[Update: Charlie Savage wrote an article where anonymous people summarized what the memo said -- btw it actually referenced the shooting a fleeing suspect case I myself referenced, but no, I have not seen the memo. The tidbit on the CIA is particularly interesting. Let's cut this b.s. and have the actual memo released. Seriously.
The article says it "was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman," two people who have written about the limits of executive power in the past, but for some reason no longer are working for the administration. Harold Koh also was critical of executive power in the past, while seeming to some to be more supportive of it now that he's inside. So, who knows?]
Opinio Juris has been cited by me in the discussion of this matter (it's one of those things where the terminology is in dispute, so even what you call it is an issue). It's a good blog that is "a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations" with various viewpoints, including one (who also blogs, for me too verbosely, at Volokh Conspiracy) that noted the Jack Goldsmith comment quoted below. I note that Goldsmith spells the shall we say victim's name differently, which is probably not surprising since transliteration of foreign names is an inexact science.
[The blog has a good entry on the women who won the Nobel Peace prize this year with video provided.]
Another blog of "international politics" that I know about because of Dr. Charli Carpenter's (previously of Lawyers Drugs and Money; her replacement is sadly too much of a kneejerk sort for my tastes, adding to one already there -- I do not care for that sort of thing, even when they lean left) involvement. I cited one of its members' preliminary reaction to the killing in one my posts on this issue and its stance can be stated by this addendum (the link is telling -- it supported "chasing" him, but noted that the "best way" was to capture him ... query if the best way of doing things are realistically likely to happen these days):
I (and others) have argued that his citizenship provided him with additional protection, but looking at the amendments cited, only two of them are (arguably) limited to that class ("the people" ... and again, if it actually IS limited to them is quite debatable, equal protection concerns making the matter somewhat moot). As noted in the more liberal leaning IntLawGrrls blog, the Fifth Amendment speaks of "persons." See also, habeas corpus protections and Rasul v. Bush et. al. But, agreeing that the use of the CIA complicates matters (its job as an intel agency is a bit of a joke given such operational efforts, which here at best causes major international law concerns in practice), there must be some difference in killing people abroad in this context or citizenship of a specific country would seem to have a bit too little note.
A comment to my last discussion of this issue questioned my treatment of a uniformed solider with U.S. citizenship serving in a foreign army ala WWII Germany as different than the matter here. I am not sure if I meant to imply that really. The issue there would be if the U.S. government could target a U.S. citizen serving in a foreign army while they were serving a similar role as al-Awlaki (perhaps, the leader of a sabotage unit), particularly if they were beyond reasonable capture. Let's say somewhere in a protected safe house in Berlin. Would the government need to seek a warrant of sorts from a court for this? Rather, should they? Seems reasonable to require it. Again, this isn't a typical battlefield situation, but a special targeting of an American citizen. If I drew a line, it might be that an actual war with a nation state with the person in uniform or at least a formal member of a foreign force provides clearer lines than the open-ended nature of an authorization of military force that targets some group or even individual people. If an authorization targets individual people -- a sort of bill of attainder? -- it seems to warrant more protection.
I am open to dispute on the point. Anyway, note to the Obama Administration: Release The Justification of the Al-awlaki Killing. The relevant congressional committee or subcommittee should subpoena it, going to court if necessary to obtain it. What is the value of having the Republicans in control of the House if they are not going to check them in this fashion? I'm sorry, they are doing so by being concerned about one failed solar energy company or guns or whatever.
The article says it "was principally drafted by David Barron and Martin Lederman," two people who have written about the limits of executive power in the past, but for some reason no longer are working for the administration. Harold Koh also was critical of executive power in the past, while seeming to some to be more supportive of it now that he's inside. So, who knows?]
Opinio Juris has been cited by me in the discussion of this matter (it's one of those things where the terminology is in dispute, so even what you call it is an issue). It's a good blog that is "a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations" with various viewpoints, including one (who also blogs, for me too verbosely, at Volokh Conspiracy) that noted the Jack Goldsmith comment quoted below. I note that Goldsmith spells the shall we say victim's name differently, which is probably not surprising since transliteration of foreign names is an inexact science.
[The blog has a good entry on the women who won the Nobel Peace prize this year with video provided.]
Another blog of "international politics" that I know about because of Dr. Charli Carpenter's (previously of Lawyers Drugs and Money; her replacement is sadly too much of a kneejerk sort for my tastes, adding to one already there -- I do not care for that sort of thing, even when they lean left) involvement. I cited one of its members' preliminary reaction to the killing in one my posts on this issue and its stance can be stated by this addendum (the link is telling -- it supported "chasing" him, but noted that the "best way" was to capture him ... query if the best way of doing things are realistically likely to happen these days):
Will McCants has linked to an article at Foreign Policy from November 2010 which argues the case for taking out Awlaki. I still have mixed feelings about this. I will feel better if there is a case/dossier of evidence that can be brought forward - and I still maintain that this case should have been made before striking out at him.I share that sentiment though the article does not touch upon the legality of the killing. As to "this case," again Jack Goldsmith of The Terror Presidency fame (conservative foreign policy done prudentially):
A full legal analysis, as opposed to conclusory explanations in government speeches and leaks, would permit a robust debate about targeted killings – especially of U.S. citizens – that is troubling to many people. Such an analysis could explain, for example, whether the government believed that al-Aulaqi possessed constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth or other amendments, and (assuming the government concluded that he possessed some such rights) why the rights were not implicated by the strike. It could also describe the limits of presidential power in this context.Sure thing. One thing covered by various people here is the charade that we can't do this because it is all "covert" and everything, also used in "state secrecy" cases (the quotes are at least partially warranted) to block civil litigation even when the target of the suits are far from really secret. A reference (Opinio Juris) is made to a joking comment (kidding on the square) that the drone program is secret except to the degree it's reported (often via leak) in the press. Ha ha. As a comment notes, the dead victims of said program aren't quite as amused by the chuckles as a result of an Administration official being asked about such things. I noted that the overall justification of the killing has been discussed and the Administration is not shy about basically bragging about their success here, so a properly redacted full press release is fully appropriate.
I (and others) have argued that his citizenship provided him with additional protection, but looking at the amendments cited, only two of them are (arguably) limited to that class ("the people" ... and again, if it actually IS limited to them is quite debatable, equal protection concerns making the matter somewhat moot). As noted in the more liberal leaning IntLawGrrls blog, the Fifth Amendment speaks of "persons." See also, habeas corpus protections and Rasul v. Bush et. al. But, agreeing that the use of the CIA complicates matters (its job as an intel agency is a bit of a joke given such operational efforts, which here at best causes major international law concerns in practice), there must be some difference in killing people abroad in this context or citizenship of a specific country would seem to have a bit too little note.
A comment to my last discussion of this issue questioned my treatment of a uniformed solider with U.S. citizenship serving in a foreign army ala WWII Germany as different than the matter here. I am not sure if I meant to imply that really. The issue there would be if the U.S. government could target a U.S. citizen serving in a foreign army while they were serving a similar role as al-Awlaki (perhaps, the leader of a sabotage unit), particularly if they were beyond reasonable capture. Let's say somewhere in a protected safe house in Berlin. Would the government need to seek a warrant of sorts from a court for this? Rather, should they? Seems reasonable to require it. Again, this isn't a typical battlefield situation, but a special targeting of an American citizen. If I drew a line, it might be that an actual war with a nation state with the person in uniform or at least a formal member of a foreign force provides clearer lines than the open-ended nature of an authorization of military force that targets some group or even individual people. If an authorization targets individual people -- a sort of bill of attainder? -- it seems to warrant more protection.
I am open to dispute on the point. Anyway, note to the Obama Administration: Release The Justification of the Al-awlaki Killing. The relevant congressional committee or subcommittee should subpoena it, going to court if necessary to obtain it. What is the value of having the Republicans in control of the House if they are not going to check them in this fashion? I'm sorry, they are doing so by being concerned about one failed solar energy company or guns or whatever.