Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Feb. 14, 2013 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
I can only make one comment regarding Archie Weitman’s letter, “Drones effective at cutting casualties”: Bravo, excellent.
Mr. Weitman has hit the nail perfectly on the head. Targets of drone strikes are people who have declared war (holy or otherwise) on our United States.
Because of our foreign policy and alliances, these people hate our government. Because of our progressive Western lifestyle, these people hate Americans and wish to destroy us. An American citizen joining one of these targeted groups becomes a traitor in time of war.
What penalty should such a person pay? Anyone who believes in mercy, lengthy due process, or even reconciliation, for these people, needs to learn the true meaning of the term “infidel” and what that word means to someone with radical religious beliefs.
In the Vietnam war, we dropped more tons of bombs than in World War II and still did not achieve the desired results. Drone strikes seem to be doing much, much better.
While all of that is true there is NO DUE PROCESS
IT IS A QUESTION OF MURDER VERSUS INTERROGATION
007 Obama has a secret capture-or-kill list where 007 Obama Is
the prosecutor,
the defense attorney,
the judge,
the jury
and the executioner. Hummmm
- except that nobody is captured
So much for American DUE PROCESS.
Why did all these same bleeding heart liberal attack Bush for using drones and EITs
Who do we thank for drones? President Bush or President Obama? Drones kill guilty and innocents alike without discrimination. They are a pax on the US. Obama uses them more extremely than Bush did as is customary of presidents who take the license further. Call me old fashion, but if this is the latest in technological warefare, the US is moving backwards into the dark ages.
CarmineD
Carmine: "pax" means "peace", and drones are keeping the US "peaceful" on the home front. Perhaps you meant "pox". Cheers!
"Drones kill guilty and innocents alike without discrimination." per CarmineD
War kills guilty and innocents alike! Terrorism kills mostly innocents. Other than knee-jerk opposition to anything President Obama does, what alternative do you suggest?
Comment removed by moderator. - -
I often wonder if some of our commenters here who write for the LVS had a father, brother,son,husband or wife,fighting on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan would feel different about drone strikes?
Drone strikes save countless American lives and prevent for a less number of wounded troops. Some of these same commenters never mention the suicide bombers who kill everyone and anyone who gets in the way.
Remember one thing these same terrorists would have no problem of detonating a dirty bomb(nuclear) in our country killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Drones save lives,and i'm all for saving lives of our precious young people who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect us.
I hate agreeing with Weber but, in this case, I find myself in synch with him as to Osama Obama's use of drones to "abort" Jihadists. It's the one form off abortion that does not turn my stomach. As for "knee jerk opposition?" Weber should look unto himself and his disavowal of anything Conservatives propose.
Sam is right, most of those republican chicken hawks would rather send someone else to the middle east to protect their inflated ego.
Drones are here to stay. Which mother or father wants to send their children into a combat zone when robots can achieve a similar or better objective? Not many.
Look at the Willard Romney family for example. Five strong, healthy young sons that claim to be patriots who love their country above all else, yet not one of them spent a second serving in the armed forces.
Pampered, privileged elites understand the importance of drones as well as anyone.
"Carmine: "pax" means "peace", and drones are keeping the US "peaceful" on the home front. Perhaps you meant "pox". Cheers!"
Thank you Gary. I did.
CarmineD
There are two very distinct issues here: 1) the use of drones as weapons to minimize US casualties, and 2) the assassination of US citizens by fiat.
I have no problem at all with using drones like any other piece of technology to reduce our casualties. I would be very upset if such steps were NOT taken when possible.
I DO have a very big problem with assassinating US citizens based solely on the word of some member of the Executive branch, no matter what technology is used! If administration lawyers and advisers can find ways to justify the assassination of US citizens on foreign soil, what else will they find to justify if it becomes expedient?
I have said for a long time now that President Obama is little more than Bush Lite in many ways, this is just another example and should not be tolerated by the American people. Congress needs to remind this President, and future ones, that the President is bound by the Constitution and can not act by fiat alone without oversight.
Last Throes... You single out the Romney family to illustrate the failure of people to join the military service. You fail to mention Bill Clinton's decision to avoid the military. There are many many people that did not serve in the Armed Forces. President Obama for one. I suggest you drop this subject because not everyone is suited for military service.
