Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

[LyricFox]

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/#.To26h4IeVBk

[Owl]

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/#.To26h4IeVBk

Don't look behind the curtain......

[LyricFox]

Don't look behind the curtain......

 
I'm really believing there is less difference between Democratic administrations and Republican administrations on stuff like this...and I hate that belief.

[sailor]

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

WASHINGTON — 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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/#.To26h4IeVBk

 
I think the head line is somewhat over the top.  al-Awlaki is the only American that has been targeted.  AFAIK all the targets go thru the same process that al-Awlaki did. The only difference is that al-Awlaki was an American citizen, albeit one whose actions constitute treason. Note the difference between him and Gahdhan.

al-Awlaki probably should get some extra consideration from being targeted by the US based upon his citizenship.  flip side, in our joint operations setup, it would be all to easy for the UK officials to approve the targeting and have them fly that particular mission.  of course he could turn himself in to any US embassy and get a trial in the US for treason.

[Skyth]

of course he could turn himself in to any US embassy and get a trial in the US for treason.

 
You mean a 'trial' with no jury, no defense attorney, no ability to see or confront the evidence against him, and with no one being able to review the procedings or know the actual result all after he is  tortured for a confession?

[Owl]

I'm really believing there is less difference between Democratic administrations and Republican administrations on stuff like this...and I hate that belief.

 
Me too.

[sailor]

You mean a 'trial' with no jury, no defense attorney, no ability to see or confront the evidence against him, and with no one being able to review the procedings or know the actual result all after he is  tortured for a confession?

 
No, a regular trial that any US citizen gets that involves classified material.

[Micheál]

I think the head line is somewhat over the top.  

I think so as well. There's really no positive way to illuminate these things, but it's dirty work which just happens to be important and necessary. There's really no exceptions in defending against "All enemies, foreign and domestic"

[Skyth]

No, a regular trial that any US citizen gets that involves classified material.

 
I believe mine is more likely.  More importantly mine is the one that is believed to be true.  Even if he was innocent he wouldn't turn himself in because he'd be sure he'd be tortured and executed regardless what the truth was.

[RandallS]

The only difference is that al-Awlaki was an American citizen, albeit one whose actions constitute treason.

Given the strict requirements for a treason conviction in the US Constitution, I'm not sure al-Awlaki could be convicted of treason. You need two witnesses to the same act of treason or a confession in open court as required by Article Three, Section Three of the US Constitution. I'm sure he could be found guilty of all sorts of crimes, but treason is very hard to prove to constitutional requirements.

[Castus]

I believe mine is more likely.  More importantly mine is the one that is believed to be true.  Even if he was innocent he wouldn't turn himself in because he'd be sure he'd be tortured and executed regardless what the truth was.

 
But the question is, does it matter? al-Awlaki was a traitor and terrorist who should have been stripped of citizenship the moment he contacted Al-Qaeda. He was guilty; the facts of which are undeniable. He encouraged and inspired terrorist attacks such as 9/11; and was indirectly and directly responsible for the deaths of thousands. The simple fact is: al-Awlaki did not deserve rights. He forfeited his rights as a citizen and, indeed, as a human being, the moment he joined Al-Qaeda.

Back to the topic: Hasn't this been known for a while? And if not, I still fail to see the importance. I'm sure the men and women that preside over this panel know what they're doing. I would imagine that the job of "compiling hit-lists" would still have to be done in any case; why not the panel?

[RandallS]

But the question is, does it matter? al-Awlaki was a traitor and terrorist who should have been stripped of citizenship the moment he contacted Al-Qaeda. He was guilty; the facts of which are undeniable.

If one believes in the rule of law and wishes to uphold the US Constitution, it matters. Things like innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury, etc. are what separate us from Al-Qaeda.

The simple fact is: al-Awlaki did not deserve rights. He forfeited his rights as a citizen and, indeed, as a human being, the moment he joined Al-Qaeda.

I see. And if we approve of this what's to stop some secret panel from deciding that everyone who joins the party out of power does not deserve rights and forfeited their rights as a citizen and a human being when they joined the opposition with their "treasonous" plans to remove "us" from power in the next election?

[Castus]

If one believes in the rule of law and wishes to uphold the US Constitution, it matters. Things like innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury, etc. are what separate us from Al-Qaeda.

There are times when innocent until proven guilty is such a ridiculous notion it ceases to become relevant; this was one of those times. Also, trial by jury would become a hindrance in this case to the execution of justice.

I see. And if we approve of this what's to stop some secret panel from deciding that everyone who joins the party out of power does not deserve rights and forfeited their rights as a citizen and a human being when they joined the opposition with their "treasonous" plans to remove "us" from power in the next election?

 
Clever words. There is a difference between joining an opposition party and actively planning terrorist strikes against the United States. Also you seem to be making the assumption that this panel is strictly partisan; and that it's members can just press a button and magically arrest and execute anyone they damn well please whatever their numbers. To the best of our knowledge all they do is make recommendations to the President; so fantastic scenarios hold no sway over reality.

[RandallS]

There are times when innocent until proven guilty is such a ridiculous notion it ceases to become relevant; this was one of those times. Also, trial by jury would become a hindrance in this case to the execution of justice.

The Bill of Rights is meant to be binding on the US government at all times -- its limitations on the power of the government do not just disappear when they are inconvenient. The Bill of rights is by definition very inconvenient to the government as it is meant to absolutely limit its power. No matter how "inconvenient" trial by jury and the other rights in the Bill of Rights are to the government, the government must abide by those limits. If it does not it really becomes just another terrorist organization out to impose its willing on everyone else by force.

Also, I do not accept that "innocent until proven guilty" ever ceases to be relevant and I will not support any government or political entity that believes that to be true as that is the road to a police state and tyranny. I have no desire for this country to become what it fights. Unfortunately, many people seem to be willing to trade freedom for the illusion of greater safety. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

To the best of our knowledge all they do is make recommendations to the President; so fantastic scenarios hold no sway over reality.

According to the article, it's a bit more than "recommendations to the President." The panel seems to make the decision to protect the President from having to do it. Unelected officials making such a decision are even worse, IMHO.

From the article:

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.

[Inca]

The simple fact is: al-Awlaki did not deserve rights.

There is of course no such fact.

A decision who is deserving or not is ever that: a decision, a judgement call. Never a fact. Many people have been called undeserving by many others - in the name of a god, a leader, a nation, be it racial or moral supremacy, whatever. It always depends on your perspective (mostly being the one calling others underserving vs being called undeserving by others.)  
Which is precisely why certain rights were deemed 'unalienable' - not forfeitable.

I'm sure the men and women that preside over this panel know what they're doing.

 
I am interested in why you are sure? Is that personal experience? Based on thorough investigation on the processes and people in place? Or faith that people in powerful positions always show good judgement?