The right of “a high-level
The DOJ says the targeting and killing of U.S. Citizens may be conducted by an “informed high-level official of the U.S. Government” if: 1) the nature of the war in progress is non-international against an armed military consisting of a people without a nation base; 2) the U.S. Citizen is a “senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or associated force; 3) is in a foreign nation; 4) the citizen poses an imminent threat against the United States; 5) capture is not feasible in the relevant window of opportunity; 6) potential capture is too risky to U.S. personnel; 7) the means of killing the citizen complies with the four fundamental “law-of-war” principles (necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity, i.e., avoidance of unnecessary suffering).
Without going to any other principles that the DOJ may have purposely avoided or omitted in its justification for killing Americans overseas without a trial it can be demonstrated that their own justification requirements fail. The DOJ says that the U.S. is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida as a result of the events of 9/11/01 in which Congress authorized the President to use necessary force under the Authorization For Use of Military Force (AUMF) Public Law # 107-40 which says: “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.” [Italics & bolding added]
The language of the so-called “AUMF” is unconstitutional because it transfers the war declaring power from the Congress to the President in violation of Article 1 Section 8 and it gives the President all power to determine who the enemy is at any time and any place all over the world, even here at home. Since there is no amendment that allows such a transfer of power the nation is dissolved along with its constitution. The language making the President the sole judge, jury and executioner over all matters related to the events of 9/11 eradicates the entire Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
This “AUMF resolution” is not a “Declaration of War” that alters the status of the President as Chief Executive Officer to the “Commander-in-Chief” of the armed forces. A lawful “Declaration of War,” required before a President can make any lawful military order, must be titled a “Declaration of War” and it must include the proof of the damage caused by the enemy and who the enemy is. There is no lawful war in progress.
What office in al-Qa’ida did Anwar al-Awlaki hold
and what was he planning against the
What capture would be convenient at the “window of opportunity” and not involve more “risk” than droning the target from a game room 3000 miles away? Therefore, droning is always the best option under #5 and #6 above. So how did these dronings conform to the Law-of-War principles? Were they necessary, distinct, proportional and humane? Did they hit the correct people proportionate to the conflict, and cause little suffering? About the only thing we know is that the target was in a foreign land.
How hard would it be
for these DOJ lawyers to concoct a bunch more judicial sounding crap to include
Ron Avery is a semi-retired architect, author and speaker on topics regarding Christian theology and the principles of property that regulate every aspect of lawful government. Reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org