The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...hed-back-maybe/

 

haha, that's great. now she's saying it was a joke, but someone in the audience recorded it and it obviously wasn't a joke.

[southsider2k5]

Really, you genuinely expect anyone to shiver in their boots over the Iranian navy? You can't possibly actually be scared of this, and yet you think that the Kenny "The Genius" Williams Liberal is the one to laugh at...not the threat of the Iranian navy.

 

Kinda like taking the nutcase in the desert somewhere ranting about holy war seriously...

[Balta1701]

Kinda like taking the nutcase in the desert somewhere ranting about holy war seriously...

What'd Obama do now?

[southsider2k5]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

 

Islamist cleric Anwar Awlaki 'killed in Yemen'

Video grab of Anwar al-Awlaki video message, picture credit: SITE Intelligence Group Awlaki is said to be on a US hit list

 

US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry said.

 

Unnamed US officials confirmed the reports, but have not provided details.

 

Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, has been on the run in Yemen since December 2007.

 

The US had named him a "specially designated global terrorist" for his alleged role in a number of attacks and US President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing.

 

The defence ministry statement said only that he died "along with some of his companions".

 

It gave no further details of his death.

 

But tribal sources told AFP news agency Awlaki was killed in an air strike in the eastern Marib province, said to be an al-Qaeda stronghold.

 

An unnamed US official told the Associated Press he was killed by US drone strike. However, the cleric's body was said to be in Yemeni hands.

 

The death was also announced on Yemeni TV.

Continue reading the main story

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

 

Formed in January 2009 by a merger between al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and Yemen

 

Based in eastern Yemen

 

Led by Nasser al-Wuhayshi, a Yemeni former aide to Osama Bin Laden. Deputy leader is Saudi ex-Guantanamo inmate Said al-Shihri

 

Aims to topple Saudi monarchy and Yemeni government, and establish an Islamic caliphate

 

Came to prominence with Riyadh bombings in 2003, and 2008 attack on US embassy in Sanaa

 

Says it was behind an attempt to blow up US passenger jet in December 2009

 

BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera says the killing, if confirmed, is significant, because Awlaki is able to reach out to people susceptible to radicalisation through his use of the media.

 

The reported death comes amid concerns in Washington about the impact of Yemen's political crisis on its ability to go after al-Qaeda militants.

 

President Ali Abdullah Saleh is facing a widespread protest movement, along with an armed insurrection by renegade army units and tribal fighters.

 

Mr Saleh, who was injured three months ago when his residence was shelled, returned last week after treatment in Saudi Arabia.

 

He said in an interview published on Thursday that he will not stand down, as promised in a deal brokered by Gulf States, if his opponents are allowed to stand in elections to succeed him.

Targeted before

Yemen map

 

Awlaki is described by US officials as a key leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

 

He has been implicated in the US army base killings in Fort Hood, Texas, the Christmas 2009 Detroit airline bomb attempt, and a failed bombing in New York's Times Square.

 

AQAP also claimed to have been behind a plot which sent two bombs in printer cartridges on US-bound cargo planes. They were intercepted in the UK and Dubai.

 

When he was imam of a San Diego mosque in the 1990s, his sermons were attended by two future 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

 

He also lived in the UK from 2002-04, where he spent several months giving lectures to Muslim youth.

 

In a video posted in November last year he called for the killing of Americans, saying they were from the "party of devils".

 

Weeks later, he survived an air strike in Shabwa province in which at least 30 militants were killed.

 

He has been reported dead in the past following US air strikes on southern Yemen in December 2009 and November 2010. He was the target of a US drone attack that killed two al Qaeda operatives in southern Yemen on 5 May.

[Balta1701]

I'm still undecided on how to feel about this one, so, since this is the Republican thread, I'll post Ron Paul's comments on that killing and see how things go from there.

Ron Paul aggressively criticized President Obama today for al-Awlaki's death.

 

"No I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul said in a media avail after his remarks at the Politics + Eggs event here. "He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

 

"I think what would people ... have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."

 

Does he feel the same about Bin Laden? "

 

Not exactly. Because he was involved in 9/11 and I voted for authority to go after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Al-Awlaki nobody ever suggested that he was participant in 9/11."

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm still undecided on how to feel about this one, so, since this is the Republican thread, I'll post Ron Paul's comments on that killing and see how things go from there.

 

Known leader of a terrorist group planning to attack/kill/injure Americans and their allies in a time of war v. assassinating an unknown nutcase = two different situations.

 

I don't see a problem with it.

[southsider2k5]

It is perfectly consistent with how Ron Paul thinks, so I can accept it from him.

[StrangeSox]

Known leader of a terrorist group planning to attack/kill/injure Americans and their allies in a time of war v. assassinating an unknown nutcase = two different situations.

