Tag Archives: Samir Khan

Judge: Govt position in drone suit 'disconcerting'

A federal judge finds “disconcerting” the Obama administration’s position that courts have no role in a lawsuit over drone-strike killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen.

U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer made the comment Friday at a hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The suit was filed by relatives of the three men killed in the drone strikes.

Collyer didn’t say how she would rule on the motion. But she repeatedly expressed concerns about the government’s arguments.

U.S.-born al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki (ahn-WAHR’ al-aw-LAH’-kee) and al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan were killed in a drone strike in September 2011. Al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, was killed the following month.

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Obama’s Gone Jack Bauer On Us

By Susan Stamper Brown

Jack Bauer SC Obamas Gone Jack Bauer on us

The Obama administration seems to have gone Jack Bauer on us, which would be okay if we were just talking about non-American enemy combatants on some far-flung battlefield.

It seems the administration danced its way around case law and the Constitution in an attempt to justify the assassination of three American citizens it refuses to acknowledge it had any part of, post execution. In September 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, the mastermind behind the failed December 25, 2010 airplane BVD bombing, and his cohort, Samir Khan were killed. Two weeks later, in a separate drone attack, the 16-year-old son of al-Awlaki (a Denver native) followed his father’s fate.

According to the Washington Post, “a recently leaked ‘white paper’ from the Justice Department…permits the government to kill its citizens in secret while refusing to acknowledge, even after the fact, that it had done so.”

No matter how evil someone is, it is unnerving that any president wouldn’t hesitate to blatantly disregard an American citizen’s constitutional right to a trial and then make the decision to become prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of that same citizen — and not man-up afterward.

To be clear, the use of drones on the modern battlefield has proven effective; but great ideas in the wrong hands can sour quickly.

In the recently crafted white paper, the administration makes a weak argument to justify its seeming extrajudicial power grab by suggesting “the use of lethal force” against an American citizen is equivalent to George W. Bush’s detention of foreign enemy combatants.

It seems like only yesterday a then-junior senator from Illinois repetitively repudiated Bush’s actions that included the capture, detention, and questioning of non-American enemy combatants, and a military-style christening of a few. Many say Bush’s actions led to information regarding Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and eventual elimination.

What a difference a little (or a lot of) power makes. There’s a new sheriff in town and, suddenly, the North Star we Americans call the Constitution is no longer the effective navigational tool it once was. Now it’s okay to assassinate citizens and grant due process to non-citizens.

After Obama’s election, his administration became obsessed with lavishing constitutional rights on Guantanamo Bay terrorists and tried to move them to New York City where they’d be granted due process. Back in August 2012, Attorney General Holder told Bloomberg he still regrets the “missed opportunity.”

To complicate things, the white paper extends the battlefield to any foreign country. Page 7 suggests “clear evidence” — that a specific act will occur in the near future — is not required. Page 11 supports killing those simply in the scheming stage, leaving no room for a change of heart. They are guilty because they thought about it. To be fair, the paper does identify potential targets as high level leaders; and it also lists “capture” as an option but contradicts itself considering what supposedly happened to the 16-year old Denver resident. Guilty by association?

Throughout the 16-page document, the white paper intermittently leaves out the word “al-Qaida,” and uses the term “terrorist groups” (or variants …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Gates backs lawmakers' oversight of drone program

Robert Gates, a former defense secretary and spymaster, is backing lawmakers’ proposal to form a special court to review President Barack Obama‘s deadly drone strikes against Americans linked to al-Qaida.

Gates, who led the Pentagon for Presidents George W. Bush and Obama and previously served as the Central Intelligence Agency‘s director, said Obama‘s use of the unmanned drones follows tight rules. But he shares lawmakers’ wariness over using the unmanned aircraft to target al-Qaida operatives and allies.

“I think that the rules and the practices that the Obama administration has followed are quite stringent and are not being abused. But who is to say about a future president?” Gates said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

The use of remote-controlled drones — Obama‘s weapon of choice to strike al-Qaida with lethal missiles in places such as Pakistan and Yemen — earned headlines last week as lawmakers contemplated just how much leeway an American president should have in going after the nation’s enemies, including its own citizens.

“We are in a different kind of war. We’re not sending troops. We’re not sending manned bombers. We’re dealing with the enemy where we find them to keep America safe. We have to strike a new constitutional balance with the challenges we face today,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

“The policy is really unfolding. Most of this has not been disclosed,” the second-ranking Senate Democrat added.

