• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Awlaki Was Working With FBI?

Mike

Well-known member
Newly released documents further support the conclusion that the FBI was working with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki after the 9/11 attacks – in the years before he became the first American targeted for death by a U.S. drone strike.

As part of an ongoing investigation of the cleric that began after the 2009 Fort Hood shooting massacre, Fox News was first to report that in 2002, al-Awlaki was released from custody at JFK International Airport -- despite an active warrant for his arrest -- with the okay of FBI Agent Wade Ammerman.

Watchdog group Judicial Watch has since obtained more than 900 pages of new documents in the course of its federal lawsuit against the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act. They show the cleric was emailing and leaving voice messages with an FBI agent in 2003, a year after Ammerman told customs agents at JFK airport to bypass an outstanding warrant for the cleric's arrest.

The documents further support claims that Awlaki, who eventually went overseas and linked up with an Al Qaeda affiliate, worked with the FBI and was likely a U.S. government asset.

"I have little doubt that President Obama assassinated a terrorist that was an asset of the U.S. government," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

He added: "There have been so many missed opportunities in getting the bad guys, but it's one thing to have a bad guy working with you and for you and actually in your custody and then letting them go."

Fitton questioned whether Obama was even aware of al-Awlaki’s connections to federal law enforcement. “These unanswered questions cast President Obama's decision to assassinate [al-Awlaki] in a disturbingly different light," he said.

In one Oct. 2, 2003 email, an FBI agent whose name is redacted writes to a colleague regarding a voicemail: "Holy crap, [redacted] isn't this your guy? The aman (imam) with the prostitutes.”

Three weeks later, after leaving another voicemail, the cleric uses his personal Yahoo account to write directly to an FBI agent, now stationed at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., to complain about news reports linking al-Awlaki to the 9/11 hijackers.

"I was astonished by some of the talk circulating in the media about me. ... I am amazed at how absurd the media could be and I hope that the US authorities know better and realize that what was mentioned about me was nothing but lies," al-Awlaki writes, appearing to scold the FBI agent.

In another email, an FBI agent bristles at attempts by the 9/11 Commission to locate al-Awlaki and interview him independently, describing the requests as "numerous and unrelenting." The email says the 9/11 Commission wanted to talk to the cleric after it learned he had been phoning and emailing with FBI agents.

Significantly, the email traffic shows that while the 9/11 Commission was trying to find al-Awlaki, an FBI agent was in direct contact with the cleric and set up a meeting with him in March 2004.

"SA [redacted] has had a conversation with Aulaqi and has tentatively set up an interview for mid-March in London. With the VA. Jihad trial scheduled for early Feb. this will be the earliest SA (redacted) can meet Aulaqi … If the 9/11 commission needs to meet with Aulaqi, we will provide the contact information so they can set up their own interview."

Previously obtained records show that in 2002, within days of al-Awlaki’s re-entry to the U.S., he showed up in Ammerman's counterterrorism investigation in Virginia into Ali al-Timimi, who is now serving a life sentence on non-terrorism charges. On Oct. 22, 2002, 12 days after the imam's return, another FBI memo obtained through the Judicial Watch federal lawsuit (marked "Secret”) includes the subject line "Anwar Nasser Aulaqi" and "Synopsis: Asset reporting." The existence of the customs entry records was first documented by author Paul Sperry.

Asked about the FBI's involvement in al-Awlaki's release and whether the FBI tried to recruit the cleric, in a September 2013 interview with Fox News, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller did not deny it.

"I am not personally familiar with any effort to recruit Anwar al-Awlaki as an asset -- that does not mean to say there was not an effort at some level of the Bureau (FBI) or another agency to do so," Mueller said.

Mueller did not elaborate on a memo he personally sent then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on Oct. 3, 2002 -- seven days before the imam suddenly re-entered the U.S., was detained and then released at JFK Airport, by the order of Mueller's agent -- that is marked "Secret" and titled "Anwar Aulaqi: IT-UBL/AL-QAEDA."

It is not public whether al-Awlaki's contact information was provided by the FBI to the commission, but in the 9/11 report into the 2001 terrorist attacks, it states efforts to locate al-Awlaki were unsuccessful.

Fitton claims federal law enforcement had al-Awlaki in their custody, until the FBI let him walk -- and in the years before he was killed by a CIA drone in 2011, al-Awlaki pioneered the digital jihad, now being capitalized upon by the Islamic State, or ISIS.

