The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
Here at Ricochet, we’ve had a fine debate on the legality of the Awlaki killing. In the Obama Administration, however, there was apparently no debate. White House officials revealed that the DOJ drafted a memo explaining why the targeted killing of a US citizen is legal - and there were no dissenters. And to read that memo, click here –
Oops, sorry, the "most transparent" administration in history actually refuses to release the memo. Hey, I believe in executive secrecy as much as the next guy, but here? As Conor Friedersdorf asks in the Atlantic:
What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch.
It seems to me as clear as day that Obama, Holder, et al simply cannot bear to admit that they have adopted the very arguments championed by our own John Yoo, most recently in the Wall Street Journal. And I say this as somebody who is still troubled by the Awlaki case (although I generally agree with John’s take on executive war powers). As Elie Mystal writes at Above the Law: “Say what you will about John Yoo, but at least the man has the courage of his convictions.” Amen.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
Could be, but the way my Occam's razor slices it, they are embarrassed to have been caught actually troubling to consider the Constitution, and the moment you do that you fall...oops...right into John Yoo's lap.
Interesting point they make that "due process of law" can mean different things in different circumstances and isn't limited to the criminal justice system.
Jun '10
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
I don't think this is over. The blowback on Obama will come from the left...mostly. But as I said in our previous discussions, this bothers me as well, Mr. Freedman, and I am hardly coming from the left. If the guy, Awlacki, has blood on his hands, I am OK, or at least less bothered, with his take out. Our government must at least produce its evidence. If anyone who starts a website and preaches anti-American poop can get dropped by a drone, especially an American citizen, we have crossed into some very disturbing territrory, War on Terror or not. I have supported the capture and interrogation used by Bush,et al since day one. I believe, that with few exceptions, those captives are actually alive and well. Obama has chosen to just kill rather than capture. In the first case, with Bush, the blowback was ear shattering. Yet with Obama all we here are the crickets. Some discussion, at the very least, is warrented by our esteemed political class.
Jan '11
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
After Joe Biden inadvertently admitted that he didn't know who Van Jones was (you know, a "czar" in the administration), you wonder if these guys are capable of the most basic tasks.
Did they issue the order without following protocol, and only now they realize that they were supposed to follow a defined process?
Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules.
Dec '10
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
Bush agonized (and dare I say prayed) over every step taken with individuals in the GWOT. Had John Yoo written exactly the opposite memo on enhanced interrogation it would have become the policy. Obama doesn't seem to have taken much consideration at all of the constitutional and moral questions involved with ordering the killing of a specific individual. He simply went Queen of Hearts and shouted "off with their heads!" I don't think he understands the concept of limits on government. I'm waiting for him to declare his first waiver to the constitution.
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
That's my concern as well. Granted, it's a "slippery slope" argument, but such arguments can be useful to illustrate constitutional principles. Who says it can't happen here? It was that great liberal icon, FDR, who put Japanese Americans into detention camps in the name of national security.
Apr '11
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
Adam Freedman
That's my concern as well. Granted, it's a "slippery slope" argument, but such arguments can be useful to illustrate constitutional principles. Who says it can't happen here? It was that great liberal icon, FDR, who put Japanese Americans into detention camps in the name of national security. · Oct 4 at 1:27p
Unless you have very good reason to believe that is ALL he did, and cdor's preceding sentence ("If the guy, Awlacki, has blood on his hands, I am OK, or at least less bothered, with his take out.") says that he and you do not, this pious vaporing shows that you will resort to slanderous speculation in order to show your own righteousness.
Mr. Freedman, cdor's position contradicts what you put in your post. I have yet to see people who find killing al-Awlacki problematic present the moral and legal principles and how they apply to al-Awlacki so as to militate against shooting him.
Dec '10
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
Grendel
Mr. Freedman, cdor's position contradicts what you put in your post. I have yet to see people who find killing al-Awlacki problematic present the moral and legal principles and how they apply to al-Awlacki so as to militate against shooting him.
The legal and moral principle is that agents of the Government exercising police power should use only the minimum force reasonably required to prevent criminal acts or to further war aims.
If it was impractical to apprehend Al-Awlaki while he was engaged in plotting the deaths of Americans and inciting terrorist acts, then it was appropriate and reasonable to use deadly force from a distance to stop him.
What was not appropriate by that standard was the killing of Osama Bin Laden in a circumstance in which he could have been bound, gagged and carried onto a helicopter. We're not supposed to shoot people for convenience's sake or for the sake of retribution when the option exists to take them as prisoners of war or to apprehend them as criminal suspects. Capturing Al-Awlaki was not a practical option, so killing him was justified - but only on grounds of impracticality of capture.
Dec '10
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
I don't know if Axis Sally or Tokyo Rose were American citizens, but for argument's sake, let's assume they were. Would any of the "slippery slope" worriers here have a problem if we had taken them out during WWII?
Or, here's a better example, how about those Americans who enlisted in the German army during WWII? Would the Allied forces have to ask if there were any American citizens in the German army before engaging?
As silly as that sounds, it seems this is the argument being made against taking out this worm. Al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant and through his own actions made himself a legitimate target. Is that undeniable?
As to why the WH won't release their legal reasoning, I agree with those here who believe BHO is protecting his left flank.
Dec '10
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
If a sense of proportion were worth its weight in gold, then the threat of a Hellfire missile shot from a drone killing a pajama-clad blogger at his computer in some basement in Topeka would not buy you a grande latte at the Starbucks’ flagship in Seattle.
Jun '10
Re: The DOJ's Secret Memo on Awlaki
Grendel,"Unless you have very good reason to believe that is ALL he did, and cdor's preceding sentence ("If the guy, Awlacki, has blood on his hands, I am OK, or at least less bothered, with his take out.") says that he and you do not, this pious vaporing shows that you will resort to slanderous speculation in order to show your own righteousness."
Slanderous speculation!?? So, pray tell Grendel, who is doing the vaporing? I realize perfectly well the difficulty in prosecuting this war against shadowy killers who hide amongst women and children and in their mosques. All I have ever asked in this purported killing of Awlaki is some evidence that he participated in an incident that resulted in the murder of innocents or our soldiers. Is that too much to ask when an American citizen is involved? Bush captured and interrogated, got lots of info, and threw the brigands in Guantanamo. Obama is Eraserhead. He just vaporizes these guys. Sometimes that is the best thing to do. But eventually we lose our ability to get more intelligence. It may be expeditious, but is it stategic? And especially with an American citizen, is it legal?