"War kills guilty and innocents alike! Terrorism kills mostly innocents. Other than knee-jerk opposition to anything President Obama does, what alternative do you suggest?" Jim Weber
For starters, how did the US bring down Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Ladan.
I was against sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. A US Commander-in-Chief should never send American troops to fight on foreign soil UNLESS and UNTIL he/she has walked the battle field of the American dead and dying.
CarmineD
Lets give the President credit. He's doing a good thing by killing the scum that killed our people. Revenge is best savored when cold.
Here we go again. If Obama did nothing those on the right would scream and holler. By killing our enemies (foreign and domestic) they still scream and holler. It doesn't matter what President Obama does, the right will always be paranoid, pissed and argue out of both sides of their mouths. It's the nature of the beast, confused people living in their communications bubble and not dealing with reality very well. You can't tell people we need a smaller government but put bedroom police in their homes to monitor sexual activity. You can't say you stand with women when you won't vote in favor of women's rights concerning rape, violence or salary. You can't tell people there is a need for better education and layoff teachers by the thousands. You can't complain about crime while laying off police officers. You can't call others job creators when they create no jobs. You can't say the president has killed the economy when profits are higher then ever and Wall St. has rebounded. You can't call a corporation people when not one of them is held accountable for our financial disaster.
I agree with hombre.
Obama orders the deaths of the bad guys, even US citizen bad guys, along with their frieds and families. He has them blown into to tiny little pieces of flesh.
No trial, no jury, no lawyers, no Gitmo.....
You go, Obama.
Don't capture them or ask them questions or God forbid be a little rough with them.
Just end their time on the planet. That is much more nice.
Yes, they would rather have themselves, their friends and their loveones die in a violent explosion then get roughed bit a little bit. (LOL)
Also, I greatly thank you Obama for showing what total worthless pieces of scum all those hypocrites are back in the day when they were shouting for Bush to be arrested for war crimes. Obviously, all that was about politics and NOTHING to do with principles. They are quiet little puppies today.
"Because of our foreign policy and alliances, these people hate our government. Because of our progressive Western lifestyle, these people hate Americans and wish to destroy us."
Corrick -- you failed to neglect another very good reason those people hate our government. We invaded their countries. As I posted at your link, the Fifth Amendment prohibits taking any person's live without due process of law. I've also read that leaked summary memo justifying it. It reminded me of my bible-thumping days -- one can prove anything desired with enough verbiage.
"Drone strikes save countless American lives and prevent for a less number of wounded troops."
samspeaks -- right, keep parroting them headlines and White House speeches. Rah-rah-rah. Now explain what part of our Constitution empowers our president to assassinate our fellow citizens without the due process that same Constitution he swore an oath to support, protect and defend.
"I DO have a very big problem with assassinating US citizens based solely on the word of some member of the Executive branch, no matter what technology is used! If administration lawyers and advisers can find ways to justify the assassination of US citizens on foreign soil, what else will they find to justify if it becomes expedient?"
boftx -- taking what you posted to the next level, what's the difference between using a drone and a sniper? The Fifth Amendment's due process requirement means a court examines the evidence, hears all sides, then rules. The noise from Congress is another secret court to decide these matters, and secret courts are just star chambers. Where's the appeal? Bottom line is as you said -- what's become "expedient." That, with the increased of drones on our own soil, isn't just a slippery slope, it's a slide with disaster waiting at the bottom.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902--1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." -- Major General Smedley Butler, a Marine and one of only 19 people to be TWICE awarded the Medal of Honor, from a 1935 issue of the socialist magazine "Common Sense"
"You can't say the president has killed the economy when profits are higher then ever and Wall St. has rebounded. You can't call a corporation people when not one of them is held accountable for our financial disaster." Vernos Branco
But it's perfectly fine for President Obama to appoint Jacob Lew to the US Treasury. He's a former management executive of Citigroup in charge of a group of renegades that paved the way for the country's housing collapse AND he accepted a $ONE MILLION bonus from the company, at the same time the US gave the company billions for a bail out. If that's not enough, Jack Lew invests his ill-gotten money in off shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, to shelter from taxes. And the President, Harry Reid and a host of other Dems scourged Romney for all the above before and during the election.
More of President Obama's hypocrisy.
As Senator Obama and candidate Obama he denounced Bush and the Bush Adminstration for waterboarding. Eric Holder too. BUT now it's perfectly fine to drone Americans, without due process, and kill innocents by the hundreds BECAUSE the President says so.
