PDA

View Full Version : POLL : Should the CIA Be Allowed To Target American al-Qaida Agents ?



Jolie Rouge
12-04-2002, 01:50 PM
U.S. Can Target American al-Qaida Agents
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - American citizens working for al-Qaida overseas can legally be targeted and killed by the CIA under President Bush's rules for the war on terrorism, U.S. officials say.

The authority to kill U.S. citizens is granted under a secret finding signed by the president after the Sept. 11 attacks that directs the CIA to covertly attack al-Qaida anywhere in the world. The authority makes no exception for Americans, so permission to strike them is understood rather than specifically described, officials said.

These officials said the authority will be used only when other options are unavailable. Military-like strikes will take place only when law enforcement and internal security efforts by allied foreign countries fail, the officials said.

Capturing and questioning al-Qaida operatives is preferable, even more so if an operative is a U.S. citizen, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Any decision to strike an American will be made at the highest levels, perhaps by the president.

U.S. officials say few Americans are working with al-Qaida but they have no specific estimates.

The CIA already has killed one American under this authority, although U.S. officials maintain he wasn't the target.

On Nov. 3, a CIA-operated Predator drone fired a missile that destroyed a carload of suspected al-Qaida operatives in Yemen. The target of the attack, a Yemeni named Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, was the top al-Qaida operative in that country. Efforts by Yemeni authorities to detain him had previously failed.

But the CIA didn't know a U.S. citizen, Yemeni-American Kamal Derwish, was in the car. He died, along with al-Harethi and four other Yemenis.

The Bush administration said the killing of an American in this fashion was legal.

``I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials,'' said Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, after the attack. ``He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority.''

American authorities have alleged that Derwish was the leader of an al-Qaida cell in suburban Buffalo, N.Y. Most of the alleged members of the cell were arrested and charged with supporting terrorists, but Derwish was not accused of any crime in American courts.

Family members in Buffalo say they have yet to be contacted by the U.S. government about Derwish's death, which they learned about through media reports.

Mohamed Albanna, vice president of the American Muslim Council's Buffalo chapter, urged federal authorities to confirm the death.

``It's just a matter of common respect for the family here. After all, they are U.S. citizens.'' He added that Derwish ``has not been tried and has not been found guilty, so, in that sense, he's still an innocent American who was killed. That's what the law states.''

The Bush administration sees it differently. In killing him, the administration defined Derwish as an enemy combatant, the equivalent of a U.S. citizen who fights with the enemy on a battlefield, officials said. Under this legal definition, experts say, his constitutional rights are nullified and he can be killed outright.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, supported this policy. ``A U.S. citizen terrorist will kill you just like somebody from another country.''

The government has done little publicly to justify Derwish's killing. Officials have privately suggested his association with al-Harethi is reason enough.

Other Americans have been similarly classed since Sept. 11, including Jose Padilla, accused of plotting to use a radioactive ``dirty bomb'' in the United States, and Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was found fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Both are in military custody.

However, a third American, John Walker Lindh, was turned over to the civilian courts after being found serving as a foot soldier with the Taliban. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to supplying services to the Taliban and carrying explosives in commission of a felony.

While officials believe only a small number of U.S. citizens went through Osama bin Laden's camps, Americans have been associated with all levels of al-Qaida.

This includes high-level operative Wadih El Hage, a Lebanese-American who was convicted in connection with the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. A former U.S. Army soldier, Ali Mohamed, worked as a trainer and target scout for bin Laden before he was captured and convicted.

Previously, the government's authority to kill a citizen outside of the judicial process has been generally restricted to when the American is directly threatening the lives of other Americans or their allies.

Earlier presidential authorizations of lethal covert action, in Latin America and elsewhere, have also tacitly allowed the killing of Americans fighting with the other side, former senior intelligence officials said. But the officials knew of no instances where U.S. citizens were targeted.

The CIA declines comment on covert actions and the authorities it operates under.

Experts on the Constitution and the international laws of war said the Bush administration's definitions create problems.Unlike the enemy in previous wars, al-Qaida members don't wear uniforms or serve in a foreign nation's army. Nor do they take to traditional battlefields, except in Afghanistan. But the Bush administration and al-Qaida together have defined the entire world as a battlefield - meaning the attack on al-Harethi and Derwish was tantamount to an air strike in a combat zone. ``That is the most vulnerable aspect of the theory,'' said Scott L. Silliman, director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security. ``Could you put a Hellfire missile into a car in Washington, D.C., under the same theory? The answer is yes, you could.''

