You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
I finally got around to reading the New York Times story about the secret legal memorandum the Justice Department drafted that asserts the White House had the authority to take out American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. This being the Times, here's how they put it:
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis. The memo, however, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Mr. Awlaki’s case and did not establish a broad new legal doctrine to permit the targeted killing of any Americans believed to pose a terrorist threat.
And how do we know these things? Well, it's hard to say since the memo is ... secret.
In any case, what I found fascinating about the whole story is who the authors of the memo were:
It was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman ...
Now, if those names seem familiar, it's likely because they were vehement critics of -- wait for it -- the war powers that President George W. Bush claimed. You can read their articles in the Harvard Law Review here.
Now, as someone who is generally leery of the war powers that presidents claim, I would just love to find out why everything from wiretapping to waterboarding an enemy combatant is an abomination unto mankind while assassinating an American citizen using secret legal justifications is awesome.
Can anyone help me out?
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
I'm one of those people who gets very angry at the use of the word "hypocrite" to describe someone merely failing to live up to the standards they claim to adhere to. But this seems like a perfect example of hypocrisy: professing to believe something you actually don't. No matter how you slice it -- either they pretended to believe Bush was usurping his powers or they're pretending to believe Obama has these war powers. I mean, maybe their legal reasoning has somehow figured out a non-hypocritical way to argue against actions less than death against people who are not U.S. citizens while arguing for assassination of U.S. citizens. And so long as that memo is secret, we won't know. But it sure seems appallingly hypocritical.
Sep '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Bush wanted a legal opinion that said he could use water boarding etc. Obama wanted one that said he could kill this worm. Lawyers provided what they were asked to provide. Both were prudent decisions in a time of war. Lawyers are hired guns who do what there paid to do. It is silly when they pretend to be something other than what they are.
Sep '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
I believe that under Michelle Obama's new diet directives the assassination was justified as a weight loss measure.
Jun '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
The difference between our intelligence agents, and the enemy's agents, is that our interrogators don't do anything to anybody that they haven't experienced themselves, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and the other discomforts. Our interrogators need to know that there's no risk of death, or permanent injury, because they're decent guys. They had a difficult task (basically attitude adjustment) and they did it honorably.
Jun '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
I think there is a fundamental difference between the opinion rendered by John Yoo and the one that justifies the killing of Awlaki. In John's case, he was able to render a decision that he personally believes is correct under the law. In the latter, these guys rendered an opinion they probably hate, but "provided what they were asked to provide."
John's no hypocrite. Barron and Lederman are.
Jul '11
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Somebody defined a Fascist state as one where everything is illegal and the laws are selectively enforced. Before attaining that state comes the " thought experiments," such as these in which "goose and gander" are transposed depending upon whose ox is to be gored.
If we were smart like our overseers, we'd not be worrying our little heads over this. After all, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," and if Emerson said it, must be true.
All those smart guys say so.
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Whatever the legal justification, the selective outrage against President Bush is mystifying. Who wouldn't rather spend time in Guantanamo or face some water up the nose than be on the receiving end of Hellfire missiles?
Jul '11
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Really, it's not mystifying, because it never had anything to do with legal justification, only with the acquisition and maintenance of political power. IMHO, it's simply that there are people who love political power more than they love America, and anything is acceptable in that pursuit.
Such people are not our opponents; they are our enemies.
Sad, but true.
Jun '11
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
I'm now beginning to wonder if Obama has Dick Cheney secretly running this Administration's Overseas Contingency Operations. Other than the name change (well, and the legally justified directives to assassinate vs legally justified directives to merely interrogate), it's hard to distinguish this President's war on terror from the last President's. That Cheney is more devious than we knew. Does anyone know if Obama holds any stock in Haliburton?
Oct '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Molly and TR... What we call hypocrisy, the left calls tactics. Get used to it.
Jun '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Sadly true.
Feb '11
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
So let's see; "The end justifies the means"....hmmmm, seems as though we've heard that before somewhere......wasn't that some Socialistic dogma from the past? How did that get here now? Oh yea, that goes with all the rest of the socialist policy coming out of the Whitehouse now. Darn, I thought we won the Cold War and proved Socialism just doesn't work, but here it is again, only this time coming from the obamacrats administration. When will it end???
Mar '11
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
What's even more galling than the ridiculously partisan attacks against Bush and blatant hypocrisy here is the sheer cognitive dissonance on the left about the issue of hypocrisy itself.
Leftists are normally the ones outraged that this or that conservative has advocated a public policy or faith position that they haven't always lived up to themselves.
Now here we have as clear cut a case of hypocrisy imaginable, and the majority of the left is completely silent or offering only pro forma protest. Where are the "Obama Lied, People Died" signs? Where are the calls for the staff behind these memos to be brought up on War Crimes charges a la GWB's administration? Where are the Democratic Congressmen and Senators outraged at the expansion of the Executive's war powers?
The hypocrisy of the lawyers is matched only by the hypocrisy of every single leftist who isn't calling for Obama's impeachment.