As Senator, Obama cast the vote to squash Immigration Reform in 2007 by voting to eliminate and water down the Guest Worker program. Why? Trumka and the AFL-CIO told Obama to do so. Now, President Obama is impugning Republicans for slow walking Immigration Reform. Daring the GOP that if they don't get it done, he will.
If it weren't so egregious, it would be funnier than the comics and the keystone cops combined.
CarmineD
President Obama thumbs his nose at the Constitution, the other two co-equal parts of the government, and the minority party, and says I'm doing it my way. And the sheep and lambs fall in line. Unbelievable.
CarmineD
Obama won twice. He's the boss. Let's wish him success. If he fails, we also fail.
I understand Americans not liking drone strikes, but I ask them to offer an alternative. If we involve a court or any authority besides the President signing off on strikes, we negate one big advantage of drones... the fact that they can strike right when we know where the target is and the target cannot see the strike coming.
We face an enemy that murders with no rules, that cannot be dissuaded by anything except being killed, that doesn't operate under state sponsorship, that will use nuclear and biological weapons if they obtain them, will murder civilians and want to rid the earth of us and the way we live.
Maybe, after 12 years, people are forgetting 9/11/2001. 3000 murders in a couple of hours... more if not for brave Americans.... and many, many more if they had more deadly weapons.
I don't like any President calling drone strikes alone, but I like the alternative even less.
I'm open to hear alternatives so speak up.
Michael
Casler said:
"I'm open to hear alternatives so speak up."
The alternative is someone, a lot of someones, or the planet getting shot, bombed, or annihilated first.
Or we could call a meeting of one of Darrell Issa's house committee's. Those have saved the world at least 5 times...
ByKillerB,
"Samspeaks--right keep parroting them headlines and white house speeches.Rah-rah-rah.Now exlpain what part of our constitution empowers our president to assassinate our fellow citizens without the due process".
US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan who has 18 different e-mails with American born and Yemeni based al-quadi terrorist Anwar Al- Awlaki.In these e-mails Awlaki gave Major Hasan spiritual guidence to shoot US troops,which is what he did in Fort Hood texas. Major Hasan is charged with 13 counts of murder and 32 counts of attempted murder. Major Hasan may be you fellow citizen,to me he nothing more than traitor and killer.
See if you can convince the families of the soldiers killed and wounded at Ford Hood Texas on this tragic day of Nov.5th.2009 that Anwar Al-Awaki is regarded as a fellow citizen and not a traitor and killer.
You accuse me of parroting, how about you stop parroting about Major General Smedley Butler. I beleive you have used him in at least 4 different posts in the past year.Time for some new material.
As I stated earlier, there are two *distinct* issues in play. It appears that people are needlessly combining the two.
The use of drones to take out enemy targets is perfectly okay, just like using bombs or lobbing a cruise missile at them would be.
It is the use of any technique, whether it be a drone, sniper, or a ninja with a knife, to assassinate a US citizen solely on the word of a government official, even if that official is the President, that is repugnant!
Correction, I meant to say Anwar Al-Awaki may be your your fellow citizen,not Major Hasan.
samspeaks,
Few intelligent Americans would deny that Al-Awaki might well have been a traitor. But that does not mean that he should have been subject to summary execution at the whim of some official, no matter highly placed that official might be. At the very least there needs to be oversight, including approval, by some entity outside the Executive branch.
The method of Al-Awaki's assassination is immaterial. What matters is that he was a US citizen targeted by some governmental entity. The Constitution must apply to every citizen equally. That is why I support the ACLU even when they defend groups such as the American Nazi Party in free speech cases.
samspeaks - "You accuse me of parroting, how about you stop parroting about Major General Smedley Butler. I beleive you have used him in at least 4 different posts in the past year.Time for some new material."
Smedley Butler is a classic example of how we create enemies by involving ourselves in the affairs of other nations. The United States has always used its military to coerce or threaten others to see things our way. A brief study of our history should convince non believers.
Vernos,
In your opinion these many years later, should we have stayed out of the Afghanistan conflict when the Soviet Union invaded? Should we become completely isolationist and not interfere with aid, military or otherwise in any other nations?