Human rights groups were divided on the legality of the attack on al-Harethi. Amnesty International suggested it was an extrajudicial killing, outlawed by international treaty, while Human Rights Watch officials said they believed it was a legitimate wartime action.

Associated Press Writer Ben Dobbin in Rochester, N.Y., contributed to this story.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0001/20021203/194287320.htm

mesue
12-04-2002, 02:32 PM
I'm all for taking measures to prevent any further terrorism but I'm not sure who we as a nation are becoming in doing so. The new laws Bush is wanting to get passed that says if you are considered to be a terrorist then they can take you away without any representation or trial and lock you away forever if they the government deems it necessary allowing you no means to defend yourself. Are we supposed to give up our rights as American citizens to prevent terrorism, I think not, but if this new law gets passed we are each at the mercy of some government agency if we get accused wrongfully or not it does not matter we will be locked away without a lawyer or visits from anyone, they don't even have to inform your family of where you are. What happened 9/11 was a horror no one wants to see happen ever again but I don't think we as American citizens should have to give up all the rights our forefathers fought and died for to prevent it from happening again.

Jolie Rouge
12-04-2002, 02:55 PM
The problem I see with this is the potential for abuse.

Who is to say that todays' "Independant Thinker" won't be tomorrow's "Terrorist" ??

Did anyone else read 1984 by George Orwell ?

mesue
12-04-2002, 03:55 PM
I agree the potential for abuse is strongly there, did you read the fugatives post about the parallel legal system if this gets passed we will have no rights because if your accused you can't get help of any kind from anyone you would just be at the governments mercy. Bush is using this fear to further take away our rights, I don't care what one is democrat or republican it does not matter our rights are being slowly dwindled away due to the fear of another incident of 9/11. I agree we should all understand that measures have to be taken but to pass a law saying that the government has the right to hold anyone for as long as they want to without any form of representation or your family being notified of where you are or being allowed to visit is what I was told happened in communist countries. Basically its saying if the government does not like what you might represent they have the right to lock you away forever because they feel you might be a terrorist and the government will not be held accountable for it. I don't think the people who are for this law can see the forest for the trees, they just can't see the potential for abuse that is there and the others just can't see that it could happen to them or a family member or loved one. But if someone accuses you they don't even have to have evidence they can take you away and lock you away forever if they choose to. The mental health system years ago was used by some like this, a woman who was widowed, the FIL wanted her children made a complaint that she was crazy, they came and got her and locked her away and the FIL got the kids, she was in her thirties she died there 30 some years later still locked away. When they came and got her she had her children gathered at the table eating their dinner, many people here said she was sane as anyone but once accused of being crazy, the doctors believed the FIL. Back then as I understand it there was no clear criteria for holding you it was completely at the drs. discretion whether you left or not and even if she had been fortunate enough to of gotten out she would never have gotten her children back. The so called mentally ill back then had no rights and if Bush gets this law passed, no one will. I think everyone who is against this being passed should write their congressman and let them know how they feel.

the fugative
12-04-2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by mesue
I agree the potential for abuse is strongly there, did you read the fugatives post about the parallel legal system if this gets passed we will have no rights


http://forums.bigbigsavings.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=247965

adair
12-04-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Jolie Rouge
The problem I see with this is the potential for abuse.

Who is to say that todays' "Independant Thinker" won't be tomorrow's "Terrorist" ??

Did anyone else read 1984 by George Orwell ?

Abuse of power is a very strong [and scarey] possibility. As long is there is the capability someone will try to abuse the power as long, and sometimes as hard, as they can. Whether it be a political figure, a "mere peon" like a CIA agent, or your next door neighbor, someone is going to try to push the "system" to the utmost for whatever reason they deem fit.

I believe that some of the things that are happening today should have limits. And the only way we can put a limit on any of it is to write or call our representatives at state and federal level and let them know how we feel. That is what they are there for and the reason why we vote for or against them. If they do not want to follow the percentage of their constituents' beliefs, then vote them out and let them know why you voted against them.