Memo for killing Anwar Al Awlaki

[Raeph]

Yesterday the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan released the memo that the Obama administration used as legal justification regarding the Killing of Anwar Al Awlaki. For those who don't remember he was the United States Citizen that left the US and went to Yemen to work with Al Qaeda, according to government reports.

Them memo can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...ing-al-awlaki/ (imbedded in web page)
https://www.aclu.org/national-securi...quest-olc-memo (download)

I read through some of it, and found some interesting statements: apparently the legal justification for the legal killing of this man, an American citizen, though granted a terrorist, is a Public Authority justification.

Quoting the memo:

"Deeds which otherwise would be criminal, such as taking or destroying property, taking hold of a person by force and against his will, placing him in confinement, or even taking his life, are not crimes if done with proper public authority.")

The public authority justification does not excuse all conduct of public officials from all criminal prohibitions. The legislature may design some criminal prohlbitions to place bounds on the kinds of governmental conduct that can be authorized by the Executive. Or, the legislature may enact a criminal prohibition in order to delimit the scope of the conduct that the legislature has' otherwise authorized the Executive to undertake pursuant to another statute. But the recognition that a federal criminal statute may incorporate the public authority justification reflects the fact that it would not make sense to auribute to Congress the intent with respect to each of its criminal statutes to prohibit all covered activities undertaken by public officials in the legitimate exercise of their otherwise lawful authorities, even if Congress has clearly intended to make those same actions a crime when committed by persons who are not acting pursuant to such public authority. In some instances, therefore, the better view of a criminal prohibition may well be that Congress meant to distinguish those persons who are acting pursuant to public authority, at least in some circumstances, from those who are not, even if the statute by terms does not make that distinction express.

Against this background, we believe the touchstone for the analysis of whether section 1119 incorporates not only justifications generally, but also the public authority justification in particular, is the legislative intent underlying this criminal statute. We conclude that the statute should be read to exclude from its prohibitory scope killings that are encompassed by traditional justifications, which include the public authority justification. There are no indications that Congress had a contrary intention. Nothing in the text or legislative history of sections 1111-1113 of title 18 suggests that Congress intended to exclude the established public authority justification from those that Congress otherwise must be understood to have imported through the use of the modifier "unlawful" in those statutes (which, as we explain above, establish the substantive scope of section 1119(b)).20 Nor is there anything in the text or legislative history of section 1119 itself to suggest that Congress intended to abrogate or otherwise affect the availability under that statute of this traditional justification for killings. On the contrary, the relevant legislative materials indicate that in enacting section 1119 Congress was merely closing a gap in a field dealing with entirely different kinds of conduct than that at issue here.

I'm no Lawyer but it appears that the memo states that dealing with those who are a threat to society is a part of the public authority inherent in the Executive branch, unless congress explicitly denies the Executive branch the use of that authority in specific situations.

This seems like a very bad word-game. It almost reads like "Congress didn't tell us we couldn't so we are going to deal with people who are "threats" in whatever way we feel is appropriate, unless congress tells us explicitly not to."

Maybe I'm rambling but that justification can lead to very poor decisions, not just for the current administration but for any future administration trying to use the same legal defense for their actions.

I have the power and no one told me not to use it this way...

[Deleted]

Cry terrorism and you can even ignore the Constitution, the hunt for the Boston Bombers proved this.

[Deleted]

What kind of wizard are you Rich? 95% of the time you are the first poster in new threads. O.o

Nothing else to do apart from shitpost and drink.

[Marthenil]

Nothing else to do apart from shitpost and drink.

Can I be you ? :3

[Deleted]

Can I be you ? :3

Sure, but you need to start work at stupid times to make up for the free time.

[Raeph]

Cry terrorism and you can even ignore the Constitution, the hunt for the Boston Bombers proved this.

Perhaps, but that isn't what the memo is saying.

We aren't dealing with a justification of "They are bad and we had to do bad things to get them.".

We are dealing with "They are bad and no one told us what we are doing is wrong in our effort to get them."

[TrumpIsPresident]

So why didn't Bergdahl get a memo? Guy did the same thing.

[Kurioxan]

Fear has always been a wonderful tool for control, in a era where is a lot harder to outright lie to people in order to achieve your goals, giving them an enemy and reasons for fear is the best way to achieve it.

That and "national security", a politician nowadays can bury a lot of dirt under that simple phrase, become immune to public scrutiny and get away with a lot of crap.
Anything that makes politicians and their policies less transparent, and the actions of a government less avaiable, is anti-democratic in its very essence... its sad how things turned out, but who knows, maybe once people get over demagogy we can get some balance in this issue.

[Raeph]

So why didn't Bergdahl get a memo? Guy did the same thing.

Different scenario: Bergdahl was a member of the armed forces in Afghanistan, who was kidnapped/walked off his post, and was held captive for 5 years, according to accounts.

Anwar Al Awlaki was a US citizen who was a radicalized Muslim Imam who left the country and actively joined Al Qaeda in Yemen and then began actively working against the United States government, at least in the propaganda videos he released, not counting the terrorist activities he was involved in, like the underwear bomber guy.

Two completely different scenarios.

[Easo]

I, for one, support your goverment on this one.
Hellfires, more Hellfires for the likes of him.

[satimy]

Im more interested in seeing the memo for killing his 14 year old son

[tylenol]

Im more interested in seeing the memo for killing his 14 year old son

Read the story, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, shit happens...you think this is the first "war' where civilians were killed?

[Vercigentorix]

Reads like legalese for execution on grounds of treason and sedition.

[poser765]

Nothing else to do apart from shitpost and drink.

Dude, how do you do it? I drink and post an apparently tell people their marriages are shit on this forum. Maybe I should stop drinking...or posting.

[Deleted]

Dude, how do you do it? I drink and post an apparently tell people their marriages are shit on this forum. Maybe I should stop drinking...or posting.

Or drink Gin like the cool people do.

[poser765]

Or drink Gin like the cool people do.

We don't have gin on the airplane, so I can't steal gin at the end of the day. I did notice we some Finlandia Vodka...what ever the hell that is. Tastes OK, I guess...