Michael
At 927.a\m. boftx commented: "There are two very distinct issues here: 1) the use of drones as weapons to minimize US casualties, and 2) the assassination of US citizens by fiat."
Wrong. You assume that there are two totally independent groups here, boftx: one is people trying to create US casualties. Another, totally independent, is that of American citizens being assassinated by fiat. Anwar al-Awlaki and his son were possible members of BOTH groups. Were they actually? We'll never know. That is the allegation, but it lacks the Constitutional requirements for a treason conviction. The Queen of Hearts cried "Off with their Heads!" - no judge, no trial, no defense counsel, no verdict, no appeals, nothing - and with only a bang both disappeared in clouds of greasy smoke
Drones have no innate intelligence. They are controlled by humans located somewhere on the planet. They are cheap - some under about $300. They are becoming plentiful. They need not actually FIRE missiles - the Japanese introduced the concept of the kamikazi pilots. Drones, by definition, don't even need to carry a pilot. Do we want to hear bangs and watch members of our communities, and anyone in their vicinity, disappear in other clouds of greasy smoke? When that happens, it may just have been the action of a foreign enemy. BUT - it could as easily be the action of disgruntled fellow citizens. Or it may just be another Queen of Hearts...
This has all the earmarks of a Pandora's box we will come to deeply regret having opened, but by then it will be far too late. Never happen here? Remember, the US is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons on human targets - and that also was to minimize casualties.
renorobert,
No, I am not assuming there are two independent groups.
I agree that it is possible for a single person to be members of both of the groups you postulate. What I am saying is that a member of the set of US citizens has certain rights that apply regardless of membership in any other set.
If I understand the rest of your comment correctly, you and I are in agreement in that neither of us believe that our government, and in particular the Executive branch, should be allowed to play the role of the Queen of Hearts when it comes to US citizens.
That said, it might make for an interesting debate if one were to extend the concept of the castle law to this area. That is, if a home owner (or renter) has the right to kill an intruder who more than likely a fellow citizen, then how much of a stretch is it to say the President has the same right to kill "intruders" who might be US citizens? Personally, I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between the rights of citizens vs. the actions of the government. But even that could open a can of worms for yet other discussions.
"Obama won twice. He's the boss. Let's wish him success. If he fails, we also fail." By Bite
Winning doesn't make wrong into right. Checks and balances. 3 Co-equal parts of government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Not dictatorship. President Obama is one part. Not all 3 in one.
CarmineD
If we can throw out the Constitutional right to due process based on the actions of a US citizen who kills other US citizens, then we can do the same for the 2nd Amendment. Just takes a Presidential decision. Send in the drones.
What other Constitutional laws can we allow the President to just throw out the window now or in the future?
We can keep justifying and pushing the envelop until there is no Constitution left.
How about the separation of church and state, then we could really ratchet up to a holy war between the holier than thou's. Plus, everyone could be forced to be of a particular religion.
Killer B gives some very good hints as to what has gotten us into this problem in the first place, and why we are seen as evil.
If we stopped installing and/or supporting dictators and despots around the world, with the resulting injustices they impart on their people, perhaps we wouldn't be indirectly spawning the efforts of those who have come to hate us.
Get to the roots and reverse it. Goodwill goes along way, but we have much to atone for before it takes effect.
Here is an interesting blog on why we are so hated.
http://talkingloudandsayingnothingparts3...
Vernos paints with a broad brush. I am a Conservative and have publicly stated, more than once, I agree with Osama Obama on using drones to "take out" those who would do us harm. Pay attention, vernos. But, from some of his posts, I get the idea he is a "hate-America-first" leftie. The USA has done wrong but more right than wrong and has freed more people on this planet then any other country and what do we get for it? Very little even in the way of thank yous. "No good deed goes unpunished," I guess.
Before we get all wrapped up in the racist/politically charged subject let's look at the piece of human filth Anwar al-Aulaqi was:
"Citizenship U.S. and Yemen (dual)
Alma mater Colorado State University (B.S.) George Washington University (Ph.D., incomplete)
Occupation Lecturer, former imam
Organization Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
Known for Alleged senior al-Qaeda recruiter and spokesman
Anwar al-Aulaqi; 21 April 1971 -- 30 September 2011) was an American and Yemeni imam who was an engineer and educator by training. U.S. government officials have alleged that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved with planning operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.
With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet."
