Rachel Maddow Questions Legality Of Anwar al-Awlaki Killing (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow raised a series of questions about the legality of the killing of the U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki on her Friday show.

Al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. airstrike on Friday morning. While many lawmakers and pundits celebrated the death, others were troubled by the precedent that might be set by killing an American citizen without any trial or evidence presented against him.

Maddow ran through the long list of operations that al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in. She noted that there were "a lot of 'allegedlys'" in the list, and that "none of those allegations was ever made in court." The only due process involved in al-Awlaki's killing, she says, was that President Obama ordered him to be killed.

"Can the United States government choose an American citizen to be executed without ever charging them with anything, without ever proving anything against them, without ever giving them a chance to defend themselves?" she wondered. "Whether or not you think it is deserved, under what authority did President Obama or could any president sign him up to be killed on sight?"

Later, Maddow asked her guest, Wired writer Spencer Ackerman, about the precedent that could be set by the killing.

"If the US government can justify this action overseas, what about here in the US?" she asked. Ackerman said he didn't see what the difference was between ordering an American to be killed overseas and ordering him to be killed on U.S. soil.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

[Daniel H Campbell]

12:03 AM on 10/09/2011

Its so funny and sad the people who think this was legal and justified. It reminds me of another time this happened when Abraham Lincoln conspired to officially assinate Jefferson Davis.

OH WAIT THATS RIGHT, LINCOLN DID NOT TRY TO ASSASSINATE JEFFERSON DAVIS, BECAUSE JEFFERSON DAVIS WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND HE WAS FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AN ACTIVE WAR THAT KILLED OVER 600 THOUSAND AMERICANS. BUT THIS IS ALL COOL RIGHT?

[johngary66]

05:40 AM on 10/06/2011

From New American 9/28/11 "11. President Obama doesn’t respect the trial rights of American citizens and thinks Americans may be killed without trial.

President Obama rode into office criticizing the Bush administration’s practices for handling suspected terrorists, but in many ways has actually become even more autocratic than Bush. President Bush claimed for himself the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial, even Americans. But according to the Washington Post, President Obama now believes he can kill without trial U.S. citizens he suspects are aiding terrorism. Obama’s “assassination list” supposedly contains dozens of U.S. citizens living abroad. Obama administration officials have publicly defended the assassination list.

“To me, terrorists should not be able to hide behind their passports and their citizenship, and that includes U.S. citizens, whether they are overseas or whether they are here in the United States,” Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John O. Brennan told the Washington Times in June 2010. Brennan said at that time that “dozens” of American citizens were on Obama’s assassination list. New Mexico native Anwar al-Awlaki is reportedly on the assassination list, but the list itself remains classified. Anwar al-Awlaki is thought to be hiding out from the United States in Yemen, and his chief alleged crime is the making of propaganda videos for al-Qaeda

[GeneralBulldog]

11:30 AM on 10/05/2011

The only way this can be justified is if al-Awlaki was aiding or harboring anyone with credible threats to the nation. I would only assume his death be justified if proven he was a traitor. If not then this kind of precedent is indeed troubling. The fact that this now dead cleric can't speak for himself adds to the saying "dead men tell no tales." It's equally concerning yet the question I have is why was he in Yemen, a country I believe we are in conflict with.

[charlavoix]

09:40 AM on 10/05/2011

This already happened in 2003...FRONTLINE reported on it (See link below) and I sent a comment to Frontline at that time. Here it is.

Dear FRONTLINE:

I intended to write about FBI director Mueller's satisfaction in breaking down the wall that protects US citizens from domestic spying.

Then I heard the director of Homeland Security admit that, to protect America, the United States government will kill US citizens that it suspects of being terrorists without due process of law. Mr. Ridge made this statement in the context of the CIA killing of a US citizen in Yemen suspected of being a terrorist.

It gives meaning to Mr. Bush's statement in his 2002 state of the union speech that we'll show them the "extent of American justice" as well as his presidential finding permitting the CIA to use all necessary means to get terrorists.

Did Frontline presume that its viewers would, without further probing, comprehend the significance of Mr. Ridge's statement? Or was the risk of embarrassing Mr. Ridge (or George Bush) too great?

We're in trouble!

Charlene LaVoie



Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sleeper/talk/#ixzz1ZujjYhlz

[johngary66]

05:42 AM on 10/06/2011

You betcha we are. We have met the enemy and he is us.

[Michael Ruiz]

12:24 AM on 10/05/2011

Ron Paul got bashed on HuffPost for saying this... I wonder how many Liberal Sheeple will now flip flop because a favored Liberal questions this action by obama as well. (sigh) The polarized two party system really keeps peoples Minds closed down.

"Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They're on our side against the military-industrial complex. They're on our side against Wall Street. They're on our side for investor rights." - RALPH NADER

[Binea]

12:48 AM on 10/05/2011

it does..that's the problem..the press and media no longer do their job they are just paid propagandist and expert at it..cept Maddow and a couple of others

[Binea]

12:55 AM on 10/05/2011

here pass this around to as many as you can..it is Ron Paul with Ralph Nader and Kucinich talking about how the FED is completely OUT OF CONTROL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLdcB0ln9t8

[Pleroma]

09:21 AM on 10/05/2011

For a (no) fool, that's a very fun clip!

Thanks.

[Binea]

11:55 PM on 10/04/2011

I know I sound nutz..but what if ?

Did you KNOW...
there was a battle you know right ? Between congress who overwhelmingly supported Ron Pauls audit the Fed Bill and 3 men lobbied by Fed..fed won
they passed a watered down version..Alan Greyson tried to put Pauls language back in..they blocked it..Bernie sanders tried..they pressured him he cave and we got a watered down version that gave the FEDERAL RESERVE MORE Power with no oversight..here's video of Ron Paul...Kucinich and Ralph Nader saying it is the FED..to the wallstreet protestors
I do believe Obama may not really be in power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLdcB0ln9t8

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-02-28/ron-paul-introduces-bill-to-audit-the-fed/

http://www.ronpaul.com/congress/legislation/111th-congress-200910/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

[Binea]

11:53 PM on 10/04/2011

I can only Hope Obama is not really in charge..that it is Tim Gitner and the Bankers running the show..Gitner DID try to pressure Obama to go around the constitution to do what GITNER wanted on the debt ceiling debate..when all along Gitner knew all he had to do was what Ron Paul had said he should..it was simple..but,nope he and Obama decided to renigg on the deal they made with Boehner who then got angry and there was that back and forth finger pointing

Read this Ms Maddow..it would have solved the Debt ceiling debate without CUTTING ANYTHING or Raising taxes AND it gave Obama and congress TWO YEARS to figure out how to fix the economy
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/ron-paul-suggests-using-fed-to-end-run-debt-ceiling-impasse.html

so WHY didn't they do it ?

read these too..and see why I think it was the Fed Reserve that actually had those men killed,eigther that or Obama is a Lying snake politician who never intended to fix anything.Why did so many civil liberties lawyers support him..and then what Naomi Wolf wrote about why SHE supported him...... prt 1

[Binea]

11:27 PM on 10/04/2011

I can't believe how many on Huffington Post are eigther defending Obama for this or just don't care.
Miss Maddow..can you please keep talking about the danger this power has..what if PERRY becomes president ?
People are I dunno..asleep ? They don't care because they "trust" Obama..read through comments on all threads that talk about it.
they don't seem to understand that Obama won't be president for more than 4 more years at best..and what if a Stalin wannabe get's in power ?

[johngary66]

12:54 AM on 10/05/2011

Binea, thank you for providing those links. I don't agree with Ron Paul on much, but these are two extremely important areas where I do. To those Democrats who say I have to vote for Obama because the Republican are worse, I have to say, than what? They seem pretty much the same to me. Then they say well Obama will make better choices for the Supreme Court. Really, Wall Street gave him twice as much money for his 2008 campaign as they gave John McCain. He has protected their banks banker friends and been ten times as friendly to them as he has been to Main Street. Wall Street will probably give him another term and if they do, I really don't think he will cross them when they tell him who they want for Supreme Court Judges. So who is really more dangerous. I don't know but I won't ever vote for the lesser of two evils again. Look where that has gotten us. I will only vote for who I trust. Screw the people who say I might help a Republican get elected. I might also help an honest candidate in the next election if people join me.

