Court Releases DOJ Memo Justifying Drone Strike On US Citizen

An anonymous reader writes in with news that the memo presenting a case for killing Anwar al-Awlaki has been released thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday released a secret 2010 Justice Department memo justifying the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S citizen killed in a drone strike in 2011. The court released the document as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union to make the document public. Then-acting Assistant Attorney General David Barron, in the partially redacted 41-page memo, outlines the justification of the drone strike in Yemen to take out al-Awlaki, an alleged operational leader of al Qaeda.

Comments

Yeah sure

[ArcadeMan]

"Alleged" operational leader. No trial. Bam! You're dead.

Welcome to Soviet USA.

Re:Yeah sure

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's just goodies all around: according to unspecified intelligence, as examined to an unknown standard of proof, by unidentified parties, in secret, he was the alleged operational leader "taking on a continuous command function", which means he isn't entitled to the protections of a civilian under the Geneva convention, even though he is unaffiliated with any national armed force, and not directly engaged in any hostility at the time and place of his death.

Apparently, this is because the global war on terror is a 'non-international armed conflict', albeit one where the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force is geographically (and temporally, enjoy kids!) unbounded.

What is not clear (at least from my reading) is where the boundary is between 'an armed and dangerous criminal justice problem' and a 'non-international armed conflict' between the United States and a non-state group. Al Qaeda is apparently in (aided by; but not strictly because of, the AUMF), so killing or imprisoning people we believe to be members, on or off a battlefield, in countries with any level of active conflict, is A-OK. Who else would qualify for this rather unenviable status?

Could we be at war with the Sinola Cartel if we wanted to? The Crips?

Re:Yeah sure

[mirix]

Yeah, because destroying backwaters half way around the world is a surefire way to make the US 'free'.

Re:Yeah sure

[Opportunist]

Free? You call yourself free?

The only reason you may still speak what you feel like is 'cause your leaders learned that it doesn't matter jack what you say. Should you for some odd reason actually become important enough that people listen to you, you'll be silenced soon enough, don't worry.

Re:Yeah sure

[joe_frisch]

If you are in a state of war with a country, within some limits it is expected that you can kill people in that country. Where things get complicated is when you are in an ill defined state of hostility against a non-state organization like Al Qaeda. What are the rules on declaring someone to be part of that organization and there for a military target? While this question applies to any possible targets, it is especially troublesome when the target is an american citizen. The government cannot execute an american citizen without a trial. Can it declare an american citizen to be a member of a foreign military and then execute them? This would seem to completely bypass the constitutional right to a fair trial.

In a standard state-war it is fairly simple: If they are in an enemy country it is OK to kill them in the same way that it was OK to kill anyone else in that country. An american arrested for treason in the US on the other hand would get a trial. In a conventional state war you don't bomb countries that are not enemy states.

The level of activity to be considered a target for execution is also a tricky question. It is clearly OK to return fire if fired upon. When his actions are less direct it becomes more difficult.

At the root of all this is that the concept of "war" has changed and laws have not kept up with 21st century wars.

Re:Yeah sure

[mariox19]

I want to be sympathetic to your sentiment, but there is no one outside of the United States threatening our freedom. That's a fact. There is no one in the military fighting for our freedom. Granted, they may stand ready to defend our freedom, should a foreign threat materialize, but that's a different story.

Sadly, the real threat to our freedom is from within. It's from people in government who fancy themselves on the side of the angels and who think it's okay to bend or break the rules—a.k.a. the Constitution—to defend the "homeland." They're setting up the legal framework and law enforcement infrastructure that will completely obliterate the United States of America for good. What will be left is lines on a map claiming a heritage it has no right to.

Re:Yeah sure

[vux984]

The right to freedom of speech is not unrestricted:

Perhaps not, but punishable by death, for speech?? Even "illegal speech"?

From the linked article he wasn't just posting videos urging violence but was also involved in planning attacks against U.S. persons.

Should be: allegedly involved

So, if he was involved, To what extent was his involvement, and what was the sentence? Was he allowed to confront his accusors? Was he given due process?

I'm not saying he was a good guy, or even that its likely that he was a good guy, but seeing as we just executed him, extra judicially, with no due process, WE are NOT the "good guys" either.

Beating the terrorists by becoming them is not a victory at all.

Re:Yeah sure

[ATMAvatar]

Being an accessory to murder as often as Anwar al-Awlaki was would earn you enough 20 year sentences to fill a hundred lifetimes.

The part that's missing is the murder trial before sentencing.

Re: Yeah sure

[IamTheRealMike]

If you're fighting with our enemies, as an enemy combatant, why do you believe you should get a trial as a criminal rather than simply being killed on the battlefield after identification As an enemy?

Blurring the lines between soldiers and terrorists is exceptionally dangerous, especially for America.

After all, using the implication of what you wrote above, it would apparently be OK for the British Royal Air Force to drone strike Congress, because a Republican congressman has been and probably still is an outspoken supporter of Irish republican terrorism. And if a few innocent other congressmen get blown to bits too, well that's unfortunate collateral damage but I guess they shouldn't have been hanging around known supporters of terrorism should they? The world's a battlefield these days.

Re:"US Citizen" or "US passport holder"

[I'm New Around Here]

If you support the killing of this man I happily support putting you in a cage for the rest of your life.

Are you in the streets demanding the same consequences for President Obama? For any of his staff?