked about recruiting young Muslims for "violent jihad." Al-Timimi is now serving a life sentence for leading what would be called the Virginia Jihad Network, inciting Muslim followers to fight with the Taliban against the U.S.[14][37][43]

In jail for life.

He lectured at Iman University, headed by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, who is on the UN 1267 Committee's list of individuals belonging to or associated with Al-Qaida.[36][78]

Know as part of AQ

In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the U.S. to turn against and attack their country of residence. In the video he stated:

To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim.[25][26]
​

In July 2010, a Seattle cartoonist was warned by the FBI of a death threat issued by al-Awlaki in the Al-Qaeda magazine Inspire.[93] Eight other cartoonists, journalists, and writers from Britain, Sweden, and Holland were also threatened with death. "The prophet is the pinnacle of Jihad", Awlaki wrote. "It is better to support the prophet by attacking those who slander him than it is to travel to land of Jihad like Iraq or Afghanistan."

tells islamic young to attack the US. Calls for the murder of a cartoonist.


So either al awlaki is completely innocent and HAPPENS to be around bad people, OR he is part of radical islam aimed at destroying the west.

the latter sounds much more plausible.



And lets be clear here, let al awlaki come to the US peacefully and he will get his dew process. until then, we can only observe his actions and come to reasonable conclusions

oh but that wont happen anymore since:

On July 16, the U.S. Treasury Department added him to its list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.[5] As a result any U.S. bank accounts he may have will be frozen, Americans are forbidden from doing business with him, and he is banned from traveling to the U.S.[5] Stuart Levey, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said al-Awlaki "has proven that he is extraordinarily dangerous, committed to carrying out deadly attacks on Americans and others worldwide", and "has involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism-fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents".[5][6]

It seems the US doesnt want its own citizen. BUT IS THAT LEGAL?! /sarcasm

its obvious anwar doesnt consider himself an american, he attacks the US and seeks the destruction of it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Disgusting. And how anyone thinks Obama is a liberal socialist while doing this is crazy too.

What do liberal socialists do in America? Oh yes... they want more taxes, more spending, more government, more centralized authority. It's authoritarianism that's quite similar to "compassionate" conservative Bush.

In other words, why are you asking if the shoe fits when Obama is already wearing it?!

As for this "American". His aliegence is to his Islamic identity now. He fortified his life and American identity long ago. He should be killed on sight like every other Islamic terrorist.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Exactly what is wrong with attempting to capture him, if he fights back and dies then fuck him it was his choice, putting him on trial and then sending him to ole' sparky? If we have enough evidence for the President of the United States to order his assassination then we should damn sure be able to convict his ass and fry him.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with capturing him.

If you read what i wrote, I said, it would make more sense to capture him alive and get info from him than to kill him.

but the way he is in AQ, the only option with him is an air strike that will kill everyone around him.

anwar is so deep into AQ he has too much protection around him to get caught alive.


There has been a previous yemenese air strike on an AQ location based on Saudi and US intelligence stating a meeting would take place at that location. Anwar was reported to be at that location, but later known he was not.

would the US care if their intelligence of an AQ meeting including anwar was bombed and anwar was killed? probably not.

 

[Lanyap]

Hope and change?

You didn't get the memo? It's now change and hope.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

But that assumption can be made since we are talking about him and the reason the US wants to kill him.

Wow, way to ASSume facts. Can we ASSume you are wrong too?

So your logic is he must be guilty, since the US wants to kill him. Brilliant. Are you really serious?

Lets just get out of the way, where he was charged TWICE with soliciting a prostitute.

Are you serious? Assassination of a US citizen because he solicited a prostitute? Your logic is horrible.

Do you honestly think the US would put him on a CIA kill list if he was innocent of terrorism?

Wow, more cluelessness. He must be guilty because they said so.

shit, that's good enough for me, fry the bastard.🙄 Are you serious?


You have no concept about legal proof apparently. Not surprising.

Your whole argument is that because the .gov says so, he's guilty. What a load of BS.

Just to point out a few major flaws in your argument:

-No fly list: No one is on that list wrongfully, are they? And it's a secret list, so no one can really question their inclusion on the list. So right there, is a secret list (with no proof needed to be on it) where innocent US citizens are on it and can't get off of it.