"ISIS took that and ran with it -- who knows, maybe if we had gotten al-Awlaki and kept him off the streets and in jail or in prison where he belonged that there would have been a much more slower development of the Internet jihad that we're all facing worldwide."

Catherine Herridge is the author of “The Next Wave: On the Hunt for Al Qaeda’s American Recruits"

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

I have little doubt that President Obama assassinated a terrorist that was an asset of the U.S. government
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Newly released documents further support the conclusion that the FBI was working with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki after the 9/11 attacks – in the years before he became the first American targeted for death by a U.S. drone strike.

As part of an ongoing investigation of the cleric that began after the 2009 Fort Hood shooting massacre, Fox News was first to report that in 2002, al-Awlaki was released from custody at JFK International Airport -- despite an active warrant for his arrest -- with the okay of FBI Agent Wade Ammerman.

Watchdog group Judicial Watch has since obtained more than 900 pages of new documents in the course of its federal lawsuit against the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act. They show the cleric was emailing and leaving voice messages with an FBI agent in 2003, a year after Ammerman told customs agents at JFK airport to bypass an outstanding warrant for the cleric's arrest.

The documents further support claims that Awlaki, who eventually went overseas and linked up with an Al Qaeda affiliate, worked with the FBI and was likely a U.S. government asset.

"I have little doubt that President Obama assassinated a terrorist that was an asset of the U.S. government," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

He added: "There have been so many missed opportunities in getting the bad guys, but it's one thing to have a bad guy working with you and for you and actually in your custody and then letting them go."

Fitton questioned whether Obama was even aware of al-Awlaki’s connections to federal law enforcement. “These unanswered questions cast President Obama's decision to assassinate [al-Awlaki] in a disturbingly different light," he said.

In one Oct. 2, 2003 email, an FBI agent whose name is redacted writes to a colleague regarding a voicemail: "Holy crap, [redacted] isn't this your guy? The aman (imam) with the prostitutes.”

Three weeks later, after leaving another voicemail, the cleric uses his personal Yahoo account to write directly to an FBI agent, now stationed at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va., to complain about news reports linking al-Awlaki to the 9/11 hijackers.

"I was astonished by some of the talk circulating in the media about me. ... I am amazed at how absurd the media could be and I hope that the US authorities know better and realize that what was mentioned about me was nothing but lies," al-Awlaki writes, appearing to scold the FBI agent.

In another email, an FBI agent bristles at attempts by the 9/11 Commission to locate al-Awlaki and interview him independently, describing the requests as "numerous and unrelenting." The email says the 9/11 Commission wanted to talk to the cleric after it learned he had been phoning and emailing with FBI agents.

Significantly, the email traffic shows that while the 9/11 Commission was trying to find al-Awlaki, an FBI agent was in direct contact with the cleric and set up a meeting with him in March 2004.

"SA [redacted] has had a conversation with Aulaqi and has tentatively set up an interview for mid-March in London. With the VA. Jihad trial scheduled for early Feb. this will be the earliest SA (redacted) can meet Aulaqi … If the 9/11 commission needs to meet with Aulaqi, we will provide the contact information so they can set up their own interview."

Previously obtained records show that in 2002, within days of al-Awlaki’s re-entry to the U.S., he showed up in Ammerman's counterterrorism investigation in Virginia into Ali al-Timimi, who is now serving a life sentence on non-terrorism charges. On Oct. 22, 2002, 12 days after the imam's return, another FBI memo obtained through the Judicial Watch federal lawsuit (marked "Secret”) includes the subject line "Anwar Nasser Aulaqi" and "Synopsis: Asset reporting." The existence of the customs entry records was first documented by author Paul Sperry.

Asked about the FBI's involvement in al-Awlaki's release and whether the FBI tried to recruit the cleric, in a September 2013 interview with Fox News, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller did not deny it.

"I am not personally familiar with any effort to recruit Anwar al-Awlaki as an asset -- that does not mean to say there was not an effort at some level of the Bureau (FBI) or another agency to do so," Mueller said.

Mueller did not elaborate on a memo he personally sent then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on Oct. 3, 2002 -- seven days before the imam suddenly re-entered the U.S., was detained and then released at JFK Airport, by the order of Mueller's agent -- that is marked "Secret" and titled "Anwar Aulaqi: IT-UBL/AL-QAEDA."

It is not public whether al-Awlaki's contact information was provided by the FBI to the commission, but in the 9/11 report into the 2001 terrorist attacks, it states efforts to locate al-Awlaki were unsuccessful.