 

I don't see a problem with it.

 

With Paul's comments or with the assassination?

 

Greenwald is, predictably, melting down over this.

[Jenksismyhero]

With Paul's comments or with the assassination?

 

Greenwald is, predictably, melting down over this.

 

the assassination

[StrangeSox]

5th amendment?

Edited September 30, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

5th amendment?

 

IMO acts of treason trump all that. Though I suppose there should be some sort of official designation by the US government concerning that before the strike occurred.

[StrangeSox]

IMO acts of treason trump all that. Though I suppose there should be some sort of official designation by the US government concerning that before the strike occurred.

 

You can't establish that there were actually acts of treason committed without due process. The government charging you with treason doesn't eliminate all of your rights and give them carte blanche.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can't establish that there were actually acts of treason committed without due process. The government charging you with treason doesn't eliminate all of your rights and give them carte blanche.

 

So, videotape of him telling Muslims in America to attack the US (among other things) is not enough to establish treason?

[StrangeSox]

So, videotape of him telling Muslims in America to attack the US (among other things) is not enough to establish treason?

Showing a video tape is not due process, no. We've had treason trials in this country in the past.

 

There's also a big 1st amendment question there, and the US government maintains that he wasn't targeted for his speech.

[Jenksismyhero]

Showing a video tape is not due process, no. We've had treason trials in this country in the past.

 

There's also a big 1st amendment question there, and the US government maintains that he wasn't targeted for his speech.

 

Inciting violence or treasonous acts is not protected speech.

 

I think the US gov't is going down the route that he posed an "imminent danger" and therefore his assassination was ok'd by international law. I don't know that WH lawyers have addressed any domestic legal justification.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll add too that while a few independent bloggers/jouranalists have brought the 5th amendment issue up, it's not getting much press in the main stream. Can you imagine if this was done by Bush? The "he's ruining the United States' position in the world and taking away our freedoms!" crowd would have a field day.

[StrangeSox]

Inciting violence or treasonous acts is not protected speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...95_0444_ZO.html

 

Mere advocacy of violence is protected speech.

 

I think the US gov't is going down the route that he posed an "imminent danger" and therefore his assassination was ok'd by international law. I don't know that WH lawyers have addressed any domestic legal justification.

 

They can go down that route, but that doesn't mean it legitimates violating a US citizen's constitutional rights to due process or that it actually stands up to scrutiny.

 

Where would you be comfortable with drawing the line on Executive power to declare US citizens treasonous and assassinate them?

[southsider2k5]

Showing a video tape is not due process, no. We've had treason trials in this country in the past.

 

There's also a big 1st amendment question there, and the US government maintains that he wasn't targeted for his speech.

 

This seemed relevant, and the last paragraph was brutal.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/...g-a-us-citizen/

 

How Does the President Have the Right to Target for Killing a US Citizen?

Email 49 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

 

How does President Obama have the right to target for killing a US citizen such as Anwar al-Awlaki?

 

That’s a good question.

 

As of now, the administration’s legal justification is unclear.

 

In 2010, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about how “human rights lawyers were challenging the administration’s assertion that an American citizen can be targeted for killing overseas. Should Americans worry that if they go overseas, their own government could target them to be killed?”

 

Said Gibbs: “Let’s be clear about Anwar al-Awlaki, okay? The United States hasn’t decided that Anwar al-Awlaki is aligned with a terrorist group. Anwar al-Awlaki has in videos cast his lot with al Qaeda and its extremist allies. Anwar al-Awlaki is acting as a regional commander for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. So let’s not take a tourist that might visit Italy overseas and equate him to somebody who has on countless times in video pledged to uphold and support the violent and murderous theories of al Qaeda.”

 

Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, today said that his organization believes “that the targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific, and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President — any President — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.”

 

After Awlaki was designated a “specially designated global terrorist” by the Treasury Department, it became illegal for attorneys to represent him without permission from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

 

The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights were denied the license to represent Awlaki.

 

The groups sued the Treasury Department and OFAC to grant them the license to represent al-Awlaki. They sought to challenge the White House assertion that it had the constitutional right to kill Awlaki.

 

In September 2010, the Justice Department filed court papers seeking that the case be dismissed: “To litigate any aspect of this case would require the disclosure of highly sensitive national security information concerning alleged military and intelligence actions overseas,” the Justice department asserted.

 

And US Judge John Bates threw the case out.

 

On December 7, 2010 Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Tony West said, “We are pleased with the court’s ruling, people need to remember that this really was an unprecedented case in which plaintiffs were asking a court to review military decisions for the leader of a foreign terrorist organization and as we said when we filed this case, if Anwar al-Awlaki wants to access to our court system he ought to surrender to authorities and be accountable for his actions. So were pleased with the legal ruling the court has issued and were pleased that the court agreed with us that it did not need to reach state secrets in order to dispose of this case.”

