Obama authorizes assassination of US Citizen?

[greenberetTFS]

Does this mean the Executive Order banning assassinations is rescinded?

When did assassination training stop in SF?

Big Teddy

[Richard]

Dead Men Tell No Lies...

Ever read about Operation Mincemeat and "The Man Who Never Was" or "Dead Men Do Tell Tales"...

Richard's $.02

[Pete]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

When did assassination training stop in SF?

Big Teddy

Can not be answered as stated.

First have to define what is "assassination" and then cover legitimate military targets.

Is it possible to "assassinate" a military target?

Ah, time for the SJAs to chime in.

EO 12333, part 2.11 Prohibition on Assassination

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

The EO was updated by EOs 13284, 13355 and 13470 - none changed part 2.11.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by greenberetTFS

When did assassination training stop in SF?

Big Teddy

Over the years I've learned many techniques for interdicting military targets. I've never recieved a block of instruction on assassination methods.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pete

Can not be answered as stated.

First have to define what is "assassination" and then cover legitimate military targets.

Is it possible to "assassinate" a military target?

Ah, time for the SJAs to chime in.

EO 12333, part 2.11 Prohibition on Assassination

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

The EO was updated by EOs 13284, 13355 and 13470 - none changed part 2.11.

I believe that attacks on the "command and control" systems of our enemies are considered legal, even when they are individuals.

TR

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Over the years I've learned many techniques for interdicting military targets. I've never recieved a block of instruction on assassination methods.

When I was with the 12th Group Reserve,in Chicago,not Arlington Heights, they was a program training that required 30 men............ There was an outside perimeter group approx.10 men,an inside perimeter group.approx. 10 men and finally the last 10 men as the "hit team"....... Can I prove this I doubt it,unless someone in the sixties that were in the group support this statement!

Big Teddy

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Institute judicial proceedings (or whatever the legally/constitutionally required proceedures are) and strip him of his citizenship. As a matter of principle I disagree with the US government ordering the extra-judicial killing of AMCITs. After he's "stateless" then kill him. Put a bounty on his head and let good ol' capitalism solve the problem (sorry, got carried away and forgot which POTUS we were discussing).

Originally Posted by armymom1228

I waver back and forth on this issue. He is a terrorist he needs dead.. he is an American citizen he should be afforded due process.

If we, as a nation, allow one person, even a traitor, to NOT be afforded his due process rights. Then we, as a nation, set the precedent, to have our own selves, for any reason that any administration can conjur up, to round us all up and kill/perm detain us?

<<SNIP>>

What would be so hard about charging and trying him in absentia of Treason?

FWIW, I agree with the sentiments expressed in these two posts. I think the options of revoking an Americans citizenship and/or trying him for treason in absentia merit thoughtful discussion.

It remains my opinion that these and other issues are problems today because congressmen and senators decided not to do their jobs in 2002.

An observation. I am taking these news reports with a five pound bag of salt because none of the unnamed sources seem to be familiar with the full text of the president's authorization or the nuances of the debate within the administration.

For example, the 27 January 2010 Washington Post article points out the following.

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture.

This nuance suggests there may be a greater depth of thought behind the decision than journalistic accounts would have us believe.

• How do we know that the president's authorization does not state that every reasonable means should be taken to capture al-Alwaki and that killing him is an acceptable alternative only if these means are unavailable?
• How do we know that the president's authorization does not also include other qualifiers that define further the circumstances in which al-Alwaki is killed?
• How do we know that the president has not developed a sustainable argument as to why the authorization is appropriate--and legal?

While it is conceivable that the current administration was simply too busy to bother with such nuances, it is equally possible that news outlets are repeating the mistake of thinking that getting the story published is more important than getting the story right. Or, as the Washington Post put it:

Correction to This Article
The article referred incorrectly to the presence of U.S. citizens on a CIA list of people the agency seeks to kill or capture. After The Post's report was published, a source said that a statement the source made about the CIA list was misunderstood. Additional reporting produced no independent confirmation of the original report, and a CIA spokesman said that The Post's account of the list was incorrect. The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans. In recent weeks, U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities that threaten Americans.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Does this mean the Executive Order banning assassinations is rescinded?