After a request from the US Congress, in November 2010 YouTube removed many of Awlaki's videos.
U.S. officials say that as imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001--2002), which had 3,000 members, al-Aulaqi spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members. In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the father of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who later e-mailed him extensively in 2008--2009 before the Fort Hood shootings. During the period of Al-Alwaki's later radical period after 2006--2007, when he went into hiding, he was associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner. Al-Alwaki was allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.
The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive." U.S. officials alleged that in 2009, al-Aulaqi was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda. He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.
In April 2010, the United States President Barack Obama placed al-Aulaqi on a list of people whom the United States Central Intelligence Agency was authorized to kill because of terrorist activities. The "targeted killing" of an American citizen, sometimes described as an assassination order, was unprecedented. Al-Aulaqi's father and civil rights groups challenged the order in court. Al-Aulaqi was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life. The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft (drones) in Yemen to search for and kill him, firing at and failing to kill him at least once, before succeeding in a fatal American drone attack in Yemen on 30 September 2011. Two weeks later, al-Aulaqi's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was killed by a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen. Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar, released an audio recording condemning the killings of his son and grandson as senseless murders. "He has been wrongly accused, it's unbelievable. He lived his life in America; he's an all-American boy", said his father.
In late April, Representative Charlie Dent (R-PA) introduced a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to issue a "certificate of loss of nationality" to al-Aulaqi. He said al-Aulaqi "preaches a culture of hate" and had been a functioning member of al-Qaeda "since before 9/11", and had effectively renounced his citizenship by engaging in treasonous acts.
By May, U.S. officials believed he had become "operational", plotting, not just inspiring, terrorism against the West. Former colleague Abdul-Malik said he "is a terrorist, in my book", and advised shops not to carry even the earlier, non-jihadist al-Aulaqi sermons. In an editorial, Investor's Business Daily called al-Aulaqi the "world's most dangerous man", and recommended that he be added to the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list, a bounty put on his head, that he be designated a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" like Zindani, charged with treason, and extradition papers filed with the Yemeni government. IBD criticized the Justice Department for stonewalling Senator Joe Lieberman's security panel's investigation of al-Aulaqi's role in the Fort Hood massacre.
On July 16, the U.S. Treasury Department added him to its list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. As a result, any U.S. bank accounts he may have would be frozen, Americans were forbidden from doing business with him, and he was banned from traveling to the U.S. Stuart Levey, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said al-Aulaqi:
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."
So this guy was COMPLETELY kicked out of the USA, wanted DEAD or ALIVE by the other country he claimed citizenship with, likely was a part of 911 in some way, was a handholder to many major terrorist attackers in the world, was being barricaded by his family tribe in a remote region of Yemen and called for and got people to act upon calling for jihad against the country of his birth, where he was educated and spent the bulk of his formative years.
So yes, this guy was in a group based, rather than country based war with the west, primarily the USA. I find no fault in the black presidents actions, of course, a lot of you would have been cheerleaders for Bush the smarter, Bush the Dumber, or Reagan if they had initiated these style of attacks.
To those who are morally opposed such as RenoRobert and Peacelily, I primarily agree with you, but I can't be with you fully until we can send a process server to Anwar al-Aulaqi and he will honor his court date.
To stand on a moral principle in 100% of the cases seems like we are playing into al-Qaeda's hands. But I truly see your points as 99.2% valid. Anwar al-Aulaqi falls into the 00.8% who needs a solution sooner, rather than later.
wtplv - "In your opinion these many years later, should we have stayed out of the Afghanistan conflict when the Soviet Union invaded?"
Yes, remember the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sunk their economy and caused the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. History proved, as in other situations, our so-called allies turned against us. We are bribing "allies" with billions who will take the money and allow enemies to live within their borders. How many of our enemies have we funded who turned in the end?
lvfacts101 - "I get the idea he is a "hate-America-first" leftie."
Of course you get that feeling. You can't tell a delusional person they are being delusional and paranoid. If I hated these United States as you believe, I wouldn't have served. I would rather paint with a broad brush than live in a self imposed prison of a narrow minded world, closing off alternative ways of thinking.
