It's not a matter of whether or not you agree with an action...

[Amelia]

I would have favored a two-pronged approach:

A. Do everything you can to get the guy, as fast as possible, using extreme force if needed. But I would have stopped short of explicitly calling for his death without a formal sentence. If he resisted and was killed in the process, no tears.

B. Make sure you have the lawyers working on the formalities called for under due process. Push that through - not hastily but don't just sit on it - and hopefully get the sentence you want in absentia. If you don't have enough evidence to support a charge which would bring the death penalty then you never put a specific kill order. That way, if you do catch him, you don't have to answer for why you put a kill order on him when you don't have enough evidence to put him in prison for more than 15 years.




If the Obama administration couldn't get a sentence in the almost two years ago since they put Awlaki on their list, then there was a problem with the case they had against him. In my opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The action was clearly lawful.

The discussion should be, do we want to change it.

I find that I often agree with your point of view FA, but I'm not sure this time. While I would be happy to have put a 30 caliber right between that guy's eyes, I don't see where the President has the authority under the Constitution to use the military to kill an American citizen abroad without a trial. Perhaps you can argue he should, but I don't believe he does. When you say "clearly lawful", are you basing that on Constitution grounds? If so, where do you find the authority in the document?

Still trying to make up my mind about this one...

United States Constitution, Article I Section 8, Powers of Congress

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;​

United States Constitution, Article I Section 8, Powers of Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;​

United States Congress, Authorization for Use of Military Force, September 18, 2001

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

<<SNIP>>

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."​

*************************************************

1. Given that the United States Constitution empowers Congress to declare War and authorize the use the the military for such actions...

2. Given that the United States Constitution empowers Congress to authorize the use of the military for the suppression of insurrection...

3. Given that Al Qaeda declared war on and called for the destruction of the United States...

4. Given that 5th Amendment protections apply to criminal proceedings and not to military acts conducted as part of a war campaign...

5. Given that Congress as authorized the use of "All necessary force" against individuals, organizations, and nations involved with international terrorism directed against the United States (with no limit on geography)...

6. Given that an individual, who is also a citizen of a country, who calls for and participates in actions intending to destroy that country and/or overthrow its lawful government is in a condition of insurrection...

7. Given that Anwar al Awlaki had risen to a position of leadership in a terrorist organization that had in the past slaughtered thousands of American Citizens, attached a United States Navy warship, attempted to destroy an airliner over United States airspace via a bomb in the perpetrators underwear, encouraged a member of the United States military to walk into a group of fellow servicemen and begin slaughtering them, maintains various terror cells inside the United States and is linked to funding acts of international terrorism this position places him in the category of "all necessary force" Constitutionally authorized by Congress.

8. Given that as an American Citizen Anwar al Awlaki has called for the destruction of the United States and the slaughter of it's citizens and has become a leader in an international terrorist organization that has demonstrated acts of terrorism against the United States, it's citizens, and its military - al Awlaki is in a state of insurrection and therefore subject to the use of military force as proscribed by Congress.



****************************************



It was a just kill of an enemy combatant.



>>>>

 

[BlindBoo]

Liberty is a uber-lefty? Wow, didn't see that coming.

 

[The Rabbi]

Liberty is a uber-lefty? Wow, didn't see that coming.

I suspect he's a Wookie-Suiter. Those people are basically leftists.

 

[Amelia]

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

"necessary and appropriate"

Is putting an American citizen on a premeditated kill list without a sentence appropriate? Yes, it was a kill list. The "or capture" part seems to have been window dressing. It doesn't seem that the gov't had any intention of trying to catch him.

So was it appropriate? I would like to see that question answered by people with authority and mastery of the law.

Now that the son is dead, maybe the courts will give the father standing to dispute the appropriateness of putting his son on a kill list when the government didn't make a good faith effort to prove it had enough evidence to support a capital charge.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, as long as we didn't water board him and only killed him to death.

 

[Amelia]

eggzackery

 

[Mr.Nick]

That's an opinion. The fact is to order an assassination on an American without a trial is illegal. This is an interesting case and I am just as happy to see this asshole dead as anyone with intelligence, but it was done in the open, by the American government. I see a slippery slope here and it's kind of scary.

I hate cops, I'm anti-cop, however cops kill Americans everyday yet no one bitches about that... Yet a tyrant is offed in a foreign country and people care?


Yeah thats your fucking problem.

That fuck was NOT an American and for once the government did good.

 

[Amelia]

That's an opinion. The fact is to order an assassination on an American without a trial is illegal. This is an interesting case and I am just as happy to see this asshole dead as anyone with intelligence, but it was done in the open, by the American government. I see a slippery slope here and it's kind of scary.

I hate cops, I'm anti-cop, however cops kill Americans everyday yet no one bitches about that... Yet a tyrant is offed in a foreign country and people care?


Yeah thats your fucking problem.

That fuck was NOT an American and for once the government did good.

Our government said he was ...

 

[Mr.Nick]

It seems the only time people care is when the media tells them to...

