US

Secret Memo Reveals Legal Justification for Killing Al-Awlaki

Secret Memo Reveals Legal Justification for Killing Al Awlaki

Al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric, was killed in a drone attack Sept. 30, 2011. According to a secret U.S. memo, killing him was justifiable if it was not feasible to take him alive.

A secret Obama administration memorandum paved the way for last month’s killing of radical American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, making the legal case that it would be lawful to take the Al-Qaida chief out only if it were not feasible to bring him in alive.

The New York Times spoke with people who have read the secret document:

The memo, written last year, followed months of extensive interagency deliberations and offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama — to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial.

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.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledge or discuss its role in the drone strike that killed Mr. Awlaki last month and that technically remains a covert operation. The government has also resisted growing calls that it provide a detailed public explanation of why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen, setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.

Secret Memo Reveals Legal Justification for Killing Al Awlaki

Al-Awlaki was the purported mastermind of the failed "underwear bombing" of a Detroit-bound flight, and said to be the inspiration for the attempted Times Square car bombing in New York City.

According to the Times, the legal analysis justified al-Awlaki’s killing by saying he posed a significant threat to Americans and was taking part in a war between the U.S. and Al-Qaida, and authorities in Yemen — where al-Awlaki had been hiding — were unable or unwilling to stop him.

The memo also examined possible legal obstacles to killing al-Awlaki and rejected each of them in turn: An executive order that bans assassinations, the lawyers found, bars only the killing of political leaders outside of war, not an armed target during a wartime conflict. Similarly, a federal statute prohibiting Americans from killing other Americans abroad did not apply because it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy during the course of war.

But what if the drone operator who fired the missile was a CIA official, as opposed to a soldier in uniform? Would that comply with the laws of war? Yes, the memo found, concluding that would not be a war crime, though the operator could theoretically face the highly improbably risk of standing trial in a Yemeni court for violating their laws against murder.

Finally, as for the Bill of Rights guarantee of due process of law and protection from unreasonable seizure, the memo concluded that al-Awlaki was different from a regular criminal, and cited court cases allowing American citizens who joined up with enemy forces to be detained or tried in military court just like noncitizen enemies.

Al-Awlaki was the purported mastermind of the failed “underwear bombing” of the Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day in 2009, and Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani-American who pleaded guilty to the attempted Times Square car bombing in 2010 cited Al-Awlaki as an influence.

He was also suspected of playing a role in an unsuccessful attempt to send mail bombs on planes from Yemen to Chicago-area synagogues last year.

Comments (118)

1 2 3
  • dissentnow
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:45am

    It wasn’t that long ago that a memo came out saying that you were more likely to be a domestic terrorist if you were white, ex-military, a gun owner, a member of the constitution or libertarian party, and a supporter of Ron Paul. The murder of Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, sets a chilling precedent that may, one day, be used on other American citizens for simply dissenting against an out of control government, maybe not by this president or the next one or the one after or the one after but the precedent is now set.

    Report Post »  
    • hagar
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:52am

      Next on the list will be financial terrorists and property hoarders

      Report Post »  
    • myway
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:18am

      Don’t forget people with jobs are most wanted! Code Pink can’t believe what is happening to our country? You voted for destruction and violence against America and now you are willing to start violent protests. It will get worse freinds.

      Report Post » myway  
    • Detroit paperboy
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 11:09am

      This is what we shoulda been doing all along , playing whack a mole with these freaks, instead of nation building in assbackward stannyland…..

      Report Post »  
    • LoveBringsTruth
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 11:21am

      DISENTNOW.

      It will be this president. He thrives off of chaos and violence.

      If you want our answers, just look at the eyes.

