# When War On Terror Targets Americans



## MJS (Mar 5, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/holder-speak-targeted-killings-americans-192324573--abc-news.html

IIRC, there was a thread a while back, on this topic, discussing whether or not it was ok for the govt to target an "American".  Rather than dig up that old one, I figured I'd start a new one, and post their findings.




> To kill or not to kill?Under what conditions can or should the United States government target and kill -- without trial -- a U.S. citizen suspected of plotting terrorism?
> Attorney General Eric Holder today provided the most detailed terms to date on the legal principals behind the U.S. drone campaign and the U.S. government's legal authority to target and kill U.S. citizens such as Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected high-profile al Qaeda recruiter.
> "Let me be clear:  An operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," Holder said his speech at the Northwestern University Law School. "The evaluation of whether an individual presents an 'imminent threat' incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States."



Personally, despite this POS being called a 'citizen', IMO, anyone who does the disgusting things he's done, isn't a citizen in my eyes.   But thats just my opinion.  Anyways, posting this for discussion.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2012)

MJS said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/holder-speak-targeted-killings-americans-192324573--abc-news.html
> 
> IIRC, there was a thread a while back, on this topic, discussing whether or not it was ok for the govt to target an "American".  Rather than dig up that old one, I figured I'd start a new one, and post their findings.
> 
> ...


People used to get tried and executed for treason, you know like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 5, 2012)

Big Don said:


> People used to get tried and executed for treason, you know like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg



Now we can just skip that annoying trial thing and let the President order whomever he deems bad killed. 

Romney better not travel overseas before he wins the election...there might be an 'incident'.


----------



## MJS (Mar 5, 2012)

I find the use of the word 'capture' to be a bit misleading, because we all know that even if there was another raid like they did with Bin Laden, do you honestly think that its really going to be a capture mission?  IMO, not likely.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

Big Don said:


> People used to get tried and executed for treason, you know like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg



Emphasis on *'tried'*.  I have no problem executing treasonous citizens, once *tried and convicted*.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

The biggest problem with this sort of thing is that today we all agree that our government took out a dirtbag.  And tomorrow?  Nobody ever thinks about that.  Today a dirtbag.  Tomorrow maybe someone who's a bit less shady.  Later, someone even less 'dirty'.  And someday?  Anyone who the government doesn't like.

And if you don't believe me...consider how often the government can be believed when they say 'trust me'.

Citizenship conveys certain advantages; and yes, sometimes it means we have to go to extra lengths to capture (or at least try to capture) and convict criminals.  I don't care; if it's OK for our government to kill one US citizen whom they have declared an enemy without Due Process, then they can do it to any citizen.

You've just had your rights stripped from you, and the right-wingers don't even care.  As long as a dirtbag dies, they could give a crap about the Bill of Rights.  Wipe their asses with it.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't know how I feel about this.  As Bill said, a dirtbag was taken out.  Should the fact that he is an American citizen protect him from the same fate his terrorist friends get from America?  I don't like that he would postpone that fate until captured.  However, I don't like our government running assasination ops against American citizens either.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 6, 2012)

Hey, it's not like the government would ever abuse this right?  I mean, no one innocent was sent to Guantanamo, or deported by accident.  So we can be confident that they won't abuse this and will always get the right guy. And even if they make an occasional mistake, better they waste a few innocents than risk letting a big bad guy escape right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I don't know how I feel about this.  As Bill said, a dirtbag was taken out.  Should the fact that he is an American citizen protect him from the same fate his terrorist friends get from America?  I don't like that he would postpone that fate until captured.  However, I don't like our government running assasination ops against American citizens either.



It is one thing if a combatant is killed in action and he happens to be a citizen.  I'm not at all unhappy with the way OBL died, and had he been a citizen, I still would not be bothered by it.  US citizens who are criminals get killed all the time by the police; it's the way it goes.

On the other hand, our police do not have hit squads with lists of known criminals and go out assassinating them.  Snipers can take out criminals, but under very specific circumstances, like the person is holding another hostage and threatening to shoot them, etc.

The difference between OBL and Anwar al-Awlaki, besides the fact that OBL was not a US citizen, was that Anwar al-Awlaki, was not killed during a military confrontation, but hit by a missile fired from afar, and his death (not capture) was ordered by the President.  OBL might have been shot dead even if he had tried to surrender - who knows?  But at least in theory, he could have laid down his arms and surrendered and been captured.  No one can surrender to a missile and have the missile stand down.

It also worries me that Anwar al-Awlaki was a mouthpiece; a rabble-rouser, and not an actual enemy combatant.  I am sure he inspired many a young terrorist, I don't doubt that.  But he was essentially the Rush Limbaugh of the Al Quaida world.  That's a 'clear and present danger' to the US?  That's an 'enemy combatant'?  It sounds to me very much like this guy was a major thorn in our side and we decided to whack him.  I'm OK with the sentiment, and I'm definitely OK with taking out terrorists.  I'm not as OK with violating Due Process for US citizens to do it when they do not actually have a weapon in their hands.

It also worries me that it is a lot of power in the hands of one man - the President.  There was no court, there was no legal finding, there was one man who said "Kill this citizen," and we did it and we think that's OK.  It's not OK.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

MJS said:


> I find the use of the word 'capture' to be a bit misleading, because we all know that even if there was another raid like they did with Bin Laden, do you honestly think that its really going to be a capture mission?  IMO, not likely.



I believe they said from the start he was not to be taken alive regardless.  He was to be killed and dumped to prevent his capture from allowing him to become a martyr and they dumped his body to prevent it from becoming a memorial.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It also worries me that Anwar al-Awlaki was a mouthpiece; a rabble-rouser, and not an actual enemy combatant.  I am sure he inspired many a young terrorist, I don't doubt that.  But he was essentially the Rush Limbaugh of the Al Quaida world..