Sep '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
But that's what being a hypocrite is, is it not? The key term being claim to and the key phrase being live up to what one asserts as the correct standard. Of course one doesn't get angry at someone for acknowledging her failings in living up to the standards she sets for herself. That's humility. But to assert in one year that what another person is doing is evil and then a few years later follow those own deeds yourself, all the while claiming it is improper for anyone to criticize you—or call you a hypocrite—is not only hypocritical; it's also quite dangerous, especially when the ones being hypocritical have power over others, as in this case.
Oct '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
One has to start with the question: Do you believe in a "Living Constitution" or the "Original Intent or Plain Meaning of the Constitution by it's drafters"? Unfortunately, statements along the lines that of "We are at War" are false. Congres has not declared war since December 8th of 1941. That war came to a legal end in September of 1945. If you say, " I am being semantical because Congress Voted to act and that is the same thing!" If that is your answer, then you believe in the philosophy of a Living Constitution followed by Woodrow Wilson, Felix Frakfuter, William Brennan, Ruth Ginsburg, Kagan, and of course of Schumer. The problem with one-sided legal analysis is that it solely self-serving and intellectually bankrupt and legally provides little actual weight or justification. If on the other hand you want to see if the Constitution provides the President with the right and power to murder a citizen based on a secret panel's determination without due process, it does not. Killing citizens that are overseas based on the finding of a secret panel seem much more aligned with Stalin, Mao or Hitler. The key point being missed is US Citizen.
Oct '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
One has to start with the question: Do you believe in a "Living Constitution" or the "Original Intent or Plain Meaning of the Constitution by it's drafters"? Unfortunately, statements along the lines that of "We are at War" are false. Congres has not declared war since December 8th of 1941. That war came to a legal end in September of 1945. If you say, " I am being semantical because Congress Voted to act and that is the same thing!" If that is your answer, then you believe in the philosophy of a Living Constitution followed by Woodrow Wilson, Felix Frakfuter, William Brennan, Ruth Ginsburg, Kagan, and of course of Schumer. The problem with one-sided legal analysis is that it solely self-serving and intellectually bankrupt and legally provides little actual weight or justification. If on the other hand you want to see if the Constitution provides the President with the right and power to murder a citizen based on a secret panel's determination without due process, it does not. Killing citizens that are overseas based on the finding of a secret panel seem much more aligned with Stalin, Mao or Hitler. The key point being missed is US Citizen.
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Leslie Watkins
But that's what being a hypocrite is, is it not? The key term being claim to and the key phrase being live up to what one asserts as the correct standard. Of course one doesn't get angry at someone for acknowledging her failings in living up to the standards she sets for herself. That's humility. But to assert in one year that what another person is doing is evil and then a few years later follow those own deeds yourself, all the while claiming it is improper for anyone to criticize you—or call you a hypocrite—is not only hypocritical; it's also quite dangerous, especially when the ones being hypocritical have power over others, as in this case. · Oct 13 at 9:08am
Well, hypocrisy is supposed to refer to people only claiming to believe in something that they really don't. That's why I hate it being used to describe people who are just run of the mill drug users/philanderers/liars, etc.. But claiming to oppose expanded presidential powers when *really* you don't -- that's the perfect example of actual hypocrisy, I imagine.
Sep '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Well, hypocrisy is supposed to refer to people only claiming to believe in something that they really don't. That's why I hate it being used to describe people who are just run of the mill drug users/philanderers/liars, etc.. But claiming to oppose expanded presidential powers when *really* you don't -- that's the perfect example of actual hypocrisy, I imagine. · Oct 13 at 9:14am
Oh, I definitely agree that it's not an apt term for people simply not living up to the social standards they support but only if they do not claim to be doing so. So the guy who agonizes over his inability to quit smoking but wants to is not a hypocrite, whereas the guy who claims he's quit smoking but is actually going behind the barn to steal a quick smoke most definitely is. I don't mean to belabor the point; it's just that I'm surrounded by people who say Bush's war on terror was evil but that Obama's isn't because his reasons aren't the same as Bush's! Which drives me to ... become a hermit.
Edited on October 13, 2011 at 6:40pmAug '10
Re: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Secret al-Awlaki Memo
"Unfortunately, statements along the lines that of "We are at War" are false. Congres has not declared war since December 8th of 1941. That war came to a legal end in September of 1945. If you say, " I am being semantical because Congress Voted to act and that is the same thing!""
A good discussion of what actually constitutes a "declaration of war" can be found in Professor Joseph Bessette's discussion of Professor Yoo's book on the Powers of War and Peace.
When Congress passed the authorization to use force, they were in fact declaring war. The fact that the Congress wanted to play semantic games, so that they could make wishy-washy political arguments about whether they "declared war" or not has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has to do with a CYA attitude of those who wanted to authorize force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, but didn't want to take political heat later.
As Yoo points out in his book, the US has been in 125 military conflicts. They have only formally issued 4 "declarations of war." In 1798, hardly the heyday of the living constitution, they were already playing semantics.