Fitton claims federal law enforcement had al-Awlaki in their custody, until the FBI let him walk -- and in the years before he was killed by a CIA drone in 2011, al-Awlaki pioneered the digital jihad, now being capitalized upon by the Islamic State, or ISIS.

"ISIS took that and ran with it -- who knows, maybe if we had gotten al-Awlaki and kept him off the streets and in jail or in prison where he belonged that there would have been a much more slower development of the Internet jihad that we're all facing worldwide."

Catherine Herridge is the author of “The Next Wave: On the Hunt for Al Qaeda’s American Recruits"

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

I have little doubt that President Obama assassinated a terrorist that was an asset of the U.S. government

Yep- crooks supply the best info about other crooks... You don't get your best intelligence info using Priests and Nuns for informants... :wink:

As far as his getting droned- a lot of water went under the bridge between 2002 and 20ll... Once he went rogue he was fair game....
 

Mike

Well-known member
No one is doubting that Awlaki was a questionable character. To the contrary.

But when the president authorizes the killing of an American citizen/FBI informant/important U.S. intelligence asset off the battlefield without judicial review or process, something has gone wrong.

Holder said everyone is entitled to "due process" , but not "judicial process". Can you explain the difference?

Can you show an indictment?

What bothers me even more:
Anwar al-Awlaki and Egyptian-born Gihan Mohsen Baker had an American son, born August 26, 1995, in Denver, named Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki.[254] Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members two weeks after the death of his father.[255] Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-led attack. Among the dead was a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman. According to US officials, the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was reported to have gone out in the desert to search for his missing father but was sitting in a cafe when he was killed.[257] Human rights groups have raised questions as to why an American citizen was killed by the US in a country with which the United States is not at war. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki had no connection to terrorism
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
No one is doubting that Awlaki was a questionable character. To the contrary.

But when the president authorizes the killing of an American citizen/FBI informant/important U.S. intelligence asset off the battlefield without judicial review or process, something has gone wrong.

Holder said everyone is entitled to "due process" , but not "judicial process". Can you explain the difference?

Can you show an indictment?

He was tried in absentia in Yemen (his other dual citizenship) and in 2009 a Yemeni Court ordered he be captured "dead or alive"... I believe the "due process" came from overview by senior intelligence and state officials making the recommendation to the President who made the final decision...

I agree- maybe it should be a Judge or panel of Judges that listen to the evidence and make the decision- but in either way we need to have a way to stop these dangerous criminals who are located in countries or war zones where physically arresting them is not possible...



Here's When It's Legal To Kill An American Citizen With A Drone


Brett LoGiurato

Jun. 23, 2014, 12:08 PM

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has released a secret Obama administration memorandum detailing the legal justification for a 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader born in the U.S.

The memo concludes that al-Awlaki's citizenship would not preclude the U.S. from "taking lethal action" against him, based on facts about the case submitted by the CIA, Department of Defense, and intelligence community. This summation of legality is predicated on the U.S. government's declaration of al-Awlaki as an "operational leader" of an "enemy force" — al Qaeda.

Here's the rationale, as summarized by Reuters:

The memo, prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says that because the U.S. government considered al Awlaki to be an "operational leader" of an "enemy force," it would be legal for the CIA to attack him with a drone "as part of the United States' ongoing non-international armed conflict with al Qaeda," even though he was a U.S. citizen.

The memo also says the killing of al Awlaki by U.S. military forces would be legal under an authorization for the use of U.S. military force approved by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

According to the memo, a U.S. citizen like al-Awlaki would be protected by the Fifth Amendment's due-process clause, as well as the Fourth Amendment, even while he is abroad. But the memo states a "decision-maker," such as President Barack Obama, could "reasonably conclude" that al-Awlaki's actions posed a "continued" and "imminent" threat to the United States.

"In addition to the nature of the threat posed by al-Aulaqi's activities, both agencies here have represented that they intend to capture rather than target al-Aulaqi if feasible; yet we also understand that an operation by either agency to capture al-Aulaqi in Yemen would be infeasible at this time," the memo reads.

The release of the memo comes after the White House allowed senators to see it amid a fight over the nomination of David Barron to fill a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Barron, who was then the acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote multiple opinions in support of the use of drones against American citizens, including this one.

Citing from the Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Barron wrote that "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including against U.S. citizens who have become part of enemy forces —and that "due process analysis need not blink at those realities.