What Jack Corrick is suggesting is that our president and his advisors are free to murder American citizens at will; and he can do so without that person having been charged, without access to counsel and without access to due process of law. Representative Kevin Yoder, a Republican from Kansas recently asked the director of the FBI if the recent DOJ memo authorizing such drone strikes when approved by our president included Americans here in the United States. The director of the FBI Did. Not. Know! This fascist idiocy flies in the face of two hundred years of American jurisprudence; and moreover places our president on the same level as that paragon of human rights and champion of justice, Bashar al-Assad of Syria. This is wrong; and it does not matter which president began this scurrilous and indefensible practice, Barack Obama, George Bush or George Washington.
An interesting set of posts this morning, JeffFromVegas. I see the agreement in our positions as being much less than 99.2%, however. Use of drones by US forces against non-citizens of the US is largely a moral issue - is it right or is it wrong? As such, it is subject to individual perspective and to debate. Personally, as I said above, that decision will come back to bite us (Americans), hard. Drone use against US citizens, or non-citizen residents is a totally different issue, By fiat the assassinations of al-Awlaki and his son, represents a negation of several Constitutional protections.
As you cite, Rep. Charlie Dent introduced a resolution urging that aAulaqi' birth-citizenship be revoked because he "preaches a culture of hate. . . " and that he had effectively renounced his citizenship by engaging in treasonous acts. You indicate that he "...preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers... " and "presided at the funeral of the father of Nidal Malik Hasan."
So much for the First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly. Also for the Constitutional provisions applying to treason in Article III, Section 3.
It seems certain that both al-Awlaki and his son were actually assassinated by drones.
So much for all or parts of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
You cite Investor's Business Daily that the Justice Department stonewalled Liberman's committee probe into the Ft Hood massacre.
Wrong. That was the Bush Justice Department in 2002, long before Ft Hood. It withdrew a Federal felony arrest warrant for Al-Awlaki (for passport fraud) and declined to say why, just that prosecutors "...got cold feet" - per World Net Daily, Feb 20, 2010. Per Fox News (Jan 4, 2013) "Fox News' reporting, which has not been publicly disputed by the bureau, suggests that after the 9/11 attacks the FBI tried to work with al-Awlaki or track him for intelligence purposes."(Don't just quote Wikipedia - you need to follow up on their references.)
You also identify al-Awalki's citizenship as "U.S. and Yemen (dual)."
True, but misleading. His U.S. citizenship was by birth, his Yemani citizenship was derived from his father. Note that his 16 year old son's citizenship appears to have been straight "born in the USA."
RenoRobert:
It looks like you and I have some disagreement and while I could take the time to debunk all the disagreements it would serve little purpose, because overall I consider you one of the better, more informed posters here.
The primary reason I am concerned about your rebuttal is the lack of an alternative plan of action to bring al-Aulaqi to justice before a court of his peers. How did you intend to get him his day in court?
Some of your inaccuracies:
NY Times:
"Family Ties to Yemen
Mr. Awlaki's American accent was misleading: born in New Mexico when his father was studying agriculture there, he had lived in the country until the age of 7. But he had spent his adolescence in Yemen, where memorizing the Koran was a matter of course for an educated young man, and women were largely excluded from public life.
After studying Islam in Yemen, Mr. Awlaki also pursued an American education, earning a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Colorado State University and a master's in education at San Diego State.
His father, Nasser, was a prominent figure who would serve as agriculture minister and chancellor of two universities and who was close to President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country's authoritarian leader. Anwar was sent to Azal Modern School, among the country's most prestigious private schools.
He studied civil engineering in Colorado in preparation for the kind of technocratic career his father had pursued. Mr. Awlaki, a fan of Dickens, would later compare Thomas Gradgrind, the notoriously utilitarian headmaster in "Hard Times," "to some Muslim parents who are programmed to think that only medicine or engineering are worthy professions for their children," perhaps hinting at his own experience.
Some family acquaintances say tension arose between Anwar and his father over career choices. But in 1994, Mr. Awlaki married a cousin from Yemen, left behind engineering and took a part-time job as imam at the Denver Islamic Society."
Regarding treason, your assertion of what the law says is true, but is clearly trumped by the presidents authority to defend the United states:
From the US Justice Dept. http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925....
"The text, structure and history of the Constitution establish that the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency. Article II, Section 2 states that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 1. He is further vested with all of "the executive Power" and the duty to execute the laws. U.S. Const. art. II, 1. These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch.