-WMD in Iraq: No-brainer. The .gov "knew" Saddam had WMD. Whoops.

-Saddam and AQ or 9/11: Whoops, the .gov was wrong about that one too.

-How about kidnapping and torture?: Link . The CIA kidnapped a completely innocent man and tortured him in A-stan for 6 months before realizing they got the wrong person. Whoops. I'm sure they "knew" he was guilty when they grabbed him.

So all of these are great examples of the .gov saying "trust me, I can't tell you, you but we know". Now you can be dumb and blindly believe that, but I go with the law, and not blindly relying on anonymous government comments with no proof to back them up.

If he is so guilty, they can try his ass in a US court, just like if you were accused of a crime. Anything else is an affront to our way of life and our Justice system.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What do liberal socialists do in America? Oh yes... they want more taxes, more spending, more government, more centralized authority. It's authoritarianism that's quite similar to "compassionate" conservative Bush.

In other words, why are you asking if the shoe fits when Obama is already wearing it?!

As for this "American". His aliegence is to his Islamic identity now. He fortified his life and American identity long ago. He should be killed on sight like every other Islamic terrorist.

Your post doesn't even make sense. What are you saying in English please?

 

[Jaskalas]

I'll keep this short and focused then.

Disgusting. And how anyone thinks Obama is a liberal socialist while doing this is crazy too.

Socialists and communists view people as government property to be done with as they please. Do not act surprised when this definition fits their actions. Do not pretend it means they are something else.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Wow, way to ASSume facts. Can we ASSume you are wrong too?

It was a typo. I meant to write US attacks like I said in correction. I said it is a reasonable assumption to make that I am talking about US attacks/attempts because we are talking about the US trying to kill someone based on attacks/attempts on US soil.

So your logic is he must be guilty, since the US wants to kill him. Brilliant. Are you really serious?


no they want to kill him because of everything he has been linked with.


Are you serious? Assassination of a US citizen because he solicited a prostitute? Your logic is horrible.

I am not serious. That was simply to prove you wrong in your assumption of "Proof that he committed a crime?".




Wow, more cluelessness. He must be guilty because they said so.

shit, that's good enough for me, fry the bastard.🙄 Are you serious?


You have no concept about legal proof apparently. Not surprising.

Your whole argument is that because the .gov says so, he's guilty. What a load of BS.

Just to point out a few major flaws in your argument:

-No fly list: No one is on that list wrongfully, are they? And it's a secret list, so no one can really question their inclusion on the list. So right there, is a secret list (with no proof needed to be on it) where innocent US citizens are on it and can't get off of it.

-WMD in Iraq: No-brainer. The .gov "knew" Saddam had WMD. Whoops.

-Saddam and AQ or 9/11: Whoops, the .gov was wrong about that one too.

-How about kidnapping and torture?: Link . The CIA kidnapped a completely innocent man and tortured him in A-stan for 6 months before realizing they got the wrong person. Whoops. I'm sure they "knew" he was guilty when they grabbed him.

So all of these are great examples of the .gov saying "trust me, I can't tell you, you but we know". Now you can be dumb and blindly believe that, but I go with the law, and not blindly relying on anonymous government comments with no proof to back them up.

If he is so guilty, they can try his ass in a US court, just like if you were accused of a crime. Anything else is an affront to our way of life and our Justice system.

Like I said. let him turn himself in and he will have his day in court. As of now, we can observe what he has been linked with and come to reasonable conclusions.

He has no one defending him here in the US. All we have is his father that pleads his innocence, because parents never think their kids can do anything wrong.

If anwar is so innocent of the MANY crimes I have quoted, how come he doesnt hire a legal team to defend his actions? I am sure AQ doesnt have a money problem.

The answer the the previous paragraph is that he knows of what he has done wrong.

this is why he is hiding the yemen so deep in the caves or whatever out there that he is afraid of seeing sunlight in the chance he could be spotted.