I agree with what your saying but wasnt he one of the planners for the a few of the attacks?  I thought I read that someplace.  I dont believe it changes anything and I dont believe the President should have the power to target American Citizens regardless of what they are accused of.  He was also sentenced to be captured dead or alive by the Yemeni Govt as well so he was a dead man regardless.  Im more interested in the targeted killing of his 16 year old son who was also a citizen and born in Denver.  He was blown up a few week prior to his dad.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is one thing if a combatant is killed in action and he happens to be a citizen.  I'm not at all unhappy with the way OBL died, and had he been a citizen, I still would not be bothered by it.  US citizens who are criminals get killed all the time by the police; it's the way it goes.
> 
> On the other hand, our police do not have hit squads with lists of known criminals and go out assassinating them.  Snipers can take out criminals, but under very specific circumstances, like the person is holding another hostage and threatening to shoot them, etc.
> 
> ...



Nice post and good points.  Question:  would this have a different outlook, if the President ordered a team to physically capture the guy, and take him back to the US for a trial?  If that was an option, would it have been acceptable to kill him, if, during the capture attempt, he fought back, ie: was shooting at the guys trying to bring him in?  Again, the original mission would be a capture, but he was killed as a result of resistance.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 6, 2012)

One of the things that gets lost in all this is that he was killed in Yemen, where he was being/had been(?) tried in absentia, and a judge had ordered him taken "_dead or alive._ We almost certainly did this with the cooperation of the Yemeni government.

It was also public knowledge that he'd been targeted in the months before his death-he could have surrendered.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

elder999 said:


> One of the things that gets lost in all this is that he was killed in Yemen, where he was being/had been(?) tried in absentia, and a judge had ordered him taken "_dead or alive._ We almost certainly did this with the cooperation of the Yemeni government.



So its ok for the US to kill Americans if some foreign govt to say kill that citizen?  Id be more outraged that Yemen ordered the death of a US citizen.  We cant even extradite US Citizen criminals from alot of countries unless we say we will not seek the death penalty but we should carry out death orders on our own citizens? 

 I think there is a time and place where we should be able to take out a Citizen if needed but there needs to be more then just an order from the president. Im not sure how it should be set up maybe a supreme court order or congress orders it or something but 1 person should not have that much power.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

MJS said:


> Nice post and good points.  Question:  would this have a different outlook, if the President ordered a team to physically capture the guy, and take him back to the US for a trial?  If that was an option, would it have been acceptable to kill him, if, during the capture attempt, he fought back, ie: was shooting at the guys trying to bring him in?  Again, the original mission would be a capture, but he was killed as a result of resistance.



Well yes regular police can do that now to a citizen inside the US.  If I go to arrest you and you pull a gun and try to shoot me I can shoot back and kill you.  Thats already allowed


----------



## elder999 (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So its ok for the US to kill Americans if some foreign govt to say kill that citizen?



I didn't say it was okay at all-I'd be the last one to do so. I'm just saying that there were special circumstances beyond one man ordering it ; in fact, it was approved by the National Security Council, and it was published in the New York Times that his death had been authorized in August of that year, months before he was actually killed.

So he was killed by a committee, and could have-_afte_r _9/11, the underwear bomber, and the Ft. Hood shootings-all things he was involved in-_ surrendered.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Well yes regular police can do that now to a citizen inside the US.  If I go to arrest you and you pull a gun and try to shoot me I can shoot back and kill you.  Thats already allowed



What is not allowed is for you to pilot a missile into the guy's house or car from a distant location, without attempting to arrest him and without him having a weapon in his hands and threatening you with it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What is not allowed is for you to pilot a missile into the guy's house or car from a distant location, without attempting to arrest him and without him having a weapon in his hands and threatening you with it.



Yes I was answering his direct question as to would it be ok if they tired to capture him and he pulled a gun and they then killed him. That would be ok under current law.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 6, 2012)

The real question at the heart of the matter is this: Is the due process of law satisfied? In general I do not believe the program does so. The presence of the Yemeni court makes things... murkier. It is the (foreign) state in which his crimes were committed, but the viability of an in absentia trial, no matter who performs it, is nil under the Sixth Amendment. 

If the Yemeni had done this on their own, that was one thing - the US military hunting a US citizen who has not been tried under US law is quite anothe.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I didn't say it was okay at all-I'd be the last one to do so. I'm just saying that there were special circumstances beyond one man ordering it ; in fact, it was approved by the National Security Council, and it was published in the New York Times that his death had been authorized in August of that year, months before he was actually killed.
> 
> So he was killed by a committee, and could have-_afte_r _9/11, the underwear bomber, and the Ft. Hood shootings-all things he was involved in-_ surrendered.



Im not ok with a US citizen being targeted and killed regardless of how many organizations and other countries say its ok.  There has to be an exception to every rule of course.  Say John Smith from Houston is in egypt and is driving to meet a terrorist to deliver a dirty bomb and we know where he is and we cant catch him before the bomb is delivered then there should be a method of the President making the case to I would guess to the Supreme Court to order his attack by drone.  But it would have to be a clear and present danger and not just because the president says so there needs to be a check and balance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I agree with what your saying but wasnt he one of the planners for the a few of the attacks?



I guess we don't know.  Without a trial, all we have are things people say.



> I thought I read that someplace.  I dont believe it changes anything and I dont believe the President should have the power to target American Citizens regardless of what they are accused of.  He was also sentenced to be captured dead or alive by the Yemeni Govt as well so he was a dead man regardless.  Im more interested in the targeted killing of his 16 year old son who was also a citizen and born in Denver.  He was blown up a few week prior to his dad.



Anwar al-Awlaki was not the only US citizen killed in the drone attack.  Another was Samir Khan, who was the editor of a website for AQ.  He wrote an article called "How to make Bombs in the Kitchen of your Mom," and it appears that some would-be terrorists in the US did indeed read and follow his recipe.  A danger to the USA?  Yes, without doubt.  Reason enough to suspend the Constitution to kill him?  IMHO, no.

People can talk about how evil AQ is and how evil Anwar al-Awlaki and his cohorts are or were, and I get all that.  I agree with all that.  My argument is not in favor of them or their evil.  I'm glad they are dead, and I'd be thrilled to have learned that we engaged them on the ground, there was a gun battle or they refused to give up, and they were killed.  No problems.

My one and only problem is that US citizens are guaranteed Due Process in the Constitution.  If Anwar al-Awlaki didn't have that protection, then neither do YOU and neither do I.  It's just that simple.