      And…I believe his wife is much, much more evil. Something like Michelle O Dexter And Barack O Binladen

      Report Post »  
    • DukeNukemall
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 11:46am

      I’m not an Obama supporter, but it appears to be treason to me.. By definition.. The crime of betraying one’s country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. In this case it sound’s to me like he had it coming.. It’s been done in the past. I take what Wikipedia says with a grain of salt. In this case it explains what has occurred in the past.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

      Report Post »  
    • DukeNukemall
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 11:58am

      My worry is how this administration defines treason and who’s on their hit list.. Simply disagreeing with policy should never be construed as such; however seeing how they treat the Tea Party, some of those folks may well be on Obama’s hit list.

      Report Post »  
    • Nyle
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 3:38pm

      I hear you loud and clear @DissentNow – Does anyone else find it chilling that this Administration who wanted to deny military trials to non-US terrorists is now clinging to that as an excuse for their justification of killing a US Citizen. I will not say I shed a tear at his passing but I will say if he still held his US Citizenship he is entitled to due process. The bottom line is that if this had been the Bush Administration we’d be hearing about impeachment from the same people who will defend the solution now.

      Report Post »  
    • IntegrityFirst08
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 6:18pm

      @ NYLE – He got his due process. From a AGM-114 Hellfire.

      Those people on that detroit bound jet, or the people standing in the vacinity of the car bomb in Time Square, or the recievers of the explosive packages never would have been afforded DUE PROCESS.

      How about our fellow Soldiers at Ft Hood. 13 of our best and brightest killed by the hands of Nidal Hassan, whom had contact with Alwalaki server times through emails. How about the 9-11 Hijackers who had contact with Alwalaki as well, although this didnt come out for some time. NONE of those people had their DUE PROCESS.

      Sorry but you RP guys are dead wrong. I give credit where credit is due. Great job to the CIA for killing this PoS.

      Report Post » IntegrityFirst08  
    • Jefferson
      Posted on October 10, 2011 at 12:14am

      @IntegrityFirst..
      Why don’t you try using your brain first, instead of spouting off about hellfire missiles.
      This Al Awlaki guy was DINING at the FREAKING Pentagon
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs2r4Jj-ZUU

      What kind of country is this where the media can be judge, jury, and executioner, just because some secret panel declares it?
      You don’t have ONE SHRED of evidence that he was connected to ANY of this, other than what you were told by the TEEVEE. I thought Air Force guys were supposed to be a little more intelligent than the rest of the branches. Maybe you just like their logo.
      I happen to KNOW one of the witnesses that was on the flight, that the supposed “underwear bomber” was on, and he has quite a different story to tell.

      Funny how Michael Chertoff who was employed by this radioactive body scanner company that sold all of the units to airports around the world, conveniently came out with his “solution” right after the “underwear” incident.
      Kurt Haskell saw Mutallab be walked onto the plane, PAST security, with NO PASSPORT. False Flag Operation to get you to accept the body scanners.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGeOQZ9k2GE

      Wake up man. You’ve been lied to so many times, you don’t know which way is up or down.

      Report Post »  
    • Cerealface
      Posted on October 10, 2011 at 10:35am

      This story is stupid. The president kills one terrorist. Have the writer of this story ever read the news? I think people get murdered every day in a big city. Every. Day. For money. The writer of this story should be ashamed.

      Report Post » Cerealface  
  • lukerw
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:44am

    This is BS. A Nation has the Right to defend itself against any Terrorism… and this is usually enacted as a Declaration Of War. Obama’s problem is that he is WouldBeDictator and does not want to yield to Congress!

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • USAF2003
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:24am

      So America should be quite fine with taking out Bill Ayers? And all the idiots trying to “take down the capitalist system”?

      Report Post »  
    • Ireland1775
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 12:03pm

      And exactly when did we declare war?

      Report Post »  
    • Acting Man
      Posted on October 10, 2011 at 2:05pm

      Exactly, and how was authority delegated for this war?

      Report Post »  
  • marybethelizabeth
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:44am

    The killing of Mr. Al-Awlaki

    Finally, an impeachable offense.

    Report Post » marybethelizabeth  
  • alabamaslammer
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:32am

    A bunch of lawyers met in secret and decided the fate of a US citizen. Bad guy ir not this is a dark day in our history.