The memo's release also comes in response to a suit from The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union. Jameel Jaffer, the ALCU's deputy legal director who argued the case, said the memo's release marked a "crucial step toward transparency."

"There are few questions more important than the question of when the government has the authority to kill its own citizens," Jaffer said. "This memo’s release will allow the public to better understand the scope and implications of the authority the government is claiming. We will continue to press for the release of other documents relating to the targeted killing program, including other legal memos and documents relating to civilian casualties."

The full memo is embedded below (the memo begins on Page 67):


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/memo-drone-strikes-american-citizens-2014-6#ixzz37y3INwm9

Long recognized at Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight...

The courts in some areas have added that law enforcement has the right by law to use deadly/lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

The military needs this ability too...Especially now that they are dealing in the hunting down of dangerous criminals that want nothing better than to kill some more Americans....

Anwar al-Awlaki (an alleged felon) got much more review of his case than some alleged felons do when a law enforcement officer has to make a split second decision on whether the suspects escape endangers himself or other officers and/or citizens...
 

Mike

Well-known member
You don't get it, do you? If they can be found riding in a car or sitting in a restaurant, they can be arrested. Period.

To give someone, the president, that much power is a road we don't need to go down.

What about his son? Who had no ties to terrorism and was killed by the U.S. as an admitted mistake. Who knows how far this will go if left unchecked? :roll:

A "Yemeni" indictment? REALLY? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
You don't get it, do you? If they can be found riding in a car or sitting in a restaurant, they can be arrested. Period.

To give someone, the president, that much power is a road we don't need to go down.

What about his son? Who had no ties to terrorism and was killed by the U.S. as an admitted mistake. Who knows how far this will go if left unchecked? :roll:

A "Yemeni" indictment? REALLY? :roll:

Well- since you have all the answers- and holier than thou above all world law enforcement--- why don't you walk into a Syrian café- flash your badge and haul one of the ISIS leaders out :???: :roll:

I don't think your KKK Grand Poobah status would give you any grace in keeping your head.... :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
You don't get it, do you? If they can be found riding in a car or sitting in a restaurant, they can be arrested. Period.

To give someone, the president, that much power is a road we don't need to go down.

What about his son? Who had no ties to terrorism and was killed by the U.S. as an admitted mistake. Who knows how far this will go if left unchecked? :roll:

A "Yemeni" indictment? REALLY? :roll:

Well- since you have all the answers- and holier than thou above all world law enforcement--- why don't you walk into a Syrian café- flash your badge and haul one of the ISIS leaders out :???: :roll:

I don't think your KKK Grand Poobah status would give you any grace in keeping your head.... :wink:

The Yemeni's could have arrested him since it was their Warrant. :lol: :lol:

Awlaki was in the U.S. Consulate in Yemen twice after 2006 and no one stopped him then. It's clear there was contact with him well after 2002 and still they killed him.

The big difference between you and I is that I would condemn this action if it were as if George Washington or Thomas Jefferson had done it.

But you are ONLY trying to defend the HNIC and you know he is wrong. :roll: WHY? :roll:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
OldBrainDead said:
Long recognized at Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight...

He was a phucking American citizen OT who had never been charged with A SINGLE PHUCKING CRIME in the United States.

So much for your bullshit about that precious constitution. The president, the one YOU HELPED ELECT, ordered the murder of an American citizen without so much as a day in court or a single charge levied against him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
OldBrainDead said:
Long recognized at Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight...

He was a phucking American citizen OT who had never been charged with A SINGLE PHUCKING CRIME in the United States.

So much for your BS about that precious constitution. The president, the one YOU HELPED ELECT, ordered the murder of an American citizen without so much as a day in court or a single charge levied against him.


You and the KKK grand poobah remind me of several of the John Wayne wannabe types I've known that have to use nasty words to make themselves feel bigger and have all kinds of big man sounding ideas of how they would one handedly handle these arrests -- but when actually put in the situation-- and told to walk the talk they wee wee down their pants as they run away with their tail between their legs ... :wink: :roll:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Check out these gems from the fatman when he learned the Bush Administration had poured water down the noses of 3 top al-Queda captives who they believed had had a direct role in the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9-11. Remember, none of these 3 was an American citizen.

The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

like the State Dept. Chief of Staff- Col. Wilkerson testified to- this now has greatly reduced the standing and respect the US had thruout the world because of these ideals and beliefs we have so long honored, promoted, and millions have fought and died for..

