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

[Liberty]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we're wrong to treat our conflict with Al Qaeda as a war; we should be treating it only as a law enforcement problem?

 

[martybegan]

So we're wrong to treat our conflict with Al Qaeda as a war; we should be treating it only as a law enforcement problem?

Only in the case of an american citizen. For foreign nationals its open season.

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship. Set up a hearing, and give them 30 days to dispute the revocation. After that its drone missile time.

Its less law enforcement then consitutional issues, and due process. You need to do the due process first, then you can bomb them to bits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we're wrong to treat our conflict with Al Qaeda as a war; we should be treating it only as a law enforcement problem?

Only in the case of an american citizen. For foreign nationals its open season.

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship. Set up a hearing, and give them 30 days to dispute the revocation. After that its drone missile time.

Its less law enforcement then consitutional issues, and due process. You need to do the due process first, then you can bomb them to bits.

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.

 

[Liberty]

So we're wrong to treat our conflict with Al Qaeda as a war; we should be treating it only as a law enforcement problem?

Only in the case of an american citizen. For foreign nationals its open season.

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship. Set up a hearing, and give them 30 days to dispute the revocation. After that its drone missile time.

Its less law enforcement then consitutional issues, and due process. You need to do the due process first, then you can bomb them to bits.

yeah that would be fine.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The fact is that your post is fact-free. He was not "assassinated." He did not deserve a trial. It is called a "slippery slope fallacy" for a reason.
ANd why do we have yet another thread on this topic?

 

[The Rabbi]

So we're wrong to treat our conflict with Al Qaeda as a war; we should be treating it only as a law enforcement problem?

Only in the case of an american citizen. For foreign nationals its open season.

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship. Set up a hearing, and give them 30 days to dispute the revocation. After that its drone missile time.

Its less law enforcement then consitutional issues, and due process. You need to do the due process first, then you can bomb them to bits.

yeah that would be fine.

You would appear to be wrong here.

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

The action was clearly lawful.

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

 

[Liberty]

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.

The action was clearly lawful.

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

eh...

6th amendment

 

[MiddleClass]

The ex-patriots and lost their American Citizenship when they enemy combatants, so entire premise for this debate about assassinating American citizens is erroneous, and moot.

 

[ladyliberal]

I agree that whether the targeted killing was moral and whether it was legal are two different issues. However, it's incorrect to say that the claim that the killing is illegal is a "fact". It's a legally defensible position, but it is not a fact. It's a position asserted by the ACLU, but rejected by a federal judge: Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The judge held that the program was a legitimate use of executive power, and thus judicially unreviewable.

There have been executive orders restricting assassination, but it's not clear that they apply here (and the courts don't seem able to enforce them). The Bush administration for example argued that targeted killings were always legal during a time of war, and that we have been in a time of war for the last decade.

The sixth amendment doesn't apply. It refers to rights during criminal prosecutions. It doesn't guarantee a criminal prosecution. A firmer foundation would seem to lie in the Fifth Amendment's promise of "due process". Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the Fifth Amendment currently cites three sources debating whether it ought to have prevented the killing: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I'm quite sympathetic to the claim that such a killing is illegal or unconstitutional, but it simply is not a "fact".

 

[eflatminor]

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...

 

[martybegan]

So we're wrong to treat our conflict with Al Qaeda as a war; we should be treating it only as a law enforcement problem?

Only in the case of an american citizen. For foreign nationals its open season.

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship. Set up a hearing, and give them 30 days to dispute the revocation. After that its drone missile time.

Its less law enforcement then consitutional issues, and due process. You need to do the due process first, then you can bomb them to bits.

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.

To properly renounce your citizenship you have to do it in front of someone from a federal executive agency, usually the state department. Just saying " I renounce my citizenship" isn't good enough. I'm not sure if the now dead terrorist ever did it offically, since him appearing before any US offical would result in his arrest.

Therefore there needs to be a mechanism to reovke someones citizenship that allows them to dispute the revocation in person, so if this issue comes up again we can bomb them without a consitutional issue.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship.

Now THAT is a dangerous precedent to undertake.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So we're wrong to treat our conflict with Al Qaeda as a war; we should be treating it only as a law enforcement problem?

Only in the case of an american citizen. For foreign nationals its open season.

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship. Set up a hearing, and give them 30 days to dispute the revocation. After that its drone missile time.

Its less law enforcement then consitutional issues, and due process. You need to do the due process first, then you can bomb them to bits.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only in the case of an american citizen. For foreign nationals its open season.

Also, the proper thing to do is have a mechanism to revoke a person's citizenship. Set up a hearing, and give them 30 days to dispute the revocation. After that its drone missile time.

Its less law enforcement then consitutional issues, and due process. You need to do the due process first, then you can bomb them to bits.

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.

 

[Amelia]

Those who are arguing that Awlaki renounced/forfeited his citizenship need to go talk with the Obama administration.

They considered him a citizen.

 

[Amelia]

I agree that whether the targeted killing was moral and whether it was legal are two different issues. However, it's incorrect to say that the claim that the killing is illegal is a "fact". It's a legally defensible position, but it is not a fact. It's a position asserted by the ACLU, but rejected by a federal judge: Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The judge held that the program was a legitimate use of executive power, and thus judicially unreviewable.

There have been executive orders restricting assassination, but it's not clear that they apply here (and the courts don't seem able to enforce them). The Bush administration for example argued that targeted killings were always legal during a time of war, and that we have been in a time of war for the last decade.

The sixth amendment doesn't apply. It refers to rights during criminal prosecutions. It doesn't guarantee a criminal prosecution. A firmer foundation would seem to lie in the Fifth Amendment's promise of "due process". Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the Fifth Amendment currently cites three sources debating whether it ought to have prevented the killing: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I'm quite sympathetic to the claim that such a killing is illegal or unconstitutional, but it simply is not a "fact".

Please show where the judge ruled it was a legitimate use of executive power. The way I heard/read/understood it, the judge refused to rule on that. He kicked the can way down/off the road. Said the father didn't have standing and he pretty much refused to rule on anything else.

Please clarify.

 

[Amelia]

September 2010:

The Obama administration is considering filing the first criminal charges against radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in case the CIA fails to kill him and he is captured alive in Yemen.

U.S. eyes terror charges for Yemeni cleric - USATODAY.com


The administration was totally winging it. They considered filing charges but in the end chose not to, and the reason sounds like it was because they couldn't file charges which would stick and/or the charges they would file would have made it hard to defend the kill order.

So they doubled down and tried harder to kill him. Not understanding how many people would find it hard to swallow the idea that due process only kicked in if you couldn't figure out a way to kill him.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Sorry Liberty there is no slippery slope. This guy became an opertive in an organization that openly declares war on the USA and then carries out attacksw on our overseas embassys, our warships, and finally on our soil. **** him and the horse he was riding......