PrisonPlanet Forum
June 19, 2013, 04:09:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When War on Terror Targets Americans  (Read 498 times)
Ambriel
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,684


Dare to resist


WWW
« on: March 06, 2012, 05:56:30 AM »

http://news.yahoo.com/holder-speak-targeted-killings-americans-192324573--abc-news.html
To kill or not to kill?

Under what conditions can or should the United States government target and kill -- without trial -- a U.S. citizen suspected of plotting terrorism?

Attorney General Eric Holder today provided the most detailed terms to date on the legal principals behind the U.S. drone campaign and the U.S. government's legal authority to target and kill U.S. citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected high-profile al Qaeda recruiter.

"Let me be clear: An operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Holder said his speech at the Northwestern University Law School. "The evaluation of whether an individual presents an 'imminent threat' incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States."

"Some have called such operations 'assassinations.' They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings," Holder continued in his prepared remarks. "The U.S. government's use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful -- and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes."

Follow BrianRoss on Twitter

Although Awlaki was clearly a top terrorist target, two other U.S. citizens have been killed by American strikes in Yemen, including Awlaki's son, though those deaths have been viewed as "collateral damage" and were not specifically targeted.

Awlaki was killed in a Sept. 30, 2011, drone strike along with Samir Khan, another American citizen from North Carolina who had never been charged by the Justice Department with a crime. Khan was alleged to have been a prolific propagandist for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and main force behind the online publication Inspire, an English-language al Qaeda magazine dedicated to violent jihad and how-to-ideas on terrorist attacks.

READ: Al Qaeda Threatens Vengeance for Anwar Al-Awlaki Death

Awlaki's 16-year-old son was also killed by the United States when he reportedly ran away from the family home in Yemen in an attempt to try and find his father. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in the United States had gone to Yemen to be with family, was killed weeks after his father's death in another drone strike along with two other alleged al Qaeda operatives he may have been staying with.

In response to Holder's remarks, Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, called the logic behind the legal killing of American citizens "chillingly broad."

"While the speech is a gesture towards additional transparency, it is ultimately a defense of the government's chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny," Shamsi said in a statement today.

The issue of being able to target and kill U.S. citizens in counter-terrorism operations was first addressed by then Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in February 2010.

"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community. If…we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," Blair told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Holder's remarks broadly made reference to the post-Sept. 11, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress, which the Bush administration often cited in some of their controversial counter-terrorism policies such as detaining U.S. citizens in military custody and the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.

"Because the United States is in an armed conflict, we are authorized to take action against enemy belligerents under international law," Holder said today. "The Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack. And international law recognizes the inherent right of national self-defense. None of this is changed by the fact that we are not in a conventional war."

Holder in his speech made no reference to the Justice Department's legal memos from the Office of Legal Counsel authorizing the targeting of Americans.

The New York Times reported on the existence of the memos in October 2011. After ABC News filed a Freedom of Information Act requests to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concerning the memos, the department said that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any documents on the subject of Awlaki or the justified targeting and killing of U.S. citizens in counter-terrorism operations.

The legality of the program was addressed by Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) who denounced the Obama administration for the controversial tactic.

"According to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient, but rather, it is the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny. Last week's assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration." Rep. Paul said in an Oct. 10, 2011, statement.

Officials have previously acknowledged that the Justice Department and the National Security Council were highly involved in drafting the authorities when they were first disclosed by DNI Blair.

Before his death, top counter-terrorism officials acknowledged that Awlaki and al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen to be the top terrorism concern to the United States.

"I actually consider al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula with al-Awlaki as a leader within that organization probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland," Michael Leiter said before Congress last February when he was the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

Awlaki was linked to numerous terrorism investigations in the United States serving as a key individual espousing terrorist acts in his sermons which were posted online. Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan had exchanged emails with Awlaki before he killed 13 people and wounding more than 30 in an assault on Fort Hood in November 2009.

Awlaki is believed to have inspired several other terror plots in the U.S. as well and was key in providing operational instructions Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the attempted Christmas Day underwear bombing of Northwest flight 253.

In addition to the more recent strikes, the American government has killed U.S. citizens abroad since the War on Terror began. In 2002, the CIA killed American-born Kamal Derwish, a member of the "Lackawanna 6" terror group during a CIA Predator drone strike. Derwish was driving in a car with other members of al Qaeda, the government said.

In 2008, a missile strike in Somalia killed American Ruben Shumpert, a Seattle man suspected of being an Islamist radical. Shumpert was wanted by federal authorities on gun and counterfeit currency charges. He had agreed to plead guilty but fled the country days before sentencing in 2004.
Logged

2Revolutions
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,740

For we wrestle not with flesh and blood


« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2012, 08:51:18 AM »

Murder Is Legal, Says US Attorney General Eric Holder

by David Swanson

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29630

Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday explained why it's legal to murder people -- not to execute prisoners convicted of capital crimes, not to shoot someone in self-defense, not to fight on a battlefield in a war that is somehow legalized, but to target and kill an individual sitting on his sofa, with no charges, no arrest, no trial, no approval from a court, no approval from a legislature, no approval from we the people, and in fact no sharing of information with any institutions that are not the president.  Holder's speech approached his topic in a round about manner:

"Since this country’s earliest days, the American people have risen to this challenge – and all that it demands.  But, as we have seen – and as President John F. Kennedy may have described best – 'In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.'"

Holder quotes that and then immediately rejects it, claiming that our generation too should act as if it is in such a moment, even if it isn't, a moment that Holder's position suggests may last forever:

"Half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation today confronts grave national security threats that demand our constant attention and steadfast commitment.  It is clear that, once again, we have reached an 'hour of danger.'

"We are a nation at war.  And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated."

So, if I were to estimate that Al Qaeda barely exists and is no serious threat to the Homeland formerly known as the United States, I would not be underestimating it?  If I were to point out that no member of that horrifying outfit has been killed in Afghanistan this year, that fact would not contribute to an unacceptable underestimation?  What fun it is to fight the most glorious of wars in the hour of maximum danger against an enemy so pitiful that it literally cannot be underestimated.

Logged

Those who wish to remain ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, want what never was and what never will be.  - Thomas Jefferson
2Revolutions
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,740

For we wrestle not with flesh and blood


« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2012, 09:05:08 AM »

Eric Holder: Targeted killings legal, constitutional

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73634.html


CHICAGO — Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday presented the Obama administration’s most detailed justification for armed drone strikes against Al Qaeda leaders, arguing that the U.S. government doesn’t legally need judicial review to kill terrorist operatives overseas — even when they’re Americans.

“It’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. But it does mean that the government must take into account all relevant constitutional considerations with respect to United States citizens — even those who are leading efforts to kill innocent Americans,” Holder said in a speech delivered at Northwestern University School of Law.

Questions about the legal basis for lethal U.S. drone operations have swirled for years, particularly as the Obama administration stepped up drone strikes in Pakistan. However, the queries and criticism became more intense after reports in 2010 that a New Mexico-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki — killed in a Sept. 2011 drone strike — was on a list of terror suspects that the U.S. had decided to target using deadly force.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73634.html#ixzz1oLxys4rl
Logged

Those who wish to remain ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, want what never was and what never will be.  - Thomas Jefferson
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!