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

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Even in a war there are rules, one of which is that you do not attack people in neutral countries. It Yemen wanted this guy dead we should have let them kill him, they have no problem killing people there who protest against the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If it was, in fact, lawful, why is it shrouded in secrecy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I have no idea what ex patriots you are talking about, but you do not loose your citizenship simply by breaking a law, you actually have to be convicted of a crime first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

Why do people keep bringing up that case like it proves something? The judge did not say it was legal, he said he did not have jurisdiction, and that the father did not have standing to challenge the death order.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Now THAT is a dangerous precedent to undertake.

The government can revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. They cannot, as far as I know, revoke it for anyone born in this country.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is not even close to being right. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports any argument that it grants rights. In fact, it repeatedly argues that the rights people have shall not be infringed by the government.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

When did he renounce his citizenship?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It's called the slippery slope ARGUMENT. There's no such thing as the "slippery slope fallacy."

 

[bripat9643]

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

Your quote is unattributed, and therefore it's worthless.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

You have a right to defend yourself against an immediate threat. You don't have a right to kill people because you disagree with their behavior.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



>>>>

Let me see if you understand your position.

All the government needs to do is declare war on a group, and authorize the president to take whatever actions are needed, and they can kill anyone they want. That means they can declare war on anyone and then kill them with impunity.

Not a very comforting thought.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Yes, the Civil War was a gross assault on the Constitution. It eviscerated the document. I would hardly use that as a defense of the President's action. You might as well use Stalin's tactic of deliberately starving the Kulaks to death.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

People bitch about cops killing people all the time. The best thing about that is it is starting to make a difference, and a few cops are actually facing charges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Obama did not think it was butt stupid to send a SEAL team with orders to bring bin Laden back, and he was not even a US citizen. Just something you should think about before you claim apprehending him was absolutely impossible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Do you have proof of that, or do you just believe everything the government tells you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

Let me see if you understand your position.

All the government needs to do is declare war on a group, and authorize the president to take whatever actions are needed, and they can kill anyone they want. That means they can declare war on anyone and then kill them with impunity.

Not a very comforting thought.

Interesting, the use of "all the government..." instead of the correct "Congress needs...". No the Secretary of Agriculture cannot declare war and authorize use of military force, No the IRS cannot declare war and authorize use of military force, etc...

The Constitution in Article I Section 8 specifically grants that power to the Congress for authorizing the use of military force (beyond certain short term situations they have authorized in the War Powers Act). The Congress has access to and oversight of various intelligence sources from the NSA, CIA, and various military intelligence sources that are not available to the general public in weighing the decision to authorize the use of military force, then 535 members get to help decide the course of action.

If the implication for the use of "all government..." was to imply one man sitting in an office makes the decision on a whim, that would be incorrect.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



>>>>

Let me see if you understand your position.

All the government needs to do is declare war on a group, and authorize the president to take whatever actions are needed, and they can kill anyone they want. That means they can declare war on anyone and then kill them with impunity.

Not a very comforting thought.

Interesting, the use of "all the government..." instead of the correct "Congress needs...". No the Secretary of Agriculture cannot declare war and authorize use of military force, No the IRS cannot declare war and authorize use of military force, etc...

The Constitution in Article I Section 8 specifically grants that power to the Congress for authorizing the use of military force (beyond certain short term situations they have authorized in the War Powers Act). The Congress has access to and oversight of various intelligence sources from the NSA, CIA, and various military intelligence sources that are not available to the general public in weighing the decision to authorize the use of military force, then 535 members get to help decide the course of action.

If the implication for the use of "all government..." was to imply one man sitting in an office makes the decision on a whim, that would be incorrect.


>>>>

Congress did not declare a war on American citizens.

 

[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.

Obama did not think it was butt stupid to send a SEAL team with orders to bring bin Laden back, and he was not even a US citizen. Just something you should think about before you claim apprehending him was absolutely impossible.

There are a lot of things I could waste my time thinking about, why that one? OK, I'll add the qualifier "without wasting a boatload of American soldier lives." When someone his hiding in Yemen recruiting people to murder innocent Americans and you can take them out with a drone instead of an invasion, you do it.

And we killed Obama, we didn't arrest him enlightened one. Specifically because trying to bring him back endangered too many lives.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The government can revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. They cannot, as far as I know, revoke it for anyone born in this country.

I believe you are mistaken on that one. I recall reading a few SCOTUS cases somewhere along the way that pretty much said that once a person is naturalized a citizen their citizenship is just protected as a natural born citizen. I'm pretty sure naturalized citizens would be in the same boat, i.e. they'd only lose citizenship by renouncing it. Of course, if you have some specific information to share I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[code1211]

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.

The guy is almost assuredly complicite in attacking US Citizens. Also he's on tape calling for attacks against and the violent overthrow of the the US.

There is no doubt whatever that this slimy a-hole was a traitor and the only thing wrong with how he died is that he probably died quickly and didn't suffer much.

Section 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 attainted.