By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President. The power of the President is at its zenith under the Constitution when the President is directing military operations of the armed forces, because the power of Commander in Chief is assigned solely to the President. It has long been the view of this Office that the Commander-in-Chief Clause is a substantive grant of authority to the President and that the scope of the President's authority to commit the armed forces to combat is very broad. See, e.g., Memorandum for Honorable Charles W. Colson, Special Counsel to the President, from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President and the War Power: South Vietnam and the Cambodian Sanctuaries (May 22, 1970) (the "Rehnquist Memo"). The President's complete discretion in exercising the Commander-in-Chief power has also been recognized by the courts. In the Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862), for example, the Court explained that, whether the President "in fulfilling his duties as Commander in Chief" had met with a situation justifying treating the southern States as belligerents and instituting a blockade, was a question "to be decided by him" and which the Court could not question, but must leave to "the political department of the Government to which this power was entrusted."
Lastly, the choices of World Net Daily and Fox news as sources are not worthy of inclusion in any intellectual debate.
Once again, I REALLY enjoy your additions to the Las Vegas Sun website, however, your policy of non use of drones against this terrorist would have led to this "American" likely still plotting against even more Americans.
JeffFromVegas: Quite a nice article that the NY Times printed, but irrelevant to my comments. As the times noted, al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. That makes him a native-born American citizen regardless of where he may subsequently have traveled. He may have said he renounced that, but there is no evidence he ever did so formally as required by The Immigration & Nationality Act. He may have claimed Yemeni citizenship, as he could have had he maintained 10 years continuous residence in Yemen, but I've been unable to find evidence that he bothered with that formality either.
I've looked at the link you provided. I'm not at all sure that a "MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT" authorizes the President to suspend, by fiat, numerous sections of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of ALL Americans.
Al-Awalki was killed in a "...CIA-led U.S. drone strike" (see Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/... ). Are you actually arguing that the CIA is, in fact, a part of the US military as defined by the Constitution, or of the "armed forces" as defined by Title 10 of the US Code? I'd have to heartily disagree. Neither mentions the CIA. While it be necessary for national defense, I can hardly see the CIA as equivalent to the uniformed services who have primary responsibility for armed defense.
Renorobert Claimed:
"You also identify al-Awalki's citizenship as "U.S. and Yemen (dual)."
True, but misleading. His U.S. citizenship was by birth, his Yemani citizenship was derived from his father. Note that his 16 year old son's citizenship appears to have been straight "born in the USA."
then followed up with, after I showed a direct connection to his Father to the PRESIDENT of Yemen:
"That makes him a native-born American citizen regardless of where he may subsequently have traveled. He may have said he renounced that, but there is no evidence he ever did so formally as required by The Immigration & Nationality Act. He may have claimed Yemeni citizenship, as he could have had he maintained 10 years continuous residence in Yemen, but I've been unable to find evidence that he bothered with that formality either."
I say:
You either have a weird family or are not too informed as to family innerworkings. To claim that the geography of birth overrides family loyalty is pure poppycock.
I have clearly, beyond anyone's reasonableness shown he was no longer an American when it came to the presidents powers of war.
I guess in your mind, as long as he didn't fill out the proper paperwork on his way to being banished from America he was free to plan the leveling of what used to be known as the John Hancock Building in Chicago.
He was both an American and an enemy of the state. If he chose to turn himself into an American consulate he would rightly be entitled to his day in court.
When he chose to run and hide, then plan and activate his notoriety the president used his "broad powers" to stop an enemy of the state that clearly was not interested in proclaiming his innocence in the USA.
The next mass anti American murderer -- the next bin Laden -- may level New York city instead of a couple of buildings.
I still think your position is legally correct in 99.2% of the cases. I also think if your position is adopted the future of the American way of life likely will be broken, financially and in terms of national spirit, not to mention the casualties.
The assassination of Al-Awaki's son is the first instance I know about of a violation of the Constitution's Article III, Section 2 provision that "The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
All it took was for someone to say about al-Awlaki's son, "HE didn't actually do anything. But kill him anyway. Just look at what his FATHER did!"
If we don't protect, right now, the civil rights of another person in an instance when it is difficult to do so, those rights will not be there when WE need them.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." Martin Niemoeller, Protestant pastor, about the failure of Germans to speak out against the Nazis. Precise wording now uncertain. Date uncertain, perhaps 1946.See http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marc...