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

Mike if getting kookier means following,enforcing, and defending the laws we've passed or signed on to and the US Constitution as written- then I guess I'm kooky...As I've spent most my entire adult life enforcing and defending those laws and that precious Constitution...

When we allow anyone to bend or go around the law- or put themselves out to be above the law, then we start down a slippery slope- something I think this Administration has done since day one on a whole lot more issues besides torture...

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis
Source: part of his dissent in the case "Olmstead v. United States", 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

Altho in the other 2 rulings that the Supreme Court has brought down against his actions- he has completely run roughshod over and essentially invalidated them- tearing yet another corner out of our Constitution...

Justice Anthony Kennedy: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and Security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law. "

Your right Clarence- nor did Sharon Tate or any of the others killed by Charles Manson- or the many 100's killed each year by the illegal invaders to our country...But our Constitution says they all have a right to have their legality to be held reviewed- and their future decided by judge, jury or tribunal....

Nope- but Bush's throwing out of the Constitution- and his attorneys opinions that they could pick anyone- citizen or not- off the street- whisk them away to a hidden prison without warrent or judicial review- or transport them around the world to secret torture prisons is the reason folks like Bob Barr and many other Constitutional lawyers have donated a lot of work to the ACLU......

Amazing isn't it. The same man who made all the excuses to Mike's posts above is the same man who argued exactly the opposite when Bush was president.....not for killing an American citizen without due process, no, for pouring water down the noses of 3 high value al-Queda operatives just after 9-11.

Folks, what we have here is a perfect example of a political tool, a man who marches to the drum beat of his handlers and drinks the koolaid.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
You and the KKK grand poobah remind me of several of the John Wayne wannabe types I've known that have to use nasty words to make themselves feel bigger and have all kinds of big man sounding ideas of how they would one handedly handle these arrests -- but when actually put in the situation-- and told to walk the talk they wee wee down their pants as they run away with their tail between their legs ... :wink: :roll:

So insult Mike and me but avoid the topic, right? Figures you coward.

And for the record, I'm betting in my travels around the world that I've been in more life threatening circumstances than you've ever seen in mean ole Valley County. And I handled myself just fine, even that night I thought to myself, "well, is this where it ends".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Check out these gems from the fatman when he learned the Bush Administration had poured water down the noses of 3 top al-Queda captives who they believed had had a direct role in the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9-11. Remember, none of these 3 was an American citizen.

The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

like the State Dept. Chief of Staff- Col. Wilkerson testified to- this now has greatly reduced the standing and respect the US had thruout the world because of these ideals and beliefs we have so long honored, promoted, and millions have fought and died for..

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.

Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

Mike if getting kookier means following,enforcing, and defending the laws we've passed or signed on to and the US Constitution as written- then I guess I'm kooky...As I've spent most my entire adult life enforcing and defending those laws and that precious Constitution...

When we allow anyone to bend or go around the law- or put themselves out to be above the law, then we start down a slippery slope- something I think this Administration has done since day one on a whole lot more issues besides torture...

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis
Source: part of his dissent in the case "Olmstead v. United States", 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

It means the Supreme Court says King George can't play God- as he thinks of himself....That everyone has a right to their day in Court...

Altho in the other 2 rulings that the Supreme Court has brought down against his actions- he has completely run roughshod over and essentially invalidated them- tearing yet another corner out of our Constitution...

Justice Anthony Kennedy: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and Security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law. "

Your right Clarence- nor did Sharon Tate or any of the others killed by Charles Manson- or the many 100's killed each year by the illegal invaders to our country...But our Constitution says they all have a right to have their legality to be held reviewed- and their future decided by judge, jury or tribunal....

Nope- but Bush's throwing out of the Constitution- and his attorneys opinions that they could pick anyone- citizen or not- off the street- whisk them away to a hidden prison without warrent or judicial review- or transport them around the world to secret torture prisons is the reason folks like Bob Barr and many other Constitutional lawyers have donated a lot of work to the ACLU......

Amazing isn't it. The same man who made all the excuses to Mike's posts above is the same man who argued exactly the opposite when Bush was president.....not for killing an American citizen without due process, no, for pouring water down the noses of 3 high value al-Queda operatives just after 9-11.

Folks, what we have here is a perfect example of a political tool, a man who marches to the drum beat of his handlers and drinks the koolaid.



Here's When It's Legal To Kill An American Citizen With A Drone


Brett LoGiurato

Jun. 23, 2014, 12:08 PM

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has released a secret Obama administration memorandum detailing the legal justification for a 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader born in the U.S.

