With all due respect to the opinion of attorney's such as Jessalyn Raddick, Glen Grenwald and the ACLU - i think that Eric Holder is entirely correct that the Administration has the authority to target persons they identify as "enemies" in our battle against Al Qeada.
I'm not looking for a fight, I just have a different opinion from many others. I think Holder is right.
The Obama administration believes that executive branch reviews of evidence against suspected al-Qaeda leaders before they are targeted for killing meet the constitution’s “due process” requirement and that American citizenship alone doesn’t protect individuals from being killed, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Monday.
“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”
Broadly outlining the guidelines the Obama administration has used to conduct lethal drone stikes overseas, Holder said the U.S. government could legally target a senior operational al Qaeda leader who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans if the individual (1) posed an imminent threat of violence; (2) could not feasibly be captured; and (3) if the operation was conducted in line with war principles.
The last reason I think is actually the most important. These are strikes which are being carried out under the rules of
War, not criminal prosecution. And that's where I think the question is absolute, in a War people get targeted, and some people die. The question is whether they are the "right" people or not.
Glen Greenwald has argued this extensively.
It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”
This would be a fine argument within the context of law enforcement, but our battle with al Qaeda is not currently a "law and order" issue. Not entirely. Maybe it should be, although that is probably a debate for a different diary, but legally as things stand right now IMO - according to the bills passed by Congress - and the fact we still how troops in harms way in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and (some in) Yemen - it's not. It's a War. It's Military.
I don't like to quote or paraphrase the Dick Cheney crowd, but nobody gets Mirandized on a battlefield, and yes in this case the battlefield is pretty much anywhere the President says it is. Every killing in a War is a Targeted Killing, unless you're just completely shooting blind, and no one advocates that.
The fact of the matter is that the President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Under the 2001 Authorization to Use Force against al Qaeda he possess the ability to direct that force, and clearly that sometimes means use of deadly force, against any and all identifiable al Qeada threats.
Just about Anywhere. Anytime. It's all right here.
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
There are no limits placed on this authorization. It has no deadline. it doesn't specific limit the scope of conflict to any specific country, or even to just one specific group since it includes any "other organizations" who may have harbored or aided al Qeada in that past, or even
in the future.
This is one whopping whale of a blank check for never ending War.
Now one could argue that with Bin Laden dead, and most of his senior commanders dead - mostly by drone strikes BTW - it might soon be time to revise or possibly even repeal the AUMF. That's a point that soon may need to be considered, but while this is the current law of the land there is no question that the President has this power, and that he is no more "assassinating" anyone with it than a solder who calls in an air strike against an enemy position is an "assassin" or a police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty is a "murderer" because he felt that person was an imminent threat and just didn't bother to consult with an judge first. They don't have to get judicial approval, none of them. They already have all the authority they need.
And it really shouldn't matter whether the person is a U.S. Citizen or not if they happen to be on foreign soil. There are no special laws and privileges afforded U.S. Citizens who may stand against us in a war zone.
It's possible that they, from the President to the cop on the street can get it wrong. They can target the wrong person, an unarmed man, an peaceful non-combatant either by mistake or even by malice. That may be exactly what may have happened with al-Awalaki's 16-year-old son who was thought to be a 21 years-old al Qeada operative and was killed just a few days after his father. It may have been an sad unfortunate mistake. Bad info leading to a bad mistake. Just like the Police shooting of Oscar Grant in Oakland. When you grant the use of deadly force to agents of the government, they will use that force. Hopefully with caution and care, but sometimes not. No one gets is 100% right all the time.
We have to recognize that the possibility for errors always exists, and that we may have to handle it at the ballot box by election a Congress that will fairly and zealously keep close oversight on the actions of the Executive branch.
It's fair to ask what was the proof that someone like Awlaki was an imminent threat, and Congress has both the right and duty to ask, but I can also see why divulging that info might also risk still active and sensitive intelligence sources or methods.
Most people didn't even know that the FBI was monitoring al-Awlaki until Intel Chairman Pete Hoekstra blurted it out just to make the Administration look bad since he'd been in contact with Maj Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter. (Pete just didn't bother to mention that the FBI had cleared Hasan of any suspicion after reviewing the content of their contacts).
Technically Hoeskra's grandstanding revealed classified information, particularly the fact that the FBI was looking into Awlaki. That may have caused him to be more cautious and made gathering further evidence and intel about him more difficult. We don't really need more of that.
I don't like that the Obama Admin has the same "State Secrets" argument that the Bush Administration tried to use to justify their use of torture, but I can see how in cases like this it makes sense and isn't simply a excuse for them to duck and hide from War Crimes Prosecution like Bush. Congressman with the right Security Clearances should be looking into it, and if it appears the mistakes are beginning to out weight the successes, make some adjustments to correct the situation. If there have been malicious mistakes, that should stop and possibly be prosecuted. And if necessary, as I said before, Congress may ultimately have to repeal the AUMF.
Until that happens, this is all in the President's hands.
People Die in Wars. Sometimes the bad guys, sometimes innocent by-standers. The way to end the killing is generally to end (or if you can "win") the war.
vyan