The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: The Secret Memo that Explains it ALL.......

  1. #1
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,811

    Default The Secret Memo that Explains it ALL.......

    .....or maybe NOT!!!




    Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."

    Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

    Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

    Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?

    __________________________________________________ _


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    King George Virginia
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    If it is secret, how is it all over the press?? Oh forgot to thank your team for pounding the litteral """" out of my Thunder Turds!!

  3. #3
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Byron Musick View Post
    If it is secret, how is it all over the press?? Oh forgot to thank your team for pounding the litteral """" out of my Thunder Turds!!
    My team?

    NCAA??

    Our football up here is weak and pathetic.......ask Nebraska!!
    The Badgers barely squeaked by them.

    Russell Wilson sends his regards!!!!!!


    If you mean NFL....Packers are not playing well just yet.
    Offense is a little out of synch.........



    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #4
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    My team?

    NCAA??

    Our football up here is weak and pathetic.......ask Nebraska!!
    The Badgers barely squeaked by them.

    Russell Wilson sends his regards!!!!!!


    If you mean NFL....Packers are not playing well just yet.
    Offense is a little out of synch.........





    RK
    It was only Nebraska, not like the Badgers beat any of the big boy teams.

    Just be thankful y'all haven't played the Lions! They look awesosme.

    Pack better save something for the stretch, just ask the Patriots
    "Well, when I went off to college, the guys I used to hang with were pumping gas and voting Democrat. Today they're still pumping gas and voting Democrat. Guess the Democrats didn't do much for them." Charles Barkley

  5. #5
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    It was only Nebraska, not like the Badgers beat any of the big boy teams.

    Just be thankful y'all haven't played the Lions! They look awesosme.

    Pack better save something for the stretch, just ask the Patriots
    Sort of like the Saints did last year, huh?
    Bill Davis

  6. #6
    Senior Member starjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinman View Post
    Sort of like the Saints did last year, huh?
    HAHAAHHHAAAAHHA THATS FUNNY RIGHT THERE. But we all know the lions are a far more better team because they play inside

  7. #7
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,846

    Default

    Hey, the Lions have won three on the road! BTW, the Saints were not the number one seed last season That distinction goes to the Falcons.

    Regarding the subject:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65035.html
    Last edited by Franco; 10-03-2011 at 04:54 PM.
    "Well, when I went off to college, the guys I used to hang with were pumping gas and voting Democrat. Today they're still pumping gas and voting Democrat. Guess the Democrats didn't do much for them." Charles Barkley

  8. #8
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,811

    Default

    There is always more!!

    Here is some MORE!!!!;

    Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'
    By Mark Hosenball

    WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 5, 2011 7:59pm EDT

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

    There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

    The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

    The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

    Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

    The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

    In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

    Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

    Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

    Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

    The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

    LAWYERS CONSULTED

    Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

    They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

    The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

    They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

    Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

    Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

    A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

    Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

    But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

    When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

    'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL'

    Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

    "Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

    The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

    But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

    For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

    There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

    But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

    Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

    Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

    U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

    While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.
    ________________________________________________

    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  9. #9
    Senior Member Terri's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    626

    Default

    So are you for or against a "Kill List" for Americans?


    Terri

  10. #10
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terri View Post
    So are you for or against a "Kill List" for Americans?


    Terri
    YES.

    An American citizen gets certain rights.
    If non USA combatants captured on the battle field deserve trials, then I beleive US citzens do.
    I certainly do NOT trust politicians to decide who gets killed.
    In this case there is no doubt it was for political gain.

    Would you want Bush or Obama deciding who should be killed?
    In secret??

    Who sets the boundaries?

    Slippery slope if ever there was one.

    In my humble opinion.


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •