Russ Feingold 'Pleased' Anwar Al-Awlaki Was Taken Out By Drone Strike

WASHINGTON -- Former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, whose lone vote against the Patriot Act made him a hero among civil libertarians, said he has no problem with the killing of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone attack in Yemen last fall.

"I'm very pleased that he was taken out," said Feingold, who spoke to The Huffington Post ahead of the Tuesday release of his new book, "While America Sleeps." "I do believe he was part and parcel of al Qaeda. I do think it is legitimate to go after al Qaeda operatives."

The clandestine assassination of an American citizen without a trial sparked a legal and moral debate last year that echoed a similar one after 9/11 as lawmakers drafted the now controversial Patriot Act. A secret Obama administration memo leaked soon after the strike concluded that Awlaki could be legally targeted if it was not possible to capture him alive.

Even as he told The Huffington Post in an interview that "Americans have metaphorically gone back to sleep when it comes to constitutional intrusions in the name of fighting terrorism," the former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee made clear that in Awlaki's case, exceptions should be made.

"It is a serious question that they did address and in an opinion that had to do with the difficulty of whether or not you can actually do this with an American citizen," he said of the decision to kill Awlaki. "It has to do under their analysis with whether there was any way to take him alive. Their claim was they could not, and in that circumstance it appears to be legal."

But what about the Obama administration's controversial ratcheting up of drone strikes?

"As to the tactics, I'm not going to speak to the specifics of the drone," Feingold said. "I was on the intelligence committee and I'm not going to get into that right now."

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[Elijah Hathaway]

08:10 PM on 03/18/2012

The fact that the majority of loons on this site genuinely think Awlaki should have been left alone here really highlights their intelligence level and level of bias. From looking at different sites I think the extreme left and extreme right consist of the same little kids posting on different sites.

[Blackorpheus]

02:17 PM on 02/25/2012

Coming from Russ Feingold, that is disappointingly short-sighted.

[Rubiconski]

09:59 AM on 02/24/2012

I'm glad this Israel lover lost! I just saw him on cspan talking about how Iran is a threat to the US.

[mikesw]

07:51 PM on 02/23/2012

Russ and his supporters here believe that getting al-Awlaki was more important than upholding the Constitution.

Sad sad sad

[Chopin]

01:36 AM on 02/24/2012

Russ Feingold's attitude and moral position prove that the road to unconstitutional tyranny is paved with expedient exceptions.

[wijg]

12:44 AM on 02/23/2012

Well then, I'm pleased Russ Feingold is gone. Civil liberties should matter to all of us. If it can be done to Al-Awlaki, it can be done to you.

[richdove]

06:48 PM on 02/22/2012

Russ Feingold? This liberal hack doesn't have a problem with killing, as long as its a Democrat doing the killing. Drones are no different then setting off a bomb with remote control. Do we really want to promote this type of terrorizing technology; it may come back to haunt us. Russ Feingold was always against everything republican except McCain-Feingold.

[Danish5666]

03:57 PM on 02/22/2012

Americans are abandoning International Law.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/22/americans-abandon-international-law/

[mikesw]

08:25 PM on 02/23/2012

Not just international law, nowhere in our code of laws did it say that the president's word was a substitute for judicial review, until 2011.

[Gestas]

03:17 PM on 02/22/2012

General Motors is alive and well and bin Laden is dead....The Republicans are having a hard time running aganist this.

[Israelibabs]

02:55 PM on 02/22/2012

He's dead and so what! Let's move on! Next? Love ya Russ!

[ekstatik]

08:19 PM on 02/22/2012

The Constitution is dead and so what?

[Keith Dyett]

02:38 PM on 02/22/2012

Title 18, USC § 2381:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States..

Now according to the Constitution you do not have to just take up arms, to be "Treasonous" you can also provide "Aid and Comfort." Anwar Al-Awlaki by his own words and actions did provide Aid to our enemies, Enemies who want to kill us.

