Had Anwar al Awlaki taken up arms against the US? I mus have missed that.[AG Eric Holder] outlined a three-part test for determining when a targeted killing against a US citizen is legal. He said the government must determine after careful review that the citizen poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US, capture is not feasible and the killing would be consistent with laws of war.
The Obama administration has refused to release the justice department legal opinion on al-Awlaki's killing under the Freedom of Information Act and is in court opposing efforts to have it made public.
Responding to criticism from civil libertarians, Holder flatly rejected the suggestion that the constitution's due process protections require the president to get permission from a federal court before taking lethal action.
[...]
"When such individuals take up arms against this country and join al-Qaida in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans there may be only one realistic and appropriate response," the attorney general continued. "We must take steps to stop them in full accordance with the constitution. In this hour of danger, we simply cannot afford to wait until deadly plans are carried out – and we will not."
UK Guardian
Assassination – a loaded term. Perhaps he would prefer the other appropriate term: murder.Al-Awlaki's killing in a joint CIA-US military drone strike on a convoy in Yemen sparked a public debate over whether the president should have the authority to kill an American citizen without a conviction and despite an executive order banning assassinations – which Holder called a "loaded term" that doesn't apply in this case.
Happy now? I suppose you want to see the actual laws we have authorizing assassinations - er, murders, huh? You are so particular."The American people can be – and deserve to be – assured that actions taken in their defense are consistent with their values and their laws."
No comments:
Post a Comment