You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Fifth Column
FIFTH COLUMN: ACLU sues over 'Targeted Killings'
2010-08-31
Socialist-Front Civil-liberties groups filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the legality of the Obama administration's expansion of the U.S. fight against al Qaeda terrorists beyond Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Because fighting terrorists before they blow up stuff in America is ucky ...
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights are taking aim at what the government calls its "targeted killing" program, which mostly uses Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones against suspected terrorists.
The CCR is, if anything, worse than the ACLU in their dislike of all things right and good with America.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the father of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Islamic cleric of Yemeni descent, who is believed to be targeted for extra-judicial killing for his alleged involvement in terror plots against the U.S.
Maybe Daddy should tell Sonny to come in and answer a few questions...
The weakness in the Obama case is that Bambi hasn't publicly declared Anwar to be a traitor. If we did that and stripped him of his citizenship then he'd be fair game, and international law wouldn't protect him in any way. But Bambi doesn't want to appear to be forceful.
Declaring a traitor is easy, since Mr. Al-Awlaki is a natural-born American citizen. Stripping him of that citizenship raises constitutional issues not present for those who were mistakenly naturalized. And while the issue of tourism babies is overdue to be addressed, this administration is not the one to do it.
The administration hasn't publicly described its deliberations about Mr. Awlaki's fate, nor how it uses the secret drone program against suspected terrorists.
Nor should they.
Mr. Awlaki is believed to be skulking about hiding in Yemen, which is far from the battlefield in Pakistan and Afghanistan,
But right in the middle of the Arabian battlefield, oddly enough. We aren't heavily involved there, at the moment, but it's important not to be parochial about the war against the Caliphatists.
where al Qaeda launched the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. In recent months, U.S. officials have been weighing expanded attacks on the al Qaeda-affiliated groups Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Somalia's al Shabaab, The Wall Street Journal reported recently. The U.S. military previously has launched operations in that region.
The simple point is, wherever the terrorists go, that's where we go ...
The expansion would exceed the legal limits of the program, the civil-liberties groups say. Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said "Yemen is not Afghanistan or Iraq. The legal limits on the authority they claim hasn't been specified."
It's called taking the war to the enemy, irrespective of what map grid he's hiding in.
The legal limits can be fixed with a presidential order ...
Vincent Warren, executive director of the CCR said: "The government chose Awlaki and put him on the targeted killing list. The government has to show he is an imminent threat to the U.S. in order to justify him being killed like this."
He wants stuff in our country blowed up. I think that counts ...
The man coached Major Nidal Malik Hasan of Ft. Hood fame, and the Pantibomber. I think he has passed beyond the imminent threat stage.
In June, CIA Director Leon Panetta was asked on ABC News's "This Week" program whether Mr. Awlaki was targeted for assassination.

"Awlaki is a terrorist and yes, he's a U.S. citizen, but he is first and foremost a terrorist and we're going to treat him like a terrorist," Mr. Panetta said. "We don't have an assassination list, but I can tell you this: We have a terrorist list and he's on it."
Attaboy, Leon, I always figured that you had a spine, even though you're a Democrat. Nice to see that we have at least one adult in the Bambi administration.
Posted by:Free Radical

#10  From a Yahoo answer to "How was the term fifth column coined?"

Who came up with the phrase, and what's with the columns? Emilio Mola Vidal, a Nationalist general during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), originally coined the term. As four of his army columns moved on Madrid, the general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his "fifth column," intent on undermining the loyalist government from within.

So the fifth column is a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders.

The ACLU and CCR can try to use America's own institutions against it but they will fail. The majority of Americans are conservative in their beliefs. As long as good men continue to speak out, they will fail.
Posted by: Mike Ramsey   2010-08-31 22:34  

#9  Ways to lose citizenship.

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-08-31 17:03  

#8  I mostly agree with DepotGuy.

The USA should, under special terrorism courts, charge him with Treason, invite his lawyers to submit evidence, hold proceedings, etc.

The procedure by which this is done during the age of terrorism, should be in the U.S.Code. (it isn't now, nor are there special terrorism courts).

Unfortunately, this will take both brains and hard work by the Dept of Justice to draft a bill for congress to deliberate and pass and then for it to withstand challenge (and yes, the law may end up having to be amended because the SC of the US likes to pick and choose what laws it likes). The folks in the Dept of Justice didn't want to take this on during the W admin and I'm pretty sure the gang there now doesn't want to either.
Posted by: lord garth   2010-08-31 13:46  

#7  This problem goes all the back to president Jefferson, when federal judges decided they had jurisdiction over pirates captured by the US Navy. More than anything, it was an ego trip on their part, as the international law of the sea was very clear about the authority of warship Captains.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-08-31 12:36  

#6  Perhaps a lawyerly type can explain how the ACLU has standing to get involved in this fight. And try not to invoke Spanish-style universal jurisdiction.
Posted by: SteveS   2010-08-31 12:03  

#5  The government has to show he is an imminent threat to the U.S. in order to justify him being killed like this.

I agree. al-Awlaki is an US citizen and as such is granted unalienable rights. Right now, I believe, he is classified as a “suspected” terrorist – regardless of what uncle Leon says. In fact, has he even been charged with a crime? Not to be obtuse but suspicion alone doesn’t grant the government the right to exterminate a citizen in good stead. And like it or not that’s what this dirt bag currently is. Look, until the Feds prove imminent threat and change his classification, there are legitimate legal and ethical questions regarding this program.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2010-08-31 11:31  

#4  Pops is lucky I'm not in charge. There'd be a Predator parked in front of his house.
Posted by: tu3031   2010-08-31 10:31  

#3  We could always go back to carpet bombing ....
Posted by: gorb   2010-08-31 09:57  

#2  What the ACLU and friends want you to forget -

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-08-31 08:42  

#1  What is war but targeted killing? Wars would go much better if the ACLU kept out of it. Thought the name was "American" Civil Liberties Union not "Afghanistan or Pakistan Civil Liberties Union."
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-08-31 08:13  

00:01