The Framers of our Constitution intended to limit a ” traitor’s death” for alleged subversion to instances of levying war against the United States, or adhering to enemies of the United States. In contrast, lesser subversive offenses were penalized by non-capital punishments. So this means you and I can Criticize the US, the Government without fear, but if you threaten the President, member of Government guess what you will be arrested

[Danish5666]

03:55 PM on 02/22/2012

And this is determined in a court of law. So where is this ruling?
US constitution, article 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained."

[mattwg440]

02:46 PM on 02/25/2012

Funny how they miss the point, I'm no awlaki fan, and my emotional response is "good he's gone".

But we can't let our emotions rule us in cases of life and death.

[mikesw]

07:56 PM on 02/23/2012

Why wasn't he indicted on treason? Why wasn't he indicted on ANY crime?

In a country of laws, that's how it works.

It is a country of men that a leader can decree your death with no due process and no judicial review based on secret rules and secret evidence.

Which kind of country do you want to live in?

[Joey Blau]

01:38 PM on 02/22/2012

et tu Russ-saye??

there were no charges pressed. we had no trial. there was no conviction. there was no sentance.

if he wanted to surrender there was no authority to accept him, as he had not been charged.

he was most likely not involved in operations. his crime was to speak and print and advocate... well I guess advocate killing Americans and overthowing the power of the US in the middle East, to be fair.

but we are protected in our speach. That is a fundamental right of all Americans. esp as he was not even in the USA. The secret order to kill him was carried out in secret and leaked to promote the administrations plans for killing anyone who they decide needs killing.

even the lone voice has been snookered. a good source for info on this is Glenn Greenwald.

[Mike Armstrong]

01:27 PM on 02/22/2012

Did the killing of his 16 year old son a few weeks later also please Russ?

[its miller time]

01:00 PM on 02/22/2012

On American in the US...should a sniper/police take out a person who is killing people, say on a University campus, or let him/her continue to kill until he tires and can be arrested?

[dim]

03:24 PM on 02/22/2012

Here is what you learn in CCL classes. Deadly force can be legally used to stop an assailant and that's pretty much the only time it's legal. The law does not give you permission to shoot a nasty or deluded but peaceful-at-the-time bystander for cheering on the assailant.

[its miller time]

05:39 PM on 02/22/2012

That is not what this Administration did.

[gDogMan]

12:59 PM on 02/22/2012

Did progressives(?) object to OBL's killing as well?

Are others objecting to al-Awlaki's assassination in an effort to drive a wedge between progressives?

Whatever al-Awlaki's religious and political beliefs, he taught that all Americans deserve horrible deaths. He prepared suicide bombers for martyrdom. He inspired radical, violent acts to the best of his ability.

He was more than an outspoken cleric. He was a terrorist.

He had no claim to citizenship of the society he dedicated his life to destroying.

There has to be some line between progressivism and radicalism or there is no progressive movement. Look at what is happening to conservatives.

[ta2t2o]

02:16 PM on 02/22/2012

I think the difference is that al-Awlaki was an American citizen. That's where they're trying to differentiate. However, like Charles Manson who never actually killed Sharon Tate - he participated in the planning and encouragement. So I see al-Awlaki as a co-conspirator or complicent in the crime of terrorism. Like Bin Laden - he's where he belongs now.

[dim]

03:30 PM on 02/22/2012

Manson was duly charged and convicted. And we know on what evidence.

If there was evidence of Awlaki's participation in a conspiracy, then Awlaki should have at least been charged and given the opportunity to lawyer up, turn himself in and reply to the charges.

[GeorgeSM]

12:57 PM on 02/22/2012

When someone goes to war against his own country he loses the protection that citizenship affords. That has been the case for thousands of years and a simple consideration of the premise says it all.

[mattwg440]

02:50 PM on 02/25/2012

Just not true,
The rules on treason are pretty clear