When we break our own laws, especially the Constitution, to protect us from those who would destroy our way of life...well the irony is that we've just destroyed our own way of life.

And someone, please, anyone, tell me that we'll only do it just this once.  My dying ***.  If we do it once, we'll do it again. And again and again and again until it becomes commonplace and normal and usual and nobody even notices.  And one day soon, the FBI won't go out with arrest warrants to capture criminals.  They will go out with drones and sniper teams and simply kill anyone accused of a crime.  Tell me I'm wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pressure-builds-civilian-drone-flights-home-0



> WASHINGTON (AP)  Heads up: Drones are going mainstream. Civilian cousins of the unmanned military aircraft that have tracked and killed terrorists in the Middle East and Asia are in demand by police departments, border patrols, power companies, news organizations and others wanting a bird's-eye view that's too impractical or dangerous for conventional planes or helicopters to get.



Someday, we will look up in the sky and realize that the drone overhead are armed, and we'll see how they are used to blow up buildings that have accused criminals inside (innocent killed will simply be acceptable collateral damage) and maybe one or two of us will realize that we ****ed ourselves good and hard, right in the Constitution.  The bad guys won, because we turned ourselves into the bad guys.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes I was answering his direct question as to would it be ok if they tired to capture him and he pulled a gun and they then killed him. That would be ok under current law.



Not only would it be OK, I'd be wearing a huge happy hat.  Due process doesn't mean molly-coddling criminals.  It means following the rule of law.  Assassination of US citizens is not following the rule of law, no matter what they are accused of.  So I agree with you.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Well yes regular police can do that now to a citizen inside the US.  If I go to arrest you and you pull a gun and try to shoot me I can shoot back and kill you.  Thats already allowed



So basically, this all could've been avoided if they had instead: waited until they were close to 100% sure of his whereabouts, sent in a team of SEALs, under the presumption of 'capture' but instead, blowing the POS away.  Problem solved.  Or, they could have honestly said they were attempting a capture, but he resisted, etc, etc, etc, and he had to be killed.  

All the issue is because this wasn't done, and instead they dropped a bomb.  Something else that caught my eye in that link:

"First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles," 

Was capture really not a feasible option for this guy?  Honest question, I really dont know the answer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

MJS said:


> Was capture really not a feasible option for this guy?  Honest question, I really dont know the answer.



I don't know the answer either.  The question to me is whether or not that statement, if true, therefore supersedes the right of a US citizen to Due Process.  in my opinion, it does not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

MJS said:


> Was capture really not a feasible option for this guy?  Honest question, I really dont know the answer.



Im not sure but they went in and got Bin Laden Id bet his security was alot tighter then this dude.  I think its alot easier and safer for troops to drop a bomb but same could be said for Police and wanted felons and we would never say thats ok in the US.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not sure but they went in and got Bin Laden Id bet his security was alot tighter then this dude.  I think its alot easier and safer for troops to drop a bomb but same could be said for Police and wanted felons and we would never say thats ok in the US.



Oh I'm sure his security, if he had any at all, was nothing like Bin Laden.  So, that said, since they wanted to take this guy out, maybe that would've been a much better option.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

MJS said:


> Oh I'm sure his security, if he had any at all, was nothing like Bin Laden.  So, that said, since they wanted to take this guy out, maybe that would've been a much better option.



My personal belief is the president thinks he can do whatever he wants as long as he says its part of the war on terror.  People in this country I guess dont believe once given the power the Govt will abuse it.
But this is what comes to mind:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
 Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
 Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
 Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

*Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller*
​


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know the answer either. The question to me is whether or not that statement, if true, therefore supersedes the right of a US citizen to Due Process. in my opinion, it does not.



Is it worth considering that a citizen who wars against his country may be considered an enemy combatant?  So if you instigate or direct attacts against your country, as part of an entity that has not and may not legally be able to declare war, but clearly is engaging in war acts, can you still from afar, claim all protections of citizenship?  We have no problem with combatants killing each other with bullets, mines, artillery or bombs, without due process.  Due process dosen't come into play at all.  Did Anwar Al-Awlaki cross that line to become a combatant reachable by our own combatant force?  He appears to have directed attacks against US citizens on US soil, as an act of war.  Whether or not you agree he did, I think it is arguable.  How might that affect your thinking about bombing him out of existence, or does it?  Bill or anyone else?



ballen0351 said:


> Im not sure but they went in and got Bin Laden Id bet his security was alot tighter then this dude. I think its alot easier and safer for troops to drop a bomb but same could be said for Police and wanted felons and we would never say thats ok in the US.



Aside from my comments and questions above, I'm not sure I agree he was more reachable than Bin Laden.  First, if he were, why didn't they?  Alive he might have provided a lot of intelligence over the years it would take to get him to trial.  The area where Bin Laden was is not as desolate as where Al-Awlaki apparently was.  It could be approached much easier without arousing suspicion by him or the inhabitants of his house.  With all the military in the area, it surely wasn't unusual to hear helicopters.  Where Al-Awlaki apparently was, that would have aroused suspicion much sooner, therefore giving him and his protectors more time to prepare, resist, and perhaps repel with much loss of life.

If, and I say if, you agree that he was an enemy combatant by his previous actions, he could be taken out as a combatant, assuming the likelyhood of capture would be at too great a cost.  In fact, the girations taken by the President and his advisors, really wasn't necessary in that case.  Just window dressing.  I am inclined to think that if they could have captured him, they would have, even if they kept that fact a secret.  Interesting thought that, isn't it?


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Aside from my comments and questions above, I'm not sure I agree he was more reachable than Bin Laden.  First, if he were, why didn't they?  Alive he might have provided a lot of intelligence over the years it would take to get him to trial.


I have no idea if he was or wasnt more reachable then Bin Laden Im only going off the assumption that Bin Laden was the most wanted man in the world with a multimillion dollar reward I would only assume he would be more guarded.  I have no inside info or anymore knowledge then anyone else.  