[glenn113]

10:20 PM on 10/04/2011

Dear Rachel my dear,

Please go to 8:43 of this interview you had with the late Embassador Holebrook last year. And remember the exact words and the sense he made. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_cfOR1Vhtk&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLD734A2589E935346

[Binea]

12:13 AM on 10/05/2011

so..how do we KNOW their evidence and Mr.Holbrook isn't lying or fixed like um..the reason to attack Iraq ? where are the fricken WMD...I used to support Bush ( thought maybe Kofie annon had the WMD hidden under his front porch..to keep the Oil for Food scandal hush hus,because,of course if we went in there,we'd find out about it)
but nope..they just Lied to us..or uh ( acted on bad and false info)
so how do we know the "evidence against the americans they killed is not wrong or falsified.
this "trust me" non sense is not deserved

[glenn113]

08:58 AM on 10/05/2011

Holbrook was totally against going into Iraq. He never bought into the wmd lies as neither I or the rest of the general population did. Heck, if Bush had stayed in Tora Bora until we got bin Laden we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[glenn113]

10:16 PM on 10/04/2011

Dear Rachel, please go to 8:43 of this interview you had with the late Embassador Holebrook last year.

[zerosdontcount]

03:35 PM on 10/04/2011

Hilarious how Ron Paul was bashed on the other threads for saying this and now since liberal Rachel Maddow says it, it's so obvious.

[johngary66]

06:19 PM on 10/04/2011

Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, that's probably about how often Ron Paul is right. He has been consistent about his views on foreign policy so this did not surprise me. He is wrong about 98% of the time. this time he is right.

[Pleroma]

08:29 AM on 10/05/2011

Certainly there is a hierarchy of importance in these matters. I myself disagree with Ron Paul about many issues, but for the huge issues of monetary policy and WAR, I agree with him..
Which is massive.

[mflorian]

06:18 AM on 10/06/2011

I defended Paul on the other threads and I defend Maddow here. They're both correct. This was wrong.

[jimfurl179]

12:21 PM on 10/04/2011

Judge, jury, executioner. I understand a memo classified "secret" and written by AG Holder is the justification used for this assassination. So much for transparency. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad al-Alwaki is dead. But I'd be satisfied even if he had been taken out by President Bush with a secret memo written by AG Alberto Gonzales. I'm kind of consistent that way. I can only imagine the outrage that would have been heaped on President Bush had he done this by those identifying themselves as "Liberal" or "Democratic". Their comments on this blog are so self-serving, so ignorant of the facts, so illogical that it's impossible to reply to each and every one. Congratulations President Obama, I am sure the decision weighed heavy on you--as it would have on your predecessor. But there is one less REALLY bad guy in the world tonight and from a Republican; I applaud what you did.

[qzy]

10:10 AM on 10/04/2011

Arriana, look upon these comments and weep.





Oh, you're too busy counting your money ? Well, then...sorry to disturb you.

[Dan Slander]

09:39 AM on 10/04/2011

It's a shame Ms. Maddow's people could not have reached out to Alwaki for a sit down with her in which she could have used her powerful persuasive ways to neutralize Alwaki. Rave on Monday morning QBs.

[deltalady]

08:35 AM on 10/04/2011

Bush is a war criminal. Obama is a war criminal. They may have decided to set aside the Geneva Convention and all sense of right and wrong to pursue their own enrichment, but I don't remember them asking the American people if we wanted to be represented in this manner. Bush/Cheney threw out the rule of law and got away with it. Obama is doing the very same thing and has entered new areas to kill unjustly and randomly. Bush should have been impeached, but Nancy "impeachment's off the table" Pelosi and the weak Dem leadership allowed him to get away with murder, literally. Then we have brand Obama...nobody, no leadership, a patsy and puppet for the corporate elite. There was never a "grassroots" Obama, just a very good actor playing the part. The big guys knew all they had to do was place this man in the WH and watch him sit back and enjoy the ride while the country was taken over by the radical right. THAT'S why the polls show him losing in 2012...because we can't stand him. He's another Bush, whiny and self important. I wasted my vote on him in 2008. Now what do I do? Trust him again? Hardly.

[Ed Red]

09:12 AM on 10/04/2011

Glad you are at least consist. Wonder how liberals and Democrats would have reacted if Bush had approved the killing?

[johngary66]

06:27 PM on 10/04/2011

He did in a way, he was the one who initiated the CIA hit list of American Citizens who had never been convicted of a crime or even charged. Obama in his hurry to follow in Bush II's footsteps and become Bush III, put at least three people on the hit list. So much for his often and loudly proclaimed promise to Restore Rule of Law during his 2008 campaign. Of course that was when Obama was in his best con America mode wasn't it? I guess once he was elected nothing he said previously meant anything anymore.