    Report Post » alabamaslammer  
  • RepubliCorp
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:30am

    Does anyone on the planet think he was innocent? Further more he was is the act of waging war on America. War is not a civil matter. End of story

    Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:36am

      Oops (in) the act of

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:37am

      Was he armed? Did they ever submit proof to any court with evidence of guilt? Did they ever bother to get an indictment, which would not require his presence? No to all of these. I believe he was guilty but, I think there should have been at least judicial review of actual evidence. They blast Bush for water boarding which went through the same lawyer vetting as this article suggests was used to kill and American. Hypocrisy of the highest order. There is no protection to anyone. The constitution is officially no longer a basis of our law. And our congress is silent. They barely whimpered as Obama usurped their power in Libya. There is no longer a government of the people.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:47am

      You sheep. This is how progressivism works. Get people to sacrifice a little liberty for safety and then take more and more. This man/pos had a RIGHT to a trial. A RIGHT, not a privilege. THAT is the end of the story and you know you have no credible argument to negate a RIGHT.  His RIGHT was infringed upon; what makes you think your’s will not be? Are you white? A vet? Armed? Have an American flag? All of these, DHS makes you a potential threat. You deserve what’s coming. 

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty
      to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
      deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
      _____________________________
      Gold is the currency of royalty.
      Silver is the currency of gentlemen. 
      Debt is the currency of slaves. 

      Report Post » DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)  
    • hkyfan36
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 11:20am

      We are not at WAR.. We haven’t been at WAR since WW2. So to murder some one for what ever reason in some kind of conflict that they claim is a war is just wrong.. They also say were in a WAR against illiteracy. So should we kill the people who are burning books? If there gonna call it war then lets have congress declare WAR.. end of story!!!

      Report Post »  
    • GeoInSD
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 11:44am

      I agree 100% with Hidden_Lion. I am very much bother that there was zero due process of law. I feel at the very least there should be an indictment, but there was not even that. Libya is also a good example. Congress makes what at first appeared to be a firm challenge to Obama over Libya. Obama responds that he doesn’t need Congress. Congress sheepishly responds, “Uh, ok.”

      I think due suspension of process of law is VERY dangerous. I don’t count some executive branch lawyers discussing the matter as due process of law. From this point it isn’t so much a stretch for the executive branch to justify assassinations of its enemies.

      A friend of mine that left the Soviet Union told me that its government justified oppressing dissidents because they fought against the people. The reasoning goes since the dissidents fought the government, and since the government represents the people, therefore the dissidents fought the people and are therefore the enemy of the people.

      I can understand some feeling it was OK to ignore the Constitution and kill Al-Awlaki because Al-Awlaki was certainly a bad guy. But the problem with that it is opens a window to abuses by a bad president. At the very least there should have been some attempt at due process in the courts, such as an indictment. As it was, it was basically just the president deciding to whack him like a mafia boss.

      Report Post »  
    • Ireland1775
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 12:09pm

      He was still an American citizen. And our country is not at war. By your justification anyone that hates our society and in turn tells other people to kill is at war with America and should be killed without a trial. Innocent or not he never actually killed any Americans he simply told people to. I do agree he was a threat to our way of life, bit he was still an American citizen. This administration flip flops more than anything. They will kill american citizens without trial. But that dick who tried to blow the plane up on Christmas will get all the protection and rights of an American citizen. Is that right?

      Report Post »  
    • riseandshine
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 12:24pm

      @Repub…We’ll never know…At least I might never know. I don’t trust anything coming from the CIA anymore.

      Report Post » riseandshine  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 11:40pm

      To all: so if someone is raping your wife / daughter you would contact a court before taking action? Also I didn’t say **we** are at war, I said **he** was waging war on us. Where I live it is legal to use deadly force to protect others if their life is in Jeopardy.Is this law illegal? If this (American) killed your family I bet you would change your Ron Paul tune.Try selling your BS to the Fort Hood families. On this one I side with Obama

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • Chutz
      Posted on October 10, 2011 at 12:04am

      @ Republicorp
      The difference between immediate danger and self defense as opposed to the drone strike is, Alwalaki wasn’t an immediate threat. To compare the two would be to say ,would you kill someone who had harmed you and escaped only to be found later. Chances are you’d say yes but it would be illegal. I do not pity this mans death but laws are laws. If it were a legal kill …fine, if not… I have a problem with it.

      Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on October 10, 2011 at 6:08am

      (Alwalaki wasn’t an immediate threat) Like I said try selling that to the Fort Hood families!

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
  • 82dAirborne
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:24am

    This one really bothers me. My heart says GREAT! I’m glad the rat bast$%# is dead & I’m happy that we are the ones who got him. But my brain says wait just a second here. He was an American citizen and as such has (had) certain rights. Charlie Manson comes to mind.

    It’s the secrecy that bothers me the most. Who else is on that list? How does one get put on the list? They may have gotten it right this time but what about next time? Is it possible that someday a political enemy could fine him or herself on such a list?

    Might a “letter of marque and reprisal” have been issued first and thereby make the killing legal and a matter public knowledge?

    This one is tricky.

    Report Post » 82dAirborne  
  • UlyssesP
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:23am

    Alive. Dead. Is there really a difference?
    Through out the rest of our lives and the lives of our children and their children, this “problem” will exist under one banner or another. It always has.
    If he’s dead, he’ll be replaced. If he’s alive, he‘ll continue until he’s killed.
    Do I have to do the “eternal vigilance” quote thing?

    Report Post » UlyssesP  
    • GeoInSD
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 12:02pm

      Consider that this president has been reported to have said it is “tempting to be a dictator”. Consider this president basically thumbed his nose at Congress when challenged over the Libya action. Do you really want to give the president power to decide who lives or dies? Sure, Al-Awlaki has a consensus that it was good to be rid of him, but what of the next one? What standard applies to being marked for death?

      There should at least have been some sort of attempt of action in the courts, such as seeking an indictment, but there was zero effort in the courts in this instance. The judicial branch is there to be a counterbalance to the executive branch. When Congress and the judiciary become irrelevant (note Libya in regard to the War Powers Resolution as an example of Congress’s irrelevance), you have a dictatorship.

      I don’t believe that eliminating one terrorist, especially where there was no ticking time bomb, is a price worth creating a dictatorship.

      Report Post »  
  • BTBT
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:23am

    “it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy during the course of war”

    End of discussion.

    Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:18am

      That is not the question, though.
      The question is, is the President authorized to do that?
      The ANSWER is, NO! The Constitution does authorize such action.
      However, it is placed explicitly with CONGRESS, not with the President!
      This is/was too much power for one man.
      Our founders knew a President would only require a 1 second stroke of a pen to assassinate an American citizen, so they put that responsibility on CONGRESS, where it would be REQUIRED to be openly debated and a consensus reached, prior to ordering the assassination of one of our own citizens!
      “Letters of marque/mark and reprisal”

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:33am

      They were really going after the Driver of the car. This Traitor was only collateral damage. Oh Well

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • Qoheleth
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:16am

    BrianOfLondon pegged it. He should have been tried (in absentia if necessary) for treason and sedition. Treason can carry a death penalty. Due process should have been followed, even (especially) when we like the results of proceeding without it.

    Report Post » Qoheleth  
  • Via Dolorosa
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:16am

    .
    http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.asp?id=19960

    Reports all over the the internet claiming he is still alive.

    Also – he was reportedly killed in 2009 – but that was later
    retracted when he showed up on a television broadcast
    to prove he was alive.

    Report Post » Via Dolorosa  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:12am

    .
    It‘s no secret I wanted him blown to bit’s by a drone strike. So this is a non story………

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
  • NOBALONEY
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:12am

    Time to roll out the bus and strike up the band!

    Report Post » NOBALONEY  
  • ares338
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:09am

    This was no leak of course, but a carefully controlled dissemination of data.