 

Needless to say, this unprecedented ruling has been severely criticized – and all the more so today, with the assassination having been carried out.

 

Writing in Salon today, Glenn Greenwald writes, “What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (‘No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law’), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists — criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.”

[StrangeSox]

I'll add too that while a few independent bloggers/jouranalists have brought the 5th amendment issue up, it's not getting much press in the main stream. Can you imagine if this was done by Bush? The "he's ruining the United States' position in the world and taking away our freedoms!" crowd would have a field day.

 

Greenwald and others are expressly calling that out.

 

It's also interesting to contrast the media reaction to the two recently released US citizens who were caught illegally entering Iran with how often they even bother mentioning that we've held people for near 10 years now without charges and less evidence than the Iranians had.

Edited September 30, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

A US citizen is declared an "imminent threat" to US national security and placed on an approved list for targeted assassination. When this is challenged in court, the DOJ responds with the now-common "State Secrets" mantra and the case gets tossed out. Then, without any due process, any judicial review, a US citizen is assassinated.

 

Is this really something we should be comfortable with?

[Jenksismyhero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...95_0444_ZO.html

 

Mere advocacy of violence is protected speech.

 

 

 

They can go down that route, but that doesn't mean it legitimates violating a US citizen's constitutional rights to due process or that it actually stands up to scrutiny.

 

Where would you be comfortable with drawing the line on Executive power to declare US citizens treasonous and assassinate them?

 

Yeah, i'm well aware of Brandenburg and its progeny. Out and out ordering Americans to attack the US goes beyond "advocacy" IMO. And I think that under that test a court would find the likelihood of action is very high, especially since he has gotten people to plot attacks before based on his words.

 

I'm not sure where the line is drawn. But I don't think this case gets anywhere near it. He's clearly an enemy of the state and was rightly assassinated.

 

Hasn't the US violated these constitutional protections before? Lots and lots of American born Germans went back to fight for the Nazi's in WW2. If they were killed in battle was that a violation of their Constitutional right? Or at some point when you pick up arms (literally or figuratively) why wouldn't it be logical that you lose those rights?

[Jenksismyhero]

A US citizen is declared an "imminent threat" to US national security and placed on an approved list for targeted assassination. When this is challenged in court, the DOJ responds with the now-common "State Secrets" mantra and the case gets tossed out. Then, without any due process, any judicial review, a US citizen is assassinated.

 

Is this really something we should be comfortable with?

 

Given that this is the first time it's every happened, and given the strong evidence of the threat he posed, I don't think this is as much of a concern as you're making it out to be.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, i'm well aware of Brandenburg and its progeny. Out and out ordering Americans to attack the US goes beyond "advocacy" IMO. And I think that under that test a court would find the likelihood of action is very high, especially since he has gotten people to plot attacks before based on his words.

 

Cool. So indict and try him for it.

 

I'm not sure where the line is drawn. But I don't think this case gets anywhere near it. He's clearly an enemy of the state and was rightly assassinated.

 

Based on what? Where is the due process that establishes his guilt and threat? All we have are State Secret claims. Is anyone who advocates for violence against the US government fair game for assassination?

 

Hasn't the US violated these constitutional protections before? Lots and lots of American born Germans went back to fight for the Nazi's in WW2. If they were killed in battle was that a violation of their Constitutional right? Or at some point when you pick up arms (literally or figuratively) why wouldn't it be logical that you lose those rights?

 

Literally shooting at American soldiers poses a clear imminent threat. Giving speeches that call for violence against the US does not. There is a significant difference between literally or figuratively shooting at someone.

[StrangeSox]

Given that this is the first time it's every happened, and given the strong evidence of the threat he posed, I don't think this is as much of a concern as you're making it out to be.

 

No evidence of an imminent threat has ever been presented. It's probably there. Don't mistake my dislike of violations of a US's citizens rights as an excuse for his actions or doubting the likelihood of his responsibilities.

 

Just because this is a (currently) exceptional case doesn't mean we should be ok with it or ignore the dramatic expansion of Executive power, however.

Edited September 30, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Cool. So indict and try him for it.

 

 

 

Based on what? Where is the due process that establishes his guilt and threat? All we have are State Secret claims. Is anyone who advocates for violence against the US government fair game for assassination?

 

 

 

Literally shooting at American soldiers poses a clear imminent threat. Giving speeches that call for violence against the US does not. There is a significant difference between literally or figuratively shooting at someone.

 

Out of curiosity does organizing terror attacks cross that threshold?