处死美国公民张首晟估计是引用了Jr. Bush时期签署的 AUMF法案 海华需选对立场
来源: Twinlight 于 2018-12-07 08:04:58 [档案] [博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读： 95 次 (10316 bytes)
字体：调大/重置/调小 | 加入书签 | 打印 | 所有跟帖 | 加跟贴 | 当前最热讨论主题
本文内容已被 [ Twinlight ] 在 2018-12-07 08:27:50 编辑过。如有问题，请报告版主或论坛管理删除.
处死美国公民张首晟引用了Jr. Bush时期签署的 AUMF法案 海华需选对立场
作为敌国的一部分，美国公民可以由美国武装力量直接处死。推测处死张是美国军方，
NSA，CIA 多方的联合行动。
这样的处死不需要任何审判，不需要对媒体公布细节，不需要承认或否认。
目前还不清楚处死的细节，有未经证实的消息说，张跳楼后，看到有两个戴着黑色墨镜
的亚裔从楼后门匆匆离去。
Lawyers for the Obama administration, arguing for their ability to kill an
American citizen without trial in Yemen, contended that the protection of US
citizenship was effectively removed by a key congressional act that blessed
a global war against al-Qaida.
Known as the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), the broad and
controversial 2001 law played a major role in the legal decision to kill
Anwar al-Awlaki, the former al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen, in 2011,
according to a redacted memorandum made public on Monday.
"We believe that the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may
apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of
the forces of an enemy authorization within the scope of the force
authorization," reads the Justice Department memorandum, written for
attorney general Eric Holder on 16 July 2010 and ostensibly intended
strictly for Awlaki's case.
Advertisement
Among those circumstances: "Where high-level government officials have
determined that a capture operation is infeasible and that the targeted
person is part of a dangerous enemy force and is engaged in activities that
pose a continued and imminent threat to US persons or interests."
The 2nd US circuit court of appeals in Manhattan released the memo on Monday
in response to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union and the
New York Times.
The AUMF is unbounded by geographic or time limitations, indicating the wide
berth the Obama administration provides for understanding its powers for
the potential targeting of US citizens. The administration's official policy
is that the AUMF ought to be "ultimately repeal[ed]", as Obama said in May.
The administration does not support immediate repeal, which already faces a
difficult congressional road.
Barely over a year after the memo was issued, Awlaki was dead, following a
US drone strike – the first such lethal strike known to have deliberately
targeted an American citizen. Yet an earlier US assault on Awlaki, in
December 2009, predated the memo.
While Obama administration officials have for years insisted that Awlaki was
an operational leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which in 2009
and 2010 attempted unsuccessfully to detonate bombs inside the US, they have
also fought lawsuits seeking to reveal their case against Awlaki.
But for the case against Awlaki, hinted at in a Justice Department "white
paper" summarizing it that leaked last year, the administration leaned
significantly on the broad leeway for counter-terrorism the AUMF established.
"Just as the AUMF authorizes the military detention of a US citizen captured
abroad who is part of an armed force within the scope of the AUMF, it also
authorizes the use of 'necessary and appropriate' lethal force against a US
citizen who has joined such an armed force," reads the memo, written by
former Justice Department lawyer David Barron, who also analyzed and
rejected arguments that killing Awlaki would be tantamount to murder.
"It is true that here the target of the contemplated actions would be a US
citizen," reads the memo.
"But we do not believe al-Aulaqi's citizenship provided a basis for
concluding that section 1119 would fail to incorporate the established
public authority justification for a killing in this case."
The release of the memo, as ordered Monday by a federal appeals court, ended
a legal battle that has stretched for years, intended to prevent the
administration from killing Awlaki or any other US citizen without trial.
After losing an April appeal and confronting a challenge by Republican
senator Rand Paul to deny Barron a federal judgeship, the Obama
administration agreed not to fight the document's disclosure.
"The release of the legal memorandum follows the administration’s decision
last month not to appeal the court’s decision. The material being released
is consistent with the administration’s previous statements on this issue,"
said Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon.
But its suppression challenge took various forms and arguments over the
years, despite repeated official confirmations about the drone strikes,
including from the president; despite the confirmed killing of four
Americans, three of whom are claimed to have been killed accidentally,
including Awlaki's 16-year-old son; and despite the 2013 leak of a memo
summarizing the Justice Department's arguments about so-called "targeted
killing" for Congress.
The redacted version of the memo released Monday does not reveal much of the
factual basis for the government's claims that Awlaki represented an
imminent threat to the United States.
In the disclosed portions, Barron's memo does not explicitly vouch for the
government's case against Awlaki, referring instead to "the facts
represented to us". It refers instead to Awlaki as a "leader" who was "
continuously planning attacks" against the US, without providing an
evidentiary basis for claims central to the extraordinary circumvention of
normal due process procedures. Nor do the public sections explain why
capturing Awlaki was not feasible, nor why the Justice Department believes
it need not have provided Awlaki with judicial process.
The CIA, which along with the military's special operations forces sought
authority for the strike, declined to comment. Barron was confirmed by the
Senate to the federal bench on 22 May.
The Justice Department memo "confirms that the government’s drone killing
program is built on gross distortions of law", said Pardiss Kebriaei, a
lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights who challenged the Awlaki
killing, who added that the "forced transparency comes years late".
Rejecting a government argument that the release of the memorandum would
chill attorney-client communications, the court wrote on Monday: "If this
contention were upheld, waiver of privileges protecting legal advice would
never occur. … We need not fear that OLC will lack for clients."
Several of the government's appeals for secrecy have been overtaken by the
public record, the court found. Among them: the "identity of the country in
which al-Awlaki was killed", which was reported as being Yemen on the day of
the lethal strike; and the involvement of the CIA, which in addition to
being an open secret for years was confirmed by former director Leon Panetta.
"We recognize that in some circumstances the very fact that legal analysis
was given concerning a planned operation would risk disclosure of the
likelihood of that operation, but that is not the situation here where drone
strikes and targeted killings have been publicly acknowledged at the
highest levels of the Government," the court explained.
The ACLU, which sought along with the New York Times to compel the release
of the memo, vowed to fight the government's additional arguments for
secrecy around other legal foundations of what it calls its "targeted
killing" program.
“We will continue to press for the release of other documents relating to
the targeted-killing program, including other legal memos and documents
relating to civilian casualties," said deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer.
"The drone program has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of
people, including countless innocent bystanders, but the American public
knows scandalously little about who is being killed and why.”
In May 2013, Obama raised his standards for launching drone attacks or other
so-called "targeted" lethal military action against terrorist suspects.
American drones struck last week in both Yemen and Pakistan, though no
Americans are suspected of being killed.
US senator Ron Wyden praised the memo's release and called for more
transparency on Monday. "For example, how much evidence does the president
need to determine that a particular American is a legitimate target for
military action? Or, can the president strike an American anywhere in the
world? What does it mean to say that capturing an American must be ‘
infeasible’? And exactly what other limits and boundaries apply to this
authority?" he said.
"I urge the executive branch to build on today’s disclosure and start
answering these additional questions."
已有0位网友点赞! |
发表于 2018-12-7 14:19
|