The memo concludes that al-Awlaki's citizenship would not preclude the U.S. from "taking lethal action" against him, based on facts about the case submitted by the CIA, Department of Defense, and intelligence community. This summation of legality is predicated on the U.S. government's declaration of al-Awlaki as an "operational leader" of an "enemy force" — al Qaeda.

Here's the rationale, as summarized by Reuters:

The memo, prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says that because the U.S. government considered al Awlaki to be an "operational leader" of an "enemy force," it would be legal for the CIA to attack him with a drone "as part of the United States' ongoing non-international armed conflict with al Qaeda," even though he was a U.S. citizen.

The memo also says the killing of al Awlaki by U.S. military forces would be legal under an authorization for the use of U.S. military force approved by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

According to the memo, a U.S. citizen like al-Awlaki would be protected by the Fifth Amendment's due-process clause, as well as the Fourth Amendment, even while he is abroad. But the memo states a "decision-maker," such as President Barack Obama, could "reasonably conclude" that al-Awlaki's actions posed a "continued" and "imminent" threat to the United States.

"In addition to the nature of the threat posed by al-Aulaqi's activities, both agencies here have represented that they intend to capture rather than target al-Aulaqi if feasible; yet we also understand that an operation by either agency to capture al-Aulaqi in Yemen would be infeasible at this time," the memo reads.

The release of the memo comes after the White House allowed senators to see it amid a fight over the nomination of David Barron to fill a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Barron, who was then the acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote multiple opinions in support of the use of drones against American citizens, including this one.

Citing from the Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Barron wrote that "the realities of combat" render certain uses of force "necessary and appropriate," including against U.S. citizens who have become part of enemy forces —and that "due process analysis need not blink at those realities.

The memo's release also comes in response to a suit from The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union. Jameel Jaffer, the ALCU's deputy legal director who argued the case, said the memo's release marked a "crucial step toward transparency."

"There are few questions more important than the question of when the government has the authority to kill its own citizens," Jaffer said. "This memo’s release will allow the public to better understand the scope and implications of the authority the government is claiming. We will continue to press for the release of other documents relating to the targeted killing program, including other legal memos and documents relating to civilian casualties."

The full memo is embedded below (the memo begins on Page 67):


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/memo-drone-strikes-american-citizens-2014-6#ixzz37y3INwm9

Long recognized at Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight...

The courts in some areas have added that law enforcement has the right by law to use deadly/lethal force to prevent the escape of a felon that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

The military needs this ability too...Especially now that they are dealing in the hunting down of dangerous criminals that want nothing better than to kill some more Americans....

Anwar al-Awlaki (an alleged felon) got much more review of his case than some alleged felons do when a law enforcement officer has to make a split second decision on whether the suspects escape endangers himself or other officers and/or citizens...

Lot of difference between using deadly force on someone who as long as they are on the loose is a major danger to US citizens/troops as well as the population world wide--- and physically injuring and/or killing someone that is already in custody and no longer posing a threat ...

Torture of prisoners has long been a taboo with the free world and US military/police - but using deadly force on a fleeing felon, the Fleeing Felon Rule, has been around since Common Law days and still is on the books....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Why are they not using a drone and hellfire missile on the guy hiding out in the Pennsylvania bush?

I'd bet they have drones packing all kinds of detecting equipment up looking for him... Problem with that is I understand that this is heavily timbered country full of wildlife and now deer hunters....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
but using deadly force on a fleeing felon, the Fleeing Felon Rule, has been around since Common Law days and still is on the books....

Which felon are you referring to OT?

Which book?

U.S. Law

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."


A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Why are they not using a drone and hellfire missile on the guy hiding out in the Pennsylvania bush?

I'd bet they have drones packing all kinds of detecting equipment up looking for him... Problem with that is I understand that this is heavily timbered country full of wildlife and now deer hunters....

So taking out innocent associates is okay, but taking out a few trees and a deer, or 2 isn't?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Why are they not using a drone and hellfire missile on the guy hiding out in the Pennsylvania bush?

I'd bet they have drones packing all kinds of detecting equipment up looking for him... Problem with that is I understand that this is heavily timbered country full of wildlife and now deer hunters....

So taking out innocent associates is okay, but taking out a few trees and a deer, or 2 isn't?

You didn't really post that did you :???: :shock: Like discussing something with a bunch of second graders.... :roll:
But at least they would have concern for the deer :wink: :p :lol:
 
Top