 

[kaz]

That's an opinion. The fact is to order an assassination on an American without a trial is illegal. This is an interesting case and I am just as happy to see this asshole dead as anyone with intelligence, but it was done in the open, by the American government. I see a slippery slope here and it's kind of scary.

Bull shit. When an American leaves the US and declares and carries out war against the US you blow his sorry ass away. Saying we should have arrested him, which was obviously impossible, is just butt stupid. The President's job is to protect the American people. Obama did that.

 

[Mr.Nick]

That's an opinion. The fact is to order an assassination on an American without a trial is illegal. This is an interesting case and I am just as happy to see this asshole dead as anyone with intelligence, but it was done in the open, by the American government. I see a slippery slope here and it's kind of scary.

I hate cops, I'm anti-cop, however cops kill Americans everyday yet no one bitches about that... Yet a tyrant is offed in a foreign country and people care?


Yeah thats your fucking problem.

That fuck was NOT an American and for once the government did good.

Our government said he was ...

Yeah he should have been killed and was, however that doesn't change anything.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Is putting an American citizen on a premeditated kill list without a sentence appropriate?

Well, let me tell you, if I am in my third floor with the rest of my family, and I hear an American citizen breaking into my house downstairs, they'll be put on a premeditated kill list without a sentence by the time I get down there myself!

 

[Amelia]

Is putting an American citizen on a premeditated kill list without a sentence appropriate?

Well, let me tell you, if I am in my third floor with the rest of my family, and I hear an American citizen breaking into my house downstairs, they'll be put on a premeditated kill list without a sentence by the time I get down there myself!

That doesn't count as premeditation. That would be self-defense in the face of direct and immediate threat.

Awlaki's case was more like if there was someone across town who had email contact with the person who broke into your house. Are you going to go across town and shoot the person who shared correspondence with the guy who broke into your house?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Awlaki's case was more like if there was someone across town who had email contact with the person who broke into your house. Are you going to go across town and shoot the person who shared correspondence with the guy who broke into your house?

I don't think that example is comparable at all. Awlaki took up arms against the country and government. He was engaged in an ongoing, armed military conflict and was fighting against the US. The constitution grants the government power to lay down insurrections, and to combat enemies both foreign and domestic.

The question of the action being "premeditated" and the distinction you draw between my comparison is an arbitrary matter of time. How much time does it take to qualify as "premeditation"? If troops engaged the enemy on the battlefield, unaware that Awlaki was part of the enemy force, and then during the conflict learned that he was commanding the enemy force, would it be illegal for the US commander to order him targeted? What if the the battle were waging on for another 8 hours? What if raged for 24 hrs? What if US forces drew up an elaborate plan to outflank the enemy position and eliminate the enemy commander, and then carried it out 48 hours after the battle began? Certainly that would constitute premeditation. Yet I would be amazed if you'd find any of that illegal. At the least, if you do consider that somehow illegal or against the constitution, then you have a very funny concept of what armed conflict means.

 

[Amelia]

Awlaki's case was more like if there was someone across town who had email contact with the person who broke into your house. Are you going to go across town and shoot the person who shared correspondence with the guy who broke into your house?

I don't think that example is comparable at all. Awlaki took up arms against the country and government. He was engaged in an ongoing, armed military conflict and was fighting against the US. The constitution grants the government power to lay down insurrections, and to combat enemies both foreign and domestic.

The question of the action being "premeditated" and the distinction you draw between my comparison is an arbitrary matter of time. How much time does it take to qualify as "premeditation"? If troops engaged the enemy on the battlefield, unaware that Awlaki was part of the enemy force, and then during the conflict learned that he was commanding the enemy force, would it be illegal for the US commander to order him targeted? What if the the battle were waging on for another 8 hours? What if raged for 24 hrs? What if US forces drew up an elaborate plan to outflank the enemy position and eliminate the enemy commander, and then carried it out 48 hours after the battle began? Certainly that would constitute premeditation. Yet I would be amazed if you'd find any of that illegal. At the least, if you do consider that somehow illegal or against the constitution, then you have a very funny concept of what armed conflict means.

Awlaki took up arms?




Nevermind. I was trying to wind down from this convo.

*deep breathes*

*calm*

*ohm*

*all better*

 

[Inthemiddle]

Well gee, if using a proverbial phrase winds you up, maybe you should consider that you're too high strung in the first place????

 

[oreo]

That's an opinion. The fact is to order an assassination on an American without a trial is illegal. This is an interesting case and I am just as happy to see this asshole dead as anyone with intelligence, but it was done in the open, by the American government. I see a slippery slope here and it's kind of scary.

Ever hear of the Civil War?

 

[del]

No. An American citizen can't join forces with a foreign enemy, renounce his citizenship, and still claim full rights and protections as an American civilian citizen. It's preposterous.

Actually, it's not. Rights aren't something granted or revoked to you by the government based on political or ideological alignment. They are yours by default.

No, actually rights are granted by the US Constitution, statutes, and court decisions.

wrong, the constitution doesn't grant us rights; it keeps (theoretically) the govt from infringing upon them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, actually rights are granted by the US Constitution, statutes, and court decisions.

What a bunch of extremo-liberal, hooked-on-government, BS.