 

[classy]

Maybe I am missing something. This lawsuit is an accusation that the US is trying to assassinate someone. But the request is for info that would expose military secrets. What the hell is Obama suppose to do? What is just so fracking retarded is how people would jump to a possible assassination attempt on a terrorist to that of an ordinary US citizen. Some of you people seriously need to get a life.

 

[waggy]

meh. considering who it is. im fine with what heyd id.

 

[woolfe9999]

Garfield, you seem to be challenging that there is evidence of Anwar al-Awlaki's guilt here. The underwear bomber told the FBI that al-Awlaki recruited him for the operation. That is hard testimonial evidence of guilt.

Are you saying he isn't guilty by a legal proof standard, or that there is no evidence of his guilt? You seem to be saying both, and I can't accept the second proposition.

Incidentally, I agree with you that the POTUS shouldn't have authority to assassinate a US citizen without due process.

- wolf

 

[BoomerD]

Seems pretty simple...if he doesn't want to be killed, he should surrender immediately and face prosecution.

Personally, I have no problem what-so-ever with killing terrorists, whether American citizens or not.

If the guy won't surrender...shoot him.Hell, cops do that all the time with criminals suspected of far less heinous crimes.

 

[Darwin333]

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with capturing him.

If you read what i wrote, I said, it would make more sense to capture him alive and get info from him than to kill him.

but the way he is in AQ, the only option with him is an air strike that will kill everyone around him.

anwar is so deep into AQ he has too much protection around him to get caught alive.


There has been a previous yemenese air strike on an AQ location based on Saudi and US intelligence stating a meeting would take place at that location. Anwar was reported to be at that location, but later known he was not.

would the US care if their intelligence of an AQ meeting including anwar was bombed and anwar was killed? probably not.

Sorry bud, but you still have this itsy bitsy problem:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Now I am not sure what the process is for legally revoking someones US citizenship and I wouldn't have a problem with it in this case (assuming you are correct) since he is personally denouncing it and intends to cause us harm. However, so long as he is a US citizen then the above should ALWAYS apply. Period. Full stop. End of story. Communication ends.

 

[Zebo]

Well we're already moving towards a third world country economically might as well make move complete where government makes people "disappear" without due process.

 

[Darwin333]

Seems pretty simple...if he doesn't want to be killed, he should surrender immediately and face prosecution.

Personally, I have no problem what-so-ever with killing terrorists, whether American citizens or not.

If the guy won't surrender...shoot him.Hell, cops do that all the time with criminals suspected of far less heinous crimes.

When was the last time the cops were legally ordered to assassinate someone? Not attempt to capture but ASSASSINATE. There is a huge damned difference between those two actions. Seriously, it is the difference between a person killing another while defending their life and a person murdering someone. Pretty big fucking difference.

Chances are this guy WILL fight back, in which case our guys should defend themselves by any means necessary. I am not saying he should be brought back alive at all costs I am saying that the President should not be able to order the assassination of a US citizen... ever, not under ANY circumstances. If the need is ever that dire then the person giving the orders should be more than willing to stand trial for his actions. If you aren't willing to face the consequences of breaking the law then you obviously didn't feel the illegal actions that important (the Jack Bauer scenario).

 

[classy]

When was the last time the cops were legally ordered to assassinate someone? Not attempt to capture but ASSASSINATE. There is a huge damned difference between those two actions. Seriously, it is the difference between a person killing another while defending their life and a person murdering someone. Pretty big fucking difference.

Chances are this guy WILL fight back, in which case our guys should defend themselves by any means necessary. I am not saying he should be brought back alive at all costs I am saying that the President should not be able to order the assassination of a US citizen... ever, not under ANY circumstances. If the need is ever that dire then the person giving the orders should be more than willing to stand trial for his actions. If you aren't willing to face the consequences of breaking the law then you obviously didn't feel the illegal actions that important (the Jack Bauer scenario).

That is the stupidest thing ever. Of course a President should and damn well better order the assassination of a US citizen if it will save the lives of other US citizens. If this guy won't surrender and in the attempt to take him is not possible then yes they should kill him. We order snipers to kill hostage takers if need be. This baloney outrage against Obama is a joke. Any and every president better take a stand if need be.

 

[JD50]

Traitor in chief!! Who's watching over who's watching over who?