The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

The Atlantic ^ | 10/03/2011 | Conor Friedersdorf

[TheOldLady]

This sets a dangerous precedent.

Are we not American citizens?

Will we simply die if zer0 or any other president has some secret reason for killing us without due process?

This is bad, guys and gals.

[BuckeyeTexan]

This sets a dangerous precedent. Are we not American citizens? Will we simply die if zer0 or any other president has some secret reason for killing us without due process? This is bad, guys and gals.

I think the secrecy sets a bad precedent, but I believe the killing was legal and justified under the AUMF.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed several days after 9/11 and was used to justify action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but was limited neither to Afghanistan nor to al-Qaeda.

The AUMF stipulates "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The Bush administration determined that al-Qaeda planned and committed the 9/11 attacks. al-Alawki was a chief "officer" of al-Qaeda. Therefore, under the AUMF, Obama is authorized to use all necessary force against al-Alawki. The AUMF does not specifically limit his use of force to foreign nationals. So he is legally justified in issuing a capture-or-kill order for members of al-Qaeda even if they're American citizens.

[TheOldLady]

I agree, so long as we never elect another lawless marauder who is out to destroy our country.

The Manchurian President is great at stretching precedent and the Constitution to the breaking point. I’m not at all sanguine about this.

[Bokababe]

Let me get this straight. We have to close down Gitmo which simply detains foreign terrorists b/c it somehow violates their rights. And we must allow or furnish them with legal counsel even though they were detained on the battlefield. But, we can kill an American terrorist without any due process whatsoever. How is such an act Constitutionally justified? It’s not morally or legally consistent.

Because logic flies out the window when you can politically tap into the human desire for revenge.

And, why should the Left question Obama on this-- especially with an election so close for their guy -- when even most of the Right is cheering it?

[Bokababe]

I too am most concerned about the issue of our Constitutional protections as citizens being ignored -- not Awlaki personally.

But looking for reasons that he might have been legally taken out this way (I found none), I did some digging on Awlaki and was pretty shocked to discover a few things:

1. Right after 9/11, the Pentagon was reaching out to "moderate Muslims" and they identified and vetted al Awlaki before the invited him to a Pentagon luncheon, which Awlaki attended.

2. In 2002, Al-Awlaki was the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association's first imam to conduct a prayer service at the U.S. Capitol.

3. Post 9/11, Awlaki was interviewed by a lot of the news media, including the NYT, where al Awlaki said regarding 9/11: "There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion."

Pretty ironic that Awlaki's words in the article above seem to have become the post-9/11 meme for how both the Bush and Obama Administration treat Islam -- as though terrorism just is a perversion of Islam.

So now every time I hear that nonsense, I'm going to remember that this attitude is based on the words of a terrorist so vile that the US government targeted him for death in spite of his American citizenship.