The nomination of John Brennan, Obama‘s counterterrorism adviser who oversaw many of the drone strikes from his office in the West Wing basement, kick-started the discussion.

During Thursday‘s hearing, Brennan defended drone strikes only as a “last resort,” but he said he had no qualms about going after Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011. A drone strike in Yemen killed al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both U.S. citizens. A drone strike two weeks later killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, a Denver native.

Those strikes came after U.S. intelligence concluded that the elder al-Awlaki was senior operational leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula plotting attacks on the U.S., including the failed Christmas Day bombing of an airplane as it landed in Detroit in 2009.

“I think it’s very unseemly that a politician gets to decide the death of an American citizen,” said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. “They should answer about the 16-year-old …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Memo sets rationale to kill Qaida-linked citizens

A confidential Justice Department memo says it is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad if it believes they are senior al-Qaida leaders continually engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans.

The document, first reported Monday night by NBC News, provides a legal rationale behind the Obama administration’s use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects.

The 16-page document says it is lawful to target al-Qaida linked U.S. citizens if they pose an “imminent” threat of violent attack against Americans, and that delaying action against such people would create an unacceptably high risk. Such circumstances may necessitate expanding the concept of imminent threat, the memo says.

“The threat posed by al-Qaida and its associated forces demands a broader concept of imminence in judging when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat,” the document added.

A September 2011 drone strike in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both U.S. citizens linked to al-Qaida.

The memo does not require the U.S. to have information about a specific imminent attack against the U.S.

“A decision maker determining whether an al-Qaida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of al-Qaida … are continually plotting attacks against the United States” and that “al-Qaida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so,” says the document.

The document also says that a decision maker must take into account that “the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qaida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that…the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces the probability of American casualties.”

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Christmas tree-lighting bomb plot goes to jury

The federal terrorism trial of an Oregon man accused of attempting to detonate a bomb at Portland’s 2010 Christmas tree-lighting went to the jury late Wednesday afternoon.

In their deliberations over the guilt or innocence of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, jurors will take on a case unique for several reasons.

For one, facts aren’t in dispute: Mohamud’s defense attorneys and the government prosecutors trying to imprison him for life agree that on Nov. 26, 2010, the then-17-year-old Mohamud intended to kill tens of thousands of people.

For another, the very nature of the case means the prosecution finds itself playing defense. It must prove that the FBI did not entrap nor induce Mohamud into the crime during a yearlong sting operation.

And last, the jurors’ decision will focus most prominently on one thing: What Mohamud was thinking when he was first approached over email by an FBI agent pretending to be a radical Islamic jihadi. Was he committed to violent jihad, as he claimed to be online and in submissions to an al-Qaida-sponsored magazine? Or was he a confused, angry teenager who had just begun to leave an unsavory past behind?

After 10 days of testimony and a day of closing arguments from each side’s attorneys, jurors will be asked to make a decision based on their impressions of Mohamud’s state of mind. It was a piece of evidence they never got to explore fully — Mohamud was never called to testify.

Instead, the jurors have thousands of exhibits and hours of testimony from friends, parents, undercover FBI agents and experts in counterterrorism, teenage brain development and the psychology of the Muslim world.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight told them that their decision is easy. Mohamud pressed a keypad button on a black Nokia cellphone and intended to kill people. Whatever else they might think about the methods of undercover agents or the government‘s decision to investigate a teenager, the underlying decision was Mohamud’s and the motivation was hatred of the West, a predisposition he had held onto since he was 15.

“This offense was one a person only commits because they wholeheartedly wanted to,” Knight said.

Think about it from the FBI‘s perspective, Knight told jurors. In 2009, Somali teenagers abruptly disappeared from Minneapolis, purportedly en route to join an al-Qaida affiliate in East Africa. At about the same time, investigators came across Mohamud, an Oregon-based Somali-American teenager who traded a total of 150 emails with al-Qaida lieutenant Samir Khan.

Mohamud, then 18, was a presence on radical Islamic websites and contributed to the magazine “Jihad Recollections.”

Agents testified that they didn’t think Mohamud was a real threat for months. Even a July 30, 2010, face-to-face encounter with an undercover FBI agent posing as an al-Qaida recruiter didn’t convince them that Mohamud was ready to commit acts of terrorism.

But slowly, month by month, meeting by meeting, the agents grew more convinced Mohamud was a real threat, Knight said. And by the time Mohamud gleefully witnessed a live detonation of a bomb on Nov. 7, 2010, staged by the undercover agents in rural Oregon, they were sure they had found a man who would kill if given the chance. The agents testified they felt lucky to have intercepted Mohamud before he met a real terrorist.

One of the agents emailed him, asking if he was sure he wanted to move ahead with the alleged plot. Mohamud responded that he prayed for guidance and woke with his faith “sky high.”

“The traffic light is green lol,” Mohamud wrote.

But it was a different green light the defense wanted jurors to focus on.

“We’ve got the green light to target Mohamud,” an FBI agent wrote in an email. That was proof that the FBI was running a pre-made terrorism operation in search of a suspect, defense attorney Steve Sady said.

They found one in a vulnerable teenager who was conflicted about his faith, often broke and struggling under the weight of expectations of his parents, who were in the process of splitting up, Sady argued Wednesday.

Mohamud wasn’t radicalized by online recruiters or friends with jihadist leanings, but rather by a Justice Department hungry for convictions that ignored every caution sign along the way while manipulating Mohamud’s faith and plying him with praise and the promise of a life leading other jihadis, Sady said.

The agents could have forestalled or even prevented Mohamud’s radicalization. Instead, they encouraged it.

“You don’t put your thumb on the scale of evil,” Sady said.

Think about it from Mohamud’s point of view, he said. With a learner’s permit and braces, not yet able to drive himself to orthodontist appointments in Portland, Mohamud was beginning to enjoy life in college. By the fall of 2009, he hadn’t written much about radical Islam — though he did check the websites — and he was beginning to break from a strict Muslim upbringing.

He smoked, he drank and he had sex out of wedlock. While his home life was an imperfect mess, he had friends, goals and a talent for writing. Then, the FBI entered the picture in the person of “Bill Smith,” the pseudonym of an FBI informant who began to probe Mohamud over emails about his views on radical Islam.

Sady said jurors must decide whether, given all the evidence, Mohamud was already predisposed to terrorism when the first email hit his inbox on Nov. 9, 2010.

There were no real surprises in the case — much of it was spelled out in two years of pretrial filings, arguments and closed-door meetings about classified material.

Jurors must decide whether the FBI entrapped Mohamud in a yearlong sting operation that began with emails and culminated in the bomb plot. Jurors can also find Mohamud wasn’t entrapped, but is not guilty because he was induced by the FBI to commit the crime.

Mohamud, now 21, faces life in prison if convicted.

___

Reach reporter Nigel Duara on Facebook at http://on.fb.me/127q7aU

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Terrorism suspect's mindset debated at Ore. trial

There’s no dispute that a 19-year-old Muslim college student tried to set off a car bomb at Portland’s 2010 Christmas tree lighting ceremony, but how he reached that point is the crux of his trial that began in federal court this week.

A jury of seven men and nine women will decide whether this was a case of the U.S. government preventing the radicalization of a young Somali-American man, or was instead the FBI‘s coercion of an impressionable, hotheaded braggart into a plan he was otherwise incapable of carrying out.

Mohamed Mohamud‘s attorneys began to build their case during opening statements Friday, arguing that he was the victim of a sophisticated manipulation by undercover FBI agents.

“In America, we don’t create crime,” defense attorney Steve Sady said. “The FBI cannot create the very crime they intend to stop. And sometimes, it’s just a matter of going too far.”

Sady said Mohamud was an impressionable 18-year-old who talked big about carrying out terrorism plots but had neither the means nor the experience to follow through.

That changed, Sady said, when undercover FBI agents posing as jihadist co-conspirators provided Mohamud with a fake bomb in November 2010.

Prosecuting attorney Pam Holsinger said Mohamud was on the path to radicalization, and it was only the FBI‘s intervention that prevented him from committing terrorism in the U.S. or abroad.

Holsinger pointed to a picture of the estimated 25,000 people at the Christmas tree-lighting event.

“Little did they know that the defendant plotted and schemed for months to kill each and every one of them with a massive truck bomb,” Holsinger said.

Given multiple chances to reconsider, Mohamud refused, Holsinger said, intent instead on being a “soldier” in a religious and cultural war with the West.

Even prominent radical Islamic contacts in the Middle East, including the American-born Samir Khan, had to admonish Mohamud against being too violent, Holsinger said.

“Even (Khan) had to tone down the radical and violent message,” Holsinger said.

The trial continues Monday with evidence from the prosecution.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News