> The area where Bin Laden was is not as desolate as where Al-Awlaki apparently was.  It could be approached much easier without arousing suspicion by him or the inhabitants of his house.  With all the military in the area, it surely wasn't unusual to hear helicopters.  Where Al-Awlaki apparently was, that would have aroused suspicion much sooner, therefore giving him and his protectors more time to prepare, resist, and perhaps repel with much loss of life.


Like I said I dont know the circumstances.  Either way Im not ok with taking out a US Citizen without due process we are all guaranteed under the Constitution. 



> If, and I say if, you agree that he was an enemy combatant by his previous actions, he could be taken out as a combatant, assuming the likelyhood of capture would be at too great a cost.  In fact, the girations taken by the President and his advisors, really wasn't necessary in that case.  Just window dressing.  I am inclined to think that if they could have captured him, they would have, even if they kept that fact a secret.  Interesting thought that, isn't it?


I dont know if he was an enemy combatant I dont know what he did which is the point of having his Due Process.  There are ways to capture him.  I think as a citizen he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt.  Innocent until proven guilty and all that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Is it worth considering that a citizen who wars against his country may be considered an enemy combatant?  So if you instigate or direct attacts against your country, as part of an entity that has not and may not legally be able to declare war, but clearly is engaging in war acts, can you still from afar, claim all protections of citizenship?  We have no problem with combatants killing each other with bullets, mines, artillery or bombs, without due process.  Due process dosen't come into play at all.  Did Anwar Al-Awlaki cross that line to become a combatant reachable by our own combatant force?  He appears to have directed attacks against US citizens on US soil, as an act of war.  Whether or not you agree he did, I think it is arguable.  How might that affect your thinking about bombing him out of existence, or does it?  Bill or anyone else?



I have no problem with killing enemy combatants, citizen or not.  And I even grasp the concept that 'the battlefield' is not as clearly defined as it once was.

However, unless a person is in theatre, carrying weapons, directing fire against US troops, I am not willing to accept that they are 'enemy combatants' on the say-so of the President, particularly if they are both US citizens and un-indicted for any crime in the USA.  He was wanted on a criminal charge in Yemen, but he was not charged with any crime in the USA to the best of my knowledge.

In the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, let's play a mental game.  Let us suppose that instead of being in Yemen, he was in Arizona.  As a US citizen (he was born here), he cannot be in the country illegally, and since he was not charged with any crimes in the USA, he could 'hide out' and publish in secret if he wished, there's no law against that.

If our government found him hiding in Arizona, would it be legal for them to order his assassination?  And if not, then why is it legal to do so when he was in Yemen?  Simply because we could not have him arrested and extradited back to the USA?  In other words, if he has committed a crime, but it is not convenient for us to capture him, then assassination is OK?



> Aside from my comments and questions above, I'm not sure I agree he was more reachable than Bin Laden.  First, if he were, why didn't they?  Alive he might have provided a lot of intelligence over the years it would take to get him to trial.  The area where Bin Laden was is not as desolate as where Al-Awlaki apparently was.  It could be approached much easier without arousing suspicion by him or the inhabitants of his house.  With all the military in the area, it surely wasn't unusual to hear helicopters.  Where Al-Awlaki apparently was, that would have aroused suspicion much sooner, therefore giving him and his protectors more time to prepare, resist, and perhaps repel with much loss of life.
> 
> If, and I say if, you agree that he was an enemy combatant by his previous actions, he could be taken out as a combatant, assuming the likelyhood of capture would be at too great a cost.  In fact, the girations taken by the President and his advisors, really wasn't necessary in that case.  Just window dressing.  I am inclined to think that if they could have captured him, they would have, even if they kept that fact a secret.  Interesting thought that, isn't it?



I am a bit more suspicious of the President's motives.  I believe it was an incremental step in increasing Executive power.  First, the Justice Department issued a memo stating that as far as they were concerned, the President had the authority to order the extrajudicial killing (that is, without trial or conviction) of any US citizen who met certain criteria.  Then, the White House published a list of US citizens who were considered legitimate targets for sanctioned killing.  Then, they killed Al-Awlaki.  I do not believe Al-Awlaki was especially a threat to the USA, not in the same sense as OBL certainly.  He was a pain in the *** to the USA, and he undoubtedly did a lot of recruiting for A-Q.

However, I believe Al-Awlaki was killed because it was a good incremental step.  Look at what's happened.  It could have been expected that friends of the Constitution would be upset over the extrajudicial assassination of a US citizen; but they picked a really nasty little bugger, because they knew the right-wingers would be like ALRIGHT DUDES!  These are the same guys who applaud torture when we do it to terrorists; they believe that the ends justify the means, so if the guy being tortured (or assassinated) is a really bad dude, then no problem, to hell with the Constitution.  They did this because they knew once they had the mouth-breathers on their side, they would not have a problem doing this again in the future.  The power has been asserted, and it has been justified, and no one is making them stop doing it; so now the President has the power to kill any US citizen he wants to.  You can't say it's wrong to kill Joe Blow if it's OK to kill Jim Smith.  No, no, it doesn't work like that.  If the President has the authority to order a killing of a citizen, then that's what it is.  If he uses that power justly or unjustly doesn't matter; he has the power now.

And let me just say this...

In future times, when the President orders the death of a citizen without criminal charge or trial, it will be said that the man was terrible, awful, and did many horrible things.  But without a trial, it's just words.  Today, those words are probably all true of Al-Awlaki. Tomorrow, will they be true of you?

I hate the fact that so many are so willing to trade our Constitutional rights for some short-term gains in the war on terrorists.  It's a stupid, short-sighted, frightening strategy that is doomed to bite us in the ***.  Those fools.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I have no idea if he was or wasnt more reachable then Bin Laden Im only going off the assumption that Bin Laden was the most wanted man in the world with a multimillion dollar reward I would only assume he would be more guarded. I have no inside info or anymore knowledge then anyone else.
> 
> *Nor do I have any more information than what I hear in the public domain.  I have to take that and evaluate it.  Producing the comments I posted.  I believe Bin Lauden got careless over the time he was there, which some speculation has put a several years.  Someone as wanted as he should move more often, nor should he have a series of safe houses that he continually rotates through.  I don't know for sure he followed either of those strategies, but it appears he did.
> *
> ...



