[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Corrupt Government Title: Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' (Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials. There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month. The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process. Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants. The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right. In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments. Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder. Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process. Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing. The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said. LAWYERS CONSULTED Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described. They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said. The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information. They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list. Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself. Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said. A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president. Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle. But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike. When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials. 'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL' Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets. "Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring. The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks. But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy. For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants. There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive." But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab. Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen. Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?" U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden. While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks. Poster Comment: Who are these people. Someone get their names and we will make our own little list. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 88. The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. In point of fact, an enemy combatant who happened to be a citizen was targeted. And there was nothing "alleged" about his AQ association. He was AQ.
#42. To: war, A K A Stone (#2) In point of fact, an enemy combatant who happened to be a citizen was targeted. In point of fact he was not a combatant. In point of fact, he was an American citizen. In point of fact, the U.S. Constitution is not waived at the whim of a secret star chamber. If this were lawful, how many people could be put on the secret kill list? Where does the authority end? Does a U.S. citizen have fewer protections than an illegal alien? Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), No. 73-1046, at 77 From the Opinion of the Court by Justice Stevens.
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 163 U. S. 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 282 U. S. 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
#43. To: nolu chan (#42) (Edited) In point of fact he was not a combatant. The US is engaged in an authorized military action against Al Qaeda. That is indisuputable. It would, therefore, stand the laws and resolutions regarding armed conflict to disregard any member of an enemy organization who has direct knowledge of its terrorist operations and who also encourages those same operations to be regarded as a civilian rather than some form of combatant. It not only strains credulity of the laws of war but of common sense as well.
#82. To: war (#43)
In point of fact he was not a combatant. This assertion appears to be poorly chosen, invoking the Laws of War, considering what it is, and what the Geneva Conventions say. Where do you classify al-Aulaqi according to the Laws of War? Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Laws of war. This term denotes a branch of public international law, and comprises the body of rules and principles observed by civilized nations for the regulation of matters inherent in, or incidental to, the conduct of a public war; such, for example, as the relations of neutrals and belligerents, blockades, captures, prizes, truces and armistices, capitulations, prisoners, and declarations of war and peace; e.g. Geneva Convention. Under Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Paragraph 50.1,
A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian. Article 4 of the Third Convention pertains to Prisoners of War. Article 43 of the Protocol pertains to members of the Armed Forces. Under The Geneva Convention, everyone who does not fall under the definition of Armed Forces or Prisoner of War is a civilian. If you seriously invoke international law and assert al-Aulaqi is a civilian, Article 51 of the Protocol could cause concern. - - - Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Art 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population - - -
Art 43. Armed forces - - - Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: - - - - - Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War.
#85. To: nolu chan (#82) (Edited) Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. Laws evolve and the boundaries of the Laws of War cannot remain static in their application when enemies do not remain static in how they wage war.
#88. To: war (#85)
Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. Don't forget, you are the one who invoked the Laws of War. If the Laws of War have not evolved to your satisfaction, does that mean they may be ignored by the United States, while an American judge participates at The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which "has jurisdiction over four clusters of crime committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crime against humanity?" These trials are ongoing. "The United Nations Security Council called upon the Tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014." Under the Laws of War, when one party to a conflict abandons conformance to the Laws of War, an opposing party may equally abandon the same. Under this standard, it would be lawful for al-Qaeda to commit the target killing of President Obama. It may be analgous to the option, under the Laws of War, available to the Confederacy after the Union's failed Dahlgren Raid.
Arguing against a state's assertion of self-defense as justification for targeted killing is that "this type of practice is incompatible with international law, which categorically prohibits extra-judicial executions..."98 Human rights organizations hold that "suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.... To kill under these circumstances is simply execution — but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt."99 Gary D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press; 1st edition, February 2010, page 540. Elision as in source. Boldface added.
Replies to Comment # 88. There are no replies to Comment # 88.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 88. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|