Secret panel can put Americans on 'kill list'

OneSickPsycho · 10-06-2011, 11:51 AM

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7327265.story

Secret panel can put Americans on 'kill list'
Reuters

8:28 a.m. EDT, October 6, 2011

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.

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.

Tmall · 10-06-2011, 11:58 AM

Your government has shady back door operations that are used to assassinate people? How could you have not all known this already? Because they killed one of your own it's suddenly an issue?

OneSickPsycho · 10-06-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tmall

Your government has shady back door operations that are used to assassinate people? How could you have not all known this already? Because they killed one of your own it's suddenly an issue?

Now they're not only doing it out in the open, they're patting themselves on the back for doing it... it's getting worse.

Smittie61984 · 10-06-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tmall

Your government has shady back door operations that are used to assassinate people? How could you have not all known this already? Because they killed one of your own it's suddenly an issue?

It's an issue becuase our shady back door operations killed a U.S. Citizen. Our constitution doesn't protect non-American citizens.

Particle Man · 10-06-2011, 01:06 PM

Old news.

Homeslice · 10-06-2011, 01:10 PM

It's actually good news that a "secret panel" exists. Otherwise it would be only the military or the CIA making the decision.

RACER X · 10-06-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tmall

Your government has shady back door operations that are used to assassinate people?

you think it's only the US?

Tmall · 10-06-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RACER X

you think it's only the US?

Not at all. I'm saying, none of you seemed to ever talk about it when it was a foreigner. Now you seem to care because it's at your door step.

You reap what you sow...

OneSickPsycho · 10-06-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tmall

Not at all. I'm saying, none of you seemed to ever talk about it when it was a foreigner. Now you seem to care because it's at your door step.

You reap what you sow...

Ah yeah... not as big of a deal when it's people from other countries... but when it's your own fucking citizens... that means we're sliding down that slope...

fatbuckRTO · 10-06-2011, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tmall

Not at all. I'm saying, none of you seemed to ever talk about it when it was a foreigner. Now you seem to care because it's at your door step.

You reap what you sow...

There is a fundamental difference between our government acknowledging enemy combatants who have declared war on our country by making war on them, and our government killing American citizens without due process.

If an American were killed by a foreign government or any foreign entity through covert means or by way of foreign-owned long-range weapon attacks, that might fit the definition of "reaping what you sow." But that is a whole other argument: whether or not the US government is justified in killing non-American (in most cases self-admitted) terrorists as enemy combatants through military force.*

The "care" that is being expressed in the case of al-Awlaki and the other guy (whose name escapes me) is not that they were killed, it's that they were US citizens killed by the US government without due process. In other words, where most Americans probably dismiss UAV attacks, cruise missile strikes, and other non-conventional attacks as legitimate warfare against enemies who have publicly declared war on us and actively sought to kill us, when those enemies happen to be American citizens there is an extra complication in our minds. A complication that I personally don't think is adequately addressed by secret panels of un-named government officials.**

Do you feel that the Afghans killed by Canadian forces throughout Operation Enduring Freedom should have been afforded the same due process that Canadian citizens are?

*I will say, the timeline as I understand it had speed-boats exploding on US Navy vessels and planes slamming into the WTC before UAV's were deployed in Pakistan and Yemen. Who is reaping and who is sowing?

**All that said, I don't have a good resolution. As goof2 pointed out, how would we have extradited or arrested him? As a US citizen he can't be tried in absentia, so it seems like any legal approach save magically teleporting him to the courtroom would be as invalid as the next. But a little more transparency from the president who campaigned on transparency in government would be welcome...

10-06-2011, 11:51 AM	#1
OneSickPsycho Ride Like an Asshole Join Date: Feb 2008 Moto: nothing... Posts: 11,254	Secret panel can put Americans on 'kill list' http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7327265.story Secret panel can put Americans on 'kill list' Reuters 8:28 a.m. EDT, October 6, 2011 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. 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.

10-06-2011, 01:06 PM	#5
Particle Man Custom User Title Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Central NY Moto: 2003 SV650S Posts: 14,959	Old news. __________________ I'm not "fat." I'm "Enlarged to show texture." Handle every stressful situation like a DOG: If you can't eat it or hump it, pi$$ on it & walk away.

10-06-2011, 11:58 AM	#2
Tmall Aspiring Rapper Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Halifax, NS Moto: '12 CB1000R Posts: 3,569	Your government has shady back door operations that are used to assassinate people? How could you have not all known this already? Because they killed one of your own it's suddenly an issue?

10-06-2011, 01:10 PM	#6
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	It's actually good news that a "secret panel" exists. Otherwise it would be only the military or the CIA making the decision.