Just my thoughts about Al-Awlaki.  Don't misunderstand, I have a great concern for law myself.  I believe the rights we have should be guarded closely or they become too easy to lose.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Just my thoughts about Al-Awlaki.  Don't misunderstand, I have a great concern for law myself.  I believe the rights we have should be guarded closely or they become too easy to lose.



Im not sure a citizen can be an enemy combatant.  A traitor maybe but you need to be convicted for that.  I think by having aUS citizenship you are provided protections that cant be waived.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not sure a citizen can be an enemy combatant.  A traitor maybe but you need to be convicted for that.  I think by having aUS citizenship you are provided protections that cant be waived.



I would quibble with you only a little bit on that.  I do believe anyone can be an enemy combatant, but to be so involves picking up a weapon and firing at our troops; not creating blogs and websites and Youtube videos urging other people to do it.

I cannot find the reference now, but I believe we have held as POW's, American citizens who fought against us during WWII.  I can't remember the disposition of the cases now, but they were fired on, captured, and treated as any enemy combatant.

But the word 'combatant' itself means one who fights.  I am not confident of its application as 'urging others to fight'.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have no problem with killing enemy combatants, citizen or not. And I even grasp the concept that 'the battlefield' is not as clearly defined as it once was.
> 
> However, unless a person is in theatre, carrying weapons, directing fire against US troops, I am not willing to accept that they are 'enemy combatants' on the say-so of the President, particularly if they are both US citizens and un-indicted for any crime in the USA. He was wanted on a criminal charge in Yemen, but he was not charged with any crime in the USA to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> ...



Well, we have traded rights for expediency in past wars, and usually required they be restored.  But those were clearly defined wars and everybody understood and agreed, or at least most.  Granted this is a little different and may require more safeguards.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 6, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not sure a citizen can be an enemy combatant. A traitor maybe but you need to be convicted for that. I think by having aUS citizenship you are provided protections that cant be waived.



Or both? I can assure you that if I am fighting in the armed forces of my country, and someone else (who may in fact be a US citizen) in the forces of my country's enemies, and I catch him in my gun sights with a gun in his hand, his jumping up and down shouting "I'm a US citizen" isn't likely to change my sight picture.

Please don't misunderstand.  I believe in rights myself.  I am not sure an ememy combatant can claim rights.  So the real question is whether or not Al-Awlaki was a combatant, and if a combatant can lose his rights when he is engaged in combat against his country.  Bill has brought up some good points that I am thinking about, and need to research as regards the current question about Al-Awlaki, but I still don't think an enemy combatant outside of territory his country controls can claim those rights where he is.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 6, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Or both? I can assure you that if I am fighting in the armed forces of my country, and someone else (who may in fact be a US citizen) in the forces of my country's enemies, and I catch him in my gun sights with a gun in his hand, his jumping up and down shouting "I'm a US citizen" isn't likely to change my sight picture.


I agree I think that falls under the same as a police officer defending his life.  If your activily fighting then they are fair game but I dont think sitting in a cave someplace hidden counts.



> Please don't misunderstand.  I believe in rights myself.  I am not sure an ememy combatant can claim rights.  So the real question is whether or not Al-Awlaki was a combatant, and if a combatant can lose his rights when he is engaged in combat against his country.  Bill has brought up some good points that I am thinking about, and need to research as regards the current question about Al-Awlaki, but I still don't think an enemy combatant outside of territory his country controls can claim those rights where he is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

> Well, we have traded rights for expediency in past wars, and usually required they be restored. But those were clearly defined wars and everybody understood and agreed, or at least most. Granted this is a little different and may require more safeguards.



Well said, but I think we, as a nation, have not had that discussion, and the safeguards are not in place.

Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_James_Monti

This man was a US citizen, and a pilot in the US Army Air Corps, fighting against Germany in WWII.  He switched sides and joined Germany's SS.

Interestingly, his work for the SS was not unlike Al-Awlaki's; he was a mouthpiece.  He did not fly against US troops, nor did he join battle or fire his weapon at US troops; very much like Al-Awlaki, although Monti was a member of the US Armed Forces and Al-Awlaki was not.  Otherwise quite similar.

He was not targeted for assassination.  On the other hand, he may not have even been known about during WWII (he was captured after the war) as anything other than a deserter.  Nor did we really have the ability to target individuals inside Germany during WWII anyway.

However, once captured, he was not executed.  Even after he was arrested the second time (I'm surprised that double-jeopardy didn't apply there) and convicted of Treason, he was not executed.  Yet he did virtually the same job in the SS as Al-Awlaki did for A-Q.

So what's different?  Why is it of critical importance that a mouthpiece for A-Q be silenced even though it means taking the unprecedented step of ordering the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen overseas?

On the other hand, we *did* execute another US citizen who served on the side of Germany during WWII; even though this guy probably was just a patsy who got caught trying to get home to the USA when war broke out and he was trapped in Europe after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt

In any case, there is no other case that I can find that matches what we did to Al-Awlaki.  Although in this modern war on terrorists we are taking measures that protect American life while doing maximum damage to the enemy and I can find no fault with that, American citizenship conveys with it certain rights and privileges, and they are not to be abridged lightly.  When President Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, it was done openly, in a Proclamation, and it was restored.  This has none of the trappings of that.  When we have taken other actions which frankly seem to be illegal, such as the internment of Japanese-American citizens (and yes, we interned certain German-American citizens as well, did you know?), we have come later to regret it.

Lastly, and I think most importantly, I have not yet read even one argument in favor of Al-Awlaki's killing that did not argue from the point of view that the *ends justify the means*.  I seldom if ever find that a satisfactory response to anything.  All that means is that we have laws when it is convenient and to hell with them when they are not.  Our nation does not work like that.  It makes our leaders vigilantes.  No matter how popular vigilantes might be with some, in the end it just makes them criminals, no better than those they kill 'because they need killing'.  Our President is sworn to uphold the law, not to find ways to circumvent it when it seems in his best interest to do so.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well said, but I think we, as a nation, have not had that discussion, and the safeguards are not in place.
> 
> *I have to agree with that.  Our government has undergone legal gymnastics since WWII to take various controversial actions.  President Obama has as well as did President Bus*h.
> 
> ...



Below are some quotes of Wiki posts that I ran across while following your first and second links, just drilling down.  I don't say they make arguments in support of anything I have stated, but are interesting nonetheless, and further drilling might turn up more interesting cites to support one or the other of us.

The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a  belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and  communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform  comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by  destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents  who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners  of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and  punishment by military tribunals.

*Mercenaries*

 Under Article 47 of Protocol I (Additional to the Geneva Conventions  of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of  International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war."
 On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the _International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries_. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention.[SUP][20][/SUP]  Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1  states that "A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present  Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted  act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes  of the Convention."[SUP][21][/SUP]



*2009*

 In January and February 2009, President Barack Obama's nominees for Attorney General and Solicitor General, Eric Holder and Elena Kagan,  both testified they agreed the U.S. government may detain combatants in  accordance with the laws of war until the end of the war, (this  sidesteps the issue of deciding whether the combatant is a lawful or  unlawful combatant and the need to try them). When asked by Senator Lindsey Graham  "If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines  that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider  that person part of the battlefield?" Both Holder and Kagan said that  they would.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

I think it's a lot of wordsmithing.  Enemy Combatant is pretty clear.  An enemy is someone who is against you, and a combatant is one who fights you with force of arms.  I am having trouble seeing inciters and antagonists as combatants.  I think that's just a very convenient twisting of words - not on your part, but on the part of those who want to make A-A fit that mould.  If he is anyone can be.

And to answer your question, if he were not a US citizen, no, we would not be having this discussion.  I'm not at all concerned with the disposition of terrorists.  I am concerned with my own rights as a citizen.  If A-A has none, neither do I.  To me, that's all that matters in the discussion; not how awful and dangerous he is and how hard it would have been to put a well-deserved bullet in his *** in a more legal manner.  I don't defend that man.  I defend my rights.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 7, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it's a lot of wordsmithing. Enemy Combatant is pretty clear. An enemy is someone who is against you, and a combatant is one who fights you with force of arms. I am having trouble seeing inciters and antagonists as combatants. I think that's just a very convenient twisting of words - not on your part, but on the part of those who want to make A-A fit that mould. If he is anyone can be.
> 
> *Can't argue there's a lot of wordsmithing.  Our government does a lot of that, as well as Tawriya like responses.  You would think that is one of the first lessons in Politics 101.  The problems come with citizen recognition and response, or the lack.
> *
> ...



Again, just my thoughts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 7, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Again, just my thoughts.



I don't think a person can 'hide behind' their rights and thus lose them.  Rights are rights.  So-called 'Reverend' Terry Jones used his 1st Amendment rights to burn a Koran, resulting in the deaths of 12 UN workers.  It has been argued whether or not he is morally responsible for those deaths; he certainly 'incited to riot' and he certainly knew that was a probable outcome of his actions - he was actually trying to prove a point which would not have been proven if people had NOT rioted.  So, can the UN order his assassination on US soil, since he has committed no crime here and we certainly would not arrest or extradite him to stand trial in Afghanistan, where the UN workers were killed?  Assuming Afghanistan had the technology, would it be OK for them to have him killed in the USA for his 'crimes' there?  Remember, he's just a mouthpiece; he didn't directly kill anyone.

My position is that there isn't any such thing as 'hiding behind one's rights' that therefore makes them null and void.  One either has them or one does not.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 7, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't think a person can 'hide behind' their rights and thus lose them. Rights are rights. So-called 'Reverend' Terry Jones used his 1st Amendment rights to burn a Koran, resulting in the deaths of 12 UN workers. It has been argued whether or not he is morally responsible for those deaths; he certainly 'incited to riot' and he certainly knew that was a probable outcome of his actions - he was actually trying to prove a point which would not have been proven if people had NOT rioted. So, can the UN order his assassination on US soil, since he has committed no crime here and we certainly would not arrest or extradite him to stand trial in Afghanistan, where the UN workers were killed? Assuming Afghanistan had the technology, would it be OK for them to have him killed in the USA for his 'crimes' there? Remember, he's just a mouthpiece; he didn't directly kill anyone.
> 
> My position is that there isn't any such thing as 'hiding behind one's rights' that therefore makes them null and void. One either has them or one does not.



Obviously a poor choice of words on my part.  Sorry about that.

But rights are granted, and often exceptions are defined, either by law or the courts.  Then there is the question of extra-territoriality and rights; does that play into the rights issue in any way?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 7, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Obviously a poor choice of words on my part.  Sorry about that.
> 
> But rights are granted, and often exceptions are defined, either by law or the courts.  Then there is the question of extra-territoriality and rights; does that play into the rights issue in any way?



Not to quibble over technicalities, but in the US, rights are not exactly 'granted'.  There's a reason why I bring this up.  In most countries, rights are indeed 'granted'.  In the US, our basic civil liberties are not granted to us, but forbidden to the federal government to infringe.  It may seem as if that is a distinction without a difference, but there is a difference.  Anything that is 'given' can be taken away.  The assumption our Founders made and enshrined in the Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights was that nothing and no one could take our rights away, they were given us by our Creator, whomever or whatever one imagines that to be.  By forbidding the federal government (and by later extension, the states for most of the Bill of Rights), the Founders made it very difficult for the government to abrogate those rights.

With that said, all rights have limits.  The traditional example given is that of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.  However, and in general, most limits on rights are undertaken only in gravest extreme, which life or liberty is at stake in a very explicit way.  In other words, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it is very simple to extrapolate that doing so will cause a panic, people will be trampled to death trying to escape.  A clear and present danger of them losing their basic right to life.  Their right to live trumps your right to shout 'fire'.

More clearly put (and a nice little read):

http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zsottiauxrev.html



> The United States Constitution does not explicitly specify conditions when its rights do not apply, yet the courts have [*675] drawn certain limits to its provisions by estimating the scope of certain rights and defining their contents. Further, certain standards or tests have been formulated to examine a right relative to a government interest that is meant to be served by restricting that right and to estimate the fit between a government interest and the means with which it is meant to be achieved. No emergency derogations are included in the Constitution except in the case of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which can be suspended in the interest of public safety during a rebellion or invasion. As such, *the US Constitution is more geared towards a categorical rather than a flexible approach in limiting rights.*



There have been no court cases, no case law, no laws passed, not even an Executive Order, which states when a US citizen loses the right to Due Process.  As stated above, those would be 'categorical' denials or limitations of civil liberties which citizens of the US enjoy.  Instead, we have the 'opinion' of the Justice Department, which carries no legal weight in law, which alternately states (I have heard both from that snake Holder) that either A-A's 'Due Process' rights were observed (how that could be completely eludes me as I believe it must any sane person), or that Due Process did not apply to him because he was an active enemy combatant, engaged in activity which represented an immediate and existential threat to the entire nation.  In other words, A-A had the power and was about to completely destroy our nation, so we had no other choice but to kill him in self-defense, just as if he had pointed a gun at a cop trying to arrest him.  Sorry, not buying it.


----------



## MJS (Mar 8, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would quibble with you only a little bit on that. I do believe anyone can be an enemy combatant, but to be so involves picking up a weapon and firing at our troops; not creating blogs and websites and Youtube videos urging other people to do it.
> 
> I cannot find the reference now, but I believe we have held as POW's, American citizens who fought against us during WWII. I can't remember the disposition of the cases now, but they were fired on, captured, and treated as any enemy combatant.
> 
> But the word 'combatant' itself means one who fights. I am not confident of its application as 'urging others to fight'.



Question for you Bill.  While he may not have been directly involved with carrying out an attack, ie: him physically not blowing someone or something up, etc, wouldn't you say that his actions are still on the same level as those that are picking up weapons?  For example:  I'm the getaway driver for my 2 friends who rob a bank.  I'm not going in the bank, I have no weapon, I'm simply the driver.  They go in, rob the place, run out, get in, and off we go.  The police stop us.  They're not going to care or believe me, even if I say that I never went in.  It'd also be no different, if I was asleep in the back seat, when they decide to rob a store.  I wake up to the sight of a gun in my face, held by the police.  In both cases, I'm just as guilty as the others.  In the latter, it'd probably take alot of effort for me to convince people I knew nothing of their plan.  

Question 2: It seems that the 3 'exceptions' that I posted in my OP, were the deciding factors to off this POS.  It seems that those 3 examples were the over ruling factor to trump the due process.  Thoughts on that?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 8, 2012)

MJS said:


> Question for you Bill.  While he may not have been directly involved with carrying out an attack, ie: him physically not blowing someone or something up, etc, wouldn't you say that his actions are still on the same level as those that are picking up weapons?  For example:  I'm the getaway driver for my 2 friends who rob a bank.  I'm not going in the bank, I have no weapon, I'm simply the driver.  They go in, rob the place, run out, get in, and off we go.  The police stop us.  They're not going to care or believe me, even if I say that I never went in.  It'd also be no different, if I was asleep in the back seat, when they decide to rob a store.  I wake up to the sight of a gun in my face, held by the police.  In both cases, I'm just as guilty as the others.  In the latter, it'd probably take alot of effort for me to convince people I knew nothing of their plan.



Absolutely yes.  But we're not talking about his criminal complicity here; rather, about the extenuating circumstances, if such exist, that trump Due Process.

A getaway driver can be charged with murder if his bank robber partners kill someone.  Clearly, and in my opinion, most agreeably.  However, if a bank robber pulls a a gun during the bank robbery, the bank guard might legally shoot him down.  Can he then also gun down the getaway driver as he sits in the car at the curb?  They may be equally complicit legally, but both do not pose a clear and present danger to the bank guard; only the robber with the gun does.

If we use the notion that a clear and present danger is necessary for the US government to act in defense of our nation, then that danger must be able to be elucidated, don't you think? _ "I shot the robber because he pointed a gun at me," _is very clear reasoning.  _"We fired a missile from a drone at a terrorist whom we believed was about to set off a large bomb,"_ would be another I'd be OK with.  _"We fired a missile from a drone at a terrorist who has never engaged in direct action against us, but encourages others to do so on Youtube and via printed material because he was about to make a new video?"_  Not so much.



> Question 2: It seems that the 3 'exceptions' that I posted in my OP, were the deciding factors to off this POS.  It seems that those 3 examples were the over ruling factor to trump the due process.  Thoughts on that?



Let's review:

_"First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;"_

And Al-Awlaki represented an 'imminent threat of violent attack' how?  To me, 'imminent' means immediate.  'Violent attack' means just that 'violent'.  There is no such thing as a Youtube video which can blow anyone up or murder anyone directly.  No magazine article can set fire to buildings or shoot people. 

_second, capture is not feasible;_

Oh, I have a little problem with that.  We could not catch the bank robber, so we blew up his ****ing car when we knew he'd be in it with his family.  Does that strike you as Due Process?  I understand capture was not feasible.  I do not agree that it is a valid reason for abrogating civil liberties accorded US citizens.  If A-A had not been a citizen?  Hey, no problem for me.  I never said he wasn't scum that needed to be destroyed.

_and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,"_

That statement actually doesn't mean anything.  He's saying _"And we do it the way we do it."_  Yeah, I get that.  It doesn't tell me anything, but I get it.

What the entire statement says to me is that the guy was a major pain in the *** and it would have been very damned inconvenient to try to take him out legally, so we said the hell with it and blasted him.  NOT OK when the person blasted is a US citizen.  Not in my book.

So to be clear, if the US military and/or the White House wants to order the execution of a particular scumbag overseas who is mean to us; even if he's not pointing a gun at us at that very moment, I really haven't got a problem with that.  Dead terrorists do not fill me with feelings of pity, I'd love to see how high we can make the stacks of dead terrorist bodies.

However, when one is a US citizen, one is entitled to certain rights.  Among these, we do not take away a citizen's life without Due Process.  Due Process is not declaring him an enemy combatant and giving the green light to the CIA spooks to light him up from a drone.  Due Process means a criminal charge, a warrant, and if captured alive, a trial.

That doesn't mean - and it never has - that he has to be taken alive to face trial.  It means we go through our legal process to try to bring him to trial.  If we kill him while trying to do that, oh well.  The legal process was observed, toss his body in a dumpster, and get on with it.

Was A-A charged with any crime in the USA?  No.

Was a warrant issued for his arrest?  No.

Was he captured?  Clearly no.

Was he killed resisting capture?  Again, you can't surrender to a missile, so no.

And again, why do I care?  He was a very bad person and I think we all agree to that.  He did represent a threat to the USA indirectly, through his recruiting methods.  He was our enemy and deserved death, yes.  But as a US citizen, the rights he had are the same rights I have.  If his rights could be ignored because it was convenient to do so, then so could mine.  I've got a problem with that.  What I have an even bigger problem with is that those who favor results over methods do not see the danger to our own civil rights.  We conservatives know better than to trust our government; but in this case, we'll turn our heads and pretend that the government would *NEVER* use these new powers against *US*.  No, never.  Come on, we're smarter than that.  Wake up.


----------



## MJS (Mar 8, 2012)

Well, good points as usual Bill.   So, in a nutshell, it all goes back to something I said earlier....that the main issue with all of this, is the way it was done.  The same exact goal could've been reached, if they sent in a team of SEALs, just like with OBL, under the assumption of capture, when the real goal would be to take him ou, plain and simple.  As far as anyone else would be concerned, it would've been a capture mission gone bad...."Well, we tried to do it by the book, he resisted, grabbed a gun, and our guys were forced to shoot." even if the majority of that was BS.  

I have to wonder if anyone in the circle of folks that make the rules, gave a thought about the Due Process.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 8, 2012)

MJS said:


> Well, good points as usual Bill.   So, in a nutshell, it all goes back to something I said earlier....that the main issue with all of this, is the way it was done.  The same exact goal could've been reached, if they sent in a team of SEALs, just like with OBL, under the assumption of capture, when the real goal would be to take him ou, plain and simple.  As far as anyone else would be concerned, it would've been a capture mission gone bad...."Well, we tried to do it by the book, he resisted, grabbed a gun, and our guys were forced to shoot." even if the majority of that was BS.
> 
> I have to wonder if anyone in the circle of folks that make the rules, gave a thought about the Due Process.



I think they did.  But I see wheels within wheels here, I really do.  I think that this was a power-grab for the President and all future presidents.

Let me put it this way.  Say you're the President, and you want to increase your authority such that you can order the assassination of any US citizen at will, without criminal charges or a trial.  On the surface, that seems like a pretty tall order.  It's clearly illegal, right?  What to do?

Well, let's do it incrementally.  Start with the President's authority to order targeted killing.  That has been unchallenged for a long time; Bush did it, and I'm sure presidents before him did it.  It's just that none of them were citizens.

So we take legal extra-judicial targeted killing in wartime, which the President already has the unchallenged authority to do (I'm not even saying it's legal, only that he does it and no one challenges his right to do so), and we find someone really heinous who happens to be a US citizen but a complete scumbag terrorist.  Ah, there's one, Al-Awlaki.  Total dirtbag.  No one will mourn his passing.  He clearly needs to go (and again, I agree with that assessment.

So, the next step is to get the Justice Department on board.  Issue a statement saying that as far as they know, the President can order the targeting killing of a US citizen engaged in enemy activity under certain circumstances.  Make them as broad and sweeping as possible but use scary-sounding words like 'imminent danger' and 'immediate threat' and so on.

Then zap the dude.  Declare victory.  Wait to see if there is any fallout, and if so, how serious.

If it doesn't get you in hot water legally, you now have a nifty new power.

The next time it is applied, the circumstances may be a bit different.  Maybe a tad more ambiguous in terms of the badness of the bad guy or the threat he or she represents.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Eventually, nobody even blinks when a US citizen gets dusted by our own government without a criminal charge or trial or attempt at apprehension.  Someday, we might even do it to a citizen inside the borders of our own country.

That's my theory anyway.  I don't believe any of this was accidental.  It plays out too nicely.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 9, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...
> 
> But the word 'combatant' itself means one who fights. I am not confident of its application as 'urging others to fight'.



A good point. I doubt that we will ever know for sure if he went beyond talking to the air, or engaged in action with people to attack the US.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Not to quibble over technicalities, but in the US, rights are not exactly 'granted'. There's a reason why I bring this up. In most countries, rights are indeed 'granted'. In the US, our basic civil liberties are not granted to us, but forbidden to the federal government to infringe. It may seem as if that is a distinction without a difference, but there is a difference. Anything that is 'given' can be taken away. The assumption our Founders made and enshrined in the Constitution and subsequent _*Bill of Rights *_was that nothing and no one could take our rights away, they were given us by our Creator, whomever or whatever one imagines that to be. By forbidding the federal government (and by later extension, the states for most of the Bill of Rights), the Founders made it very difficult for the government to abrogate those rights.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...



The preamble to the Bill of Rights, without referring to "rights," acknowledges that there were fears of loss of rights. The first ten admendments often refer to rights (not previously identified in the constitution but now given and yes, the federal government not allowed (prohibitied) to abridge them except as noted in the amendments) that can't be taken away. 

I generally agree with your second paragraph, but haven't had a chance to see if any of our law or international law we agree to, talks about extra-territory loss of any rights or presumtion of rights. And that remains my stance. If there is no lawful exception based on territoriality, then Obama has a real problem justifing that. And I agree that the current attempts such as saying he was afforded "due process" just don't float without some real unassailable justification.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I think they did. But I see wheels within wheels here, I really do. I think that this was a power-grab for the President and all future presidents.
> ...
> 
> That's my theory anyway. I don't believe any of this was accidental. It plays out too nicely.



I don't doubt that may have been part of the decision. Presidents are people, and many people have trouble with authority; whether the authority they are under, or the authority they have. It can be heady.


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think they did.  But I see wheels within wheels here, I really do.  I think that this was a power-grab for the President and all future presidents.
> 
> Let me put it this way.  Say you're the President, and you want to increase your authority such that you can order the assassination of