The executive order you refer to does not ban all assassinations...just political ones.

Executive Order 11905, Section 5 (g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

I think the green light is lit.

[Sten]

This is exactly the kind of thing I wish would not leak. Only the people who are going to do bad things to bad people need to know about it.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Don

...Executive Order 11905, Section 5 (g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

I think the green light is lit.

EO 11905 was superseded by EO 12036. EO 12036 was revoked by EO 12333. See my post above.

This all revolves around what is a legitimate target. Is an American Citizen in open armed conflict with US forces - and on the wrong side of the battlefield a legitimate target? The answer is yes.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Richard

It's definitely one of those moral-ethical dilemmas and a gnarly political quandary - but the facts cannot be ignored...especially by the guys being cast to wear the 'white hats' in this oater.

IMHO, while Awlaki is the enemy, this is a Pandora's Box, we are not a dictatorship or a monarchy where the leader can order the death of a citizen. There are no checks or balances here, and history has shown the dangers of absolute power. The US has a high constitutional hurdle for treason, but you can lose citizenship over it. I'm less concerned about one dirtball than the potential future ramifications for our Republic.

My respectful question for the sheepdogs, clearly if you harm a sheep you are now a wolf, but for those who confront wolves with extreme prejudice, god bless you, but isn't there a line you don't ever cross at the risk of becoming a wolf yourself?

[JimP]

Being a United States citizen does NOT shield you from being classified a combatant under the law of war. If you are a lawful target, you are a lawful target - citizenship doesn't play nor does it allow you to kill us troops/citizens and then claim your citizenship as protection.

Home boy SHOULD be classified as a hostile and engaged on sight.

Good for "curious george". The problem is that it is utterly non-sensical that we could issue an edict to have this guy killed/captured; but we cannot listen in to his phone conversations should he call a buddy of his here state-side. This admin; the lib apologists and the fifth-columnists need a refresher in law of war (LOW) versus law enforcement actions. Law enforcement brought us: Beruit; Khobar; German-discos; USS Cole; Kenya; Klinghoffer; Nigeria; WTC-'93; Mogadishu; WTC '01; Hood; little rock; etc.

law of war just ID's and classifies the hostiles - and we get to go out and kill them. Good story, the kids like it and it comes complete with a "happy-ending". More fun then clubbing baby harp-seals.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Pete

EO 11905 was superseded by EO 12036. EO 12036 was revoked by EO 12333. See my post above.

This all revolves around what is a legitimate target. Is an American Citizen in open armed conflict with US forces - and on the wrong side of the battlefield a legitimate target? The answer is yes.

Absolutely agreed. I guess I was just two Executive Order rewrites behind. Why cant they just publish a damn EO 11905 v 1.0.1. It would save shithouse lawyers (such as myself) a ton of research time.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by JimP

Being a United States citizen does NOT shield you from being classified a combatant under the law of war.

I wonder - what might I read that would help me develop better understanding of the concept of classification as a combatant? I'm asking to learn.

[Don]

…and Pete’s comment made me feel a bit inadequate in my knowledge of these pesky old executive orders…so I went and did some reading.

Yep, it is in there, sure enough. No assassinations.

I read a point paper that made a statement that was very well put. Why did the drafters of the EO not define what entails an assassination? Why did they remain silent? In the original, and every revision, they never specified what constitutes an assassination.

I mean…we all know the end result is death…but what makes the killing an assassination? It isn’t something so basic that we all know automatically what it is…that’s why we are all throwing out thoughts on if it is OK to kill this one ass-hat. Maybe that is why the drafters of the EO chose to remain silent on the subject. If the Administration did target and kill someone, who’s to say what the act was. Could be explained away like, “Naaaaaaw man, what we did was not an assassination…it was an premature, involuntary, termination of an elected term.”