    Report Post » ares338  
  • HellAndBack
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:54am

    They did release it… it didnt actually “leak” out. This admin. has more Leaks than a colander!! Everytime something ha[ppens they want credit for it gets “Leaked”. B.S.

    Report Post » HellAndBack  
  • Via Dolorosa
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:50am

    LOCAL
    Last updated: 11:58:28 AM GMT(+03) Monday, 03, October, 2011

    Al-Qaeda Claims al-Awlaki is Still Alive
    *
    Yemen Post Staff

    As the U.S government is relishing its victory over al-Qaeda with the alleged death of several of the group’s top leaders, amongst whom well-known cleric and mastermind in al-Qaeda in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki; the terror group has announced that the allegations were false and that al-Awlaki was still very
    alive.
    Only a few days, the Yemeni and American government bi-laterally announced to the world that they had killed U.S most wanted terrorist in an airstrike in al-Jawf province in Yemen, north of its capital Sana’a.
    Allegedly, al-Awlaki was traveling in a 3 car-convoy when he was struck from the air, leaving him and 3 of his companions dead.

    Soon after the announcement of al-Awlaki’s death, U.S intelligence officials declared that they believed the bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri and Samir Khan, the group’ English magazine co-editor, had as well been killed in the attack.

    As is happens, al-Qaeda in Yemen is now claiming that both al-Awlaki and al-Asiri are still alive and were in fact nowhere near the explosion.

    Since the Yemeni government claimed once already having successfully eliminated the infamous cleric, to be later proven wrong when the man issued a televised statement, doubt has been cast upon the veracity of the American-Yemeni’s declarations of victory.

    Yemen Post Staff
    *
    Source: Yemen Post
    http://www.yem

    Report Post » Via Dolorosa  
  • Fat Albert
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:49am

    While most people will agree that Al-Awlakil was a terrorist and deserved what he got. The precedent here is very chilling, it all hinges on what is the definition of a terrorist organization. It seems that the definition seems to be slipping away from radical Muslins more to Americans that disagree with the administration that is in the white house, just look at the last homeland security film of See Something Say Something it was all white Americans (not that they are Immune) they do have not been the typical terrorist model.
    This is a slippery slope that we must pay close attention.

    Report Post »  
  • MARCH4HIM
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:41am

    Talk about misleading…
    When Obama said he was going to close Gitmo…I guess people just figured ,he ment release the prisoners
    Obama ment he wont be need a holding cell…Just a Grave…

    Report Post » MARCH4HIM  
    • godhead
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:07am

      It wouldn’t be the first time Obama actually did what conservatives only barked abut. (Anybody still afraid of bin Laden?)

      That’s how it is. Conservatives cry and liberals act. Conservatives mess things up and liberals fix it. Conservatives create problems and tragedy and crises and liberals solve them.

      Report Post »  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:43am

      The only thing liberals can be counted on is hypocrisy. Liberals never fix anything, unless you are talking about the fixing you do to your dog. Liberals have sunk this country to the lowest point in its history an they will all catch their just deserts in the not too distant future

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • SERUM
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:46am

      Conservatives would abide by the constitution and gone through Congress, and not act as a dictator…

      Report Post »  
  • brianoflondon
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:37am

    I’d like to know if either of two important words are in that memo: sedition or treason. That would be a very big deal.

    Report Post » brianoflondon  
  • heavyduty
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:31am

    It seems to me that if he was the leader of Al-Queda that he needed to go. We all know that this organization is bad for everyone including their own. They made their choice and AMERICA made its choice.

    Report Post »  
    • KNaggieland
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:31am

      America did not make the choice, a secret Administration extra judicial group made the choice and one must wonder who else is on the list of “enemies”. We already know any conservative has already been declared an enemy by this Administration. Perhaps you are next? Maybe you are number 100 or 1000 it all depends on how many it takes to condition the public to accept the judgement against you. But eventually your number will come up.

      Unless of course you fully support the Administration in all of its efforts regardless of personal ideology.

      Report Post »  
  • REMVLS
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:29am

    This guy knew something about Obummer that he didn’t want to get out….that is why he had him whacked….

    Report Post »  
  • king jack rabbit
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:23am

    no triall no cost

    Report Post »  
  • Secessionista
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:23am

    ALL of their justification hinges on us being at war, in wartime. We have not declared war. Therefor, this killing was illegal, and murder.

    That‘s the problem with a congress that refuses to do it’s duty and either declare war or refuse to declare war, and that’s the problem with a president who thinks he is above the constitution and the bill of rights.

    Obama can be held on treason charges for killing an American during a non-war-time period in American history. And the reason is because he began war without congressional approval and then proceeded to call it a war. He was either murdering Iraqi soldiers or he was murdering Al-Awlaki. ONE OR THE OTHER.

    He did nothing different than when Saddam Hussein tried to execute George Bush senior. Nothing.

    People need to recognize that you can do a bad thing while trying to do a good things. Al-Awlaki deserved killing, but that doesn’t mean we should just do it without regard for our own laws. We are all bound together by our agreement between ourselves that the rule of law supercedes the rule of man. Without that, we do not have a republic or a democracy, just a band of murderers.

    We all know the protesters on wall street are enemies of the state. We don’t just drive up there and kill them because we know they deserve a trial first.

    Report Post » Secessionista  
    • Heck62
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:29am

      Al-Qaida does not really have a nation,The only way to declare war would probably not go over well.I do see your point.

      Report Post »  
  • king jack rabbit
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:21am

    justificatio is no time and money spent on trials

    Report Post »  
  • ColDoc
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:21am

    The one who “believes” this tyrannical gov’t is simply fooling themselves! The Obumbler has PROVEN that he is a Marxist and a Tyrant! Nothing…. and I mean NOTHING…. he says (and by extension, his Administration) can be trusted.

    We are living in dire times folks. As a Veteran who stays in very close contact with active duty and other “in-the-know” vets, let me just say…. we are facing unprecedented times. Take NOTHING at its face value, and as Glenn says… QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS!

    Report Post » ColDoc  
  • cloudsofwar
    Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:02am

    who else has a secret memo written about them? it’s a secret.

    Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:10am

      And why not release the memo to show us once and for all how they got to the conclusion; there is still more here than meets the eye.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Thatsitivehadenough
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:21am

      The real secret is the collusion between Obama and the NYT and the rest of the left.

      But, as far as Al-Awlaki goes, James Bond didn’t need legal permission to go after the bad guys, and neither do we.

      Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • KNaggieland
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 8:52am

      Exactly what qualifies someone as an enemy and causes them to be a declared threat to American citizens. In the case of Al-Awlaki it was speech.

      If I say I am afraid the Administration is driving this country to the brink of large scale civil unrest and people should be prepared, does that make me an enemy of the state or a concerned citizen? Since this choice is not made by a court and a jury of my peers, what or who gets to decide my innocence or guilt?

      The first case of this was bound to be very clear that is how you condition the public to accept the premise. But what about the next case? What about a union leader that condones violence against non-union workers that ends up causing the deaths of non-union workers? Clearly their speech is a threat to Americans. What about a preacher who preaches about the end-times and advises his church to prepare? What if the Church forms a commune and begins to live outside the bounds of what is considered normal in some place like Waco, TX.?

      If the Government decides guilt in secret and the media only reports what the Governments side of the story is, and most people assume they know enough “truth” to justify the denial of due process. How are we better than Russia or China?

      Beware: Slippery slope ahead you might just want to speak out now before you are executed for speaking out later.

      Report Post »  
    • MARCH4HIM
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 9:02am

      I’m not concerned about ..bad guys ….getting whats comming to them..
      I’m concerned… “who determines” …. who the bad guys are….!

      Report Post » MARCH4HIM  
    • godhead
      Posted on October 9, 2011 at 10:01am

      I KNEW you folks weren’t paying attention over the lat 10 years.

      http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/enemycombatants.pdf

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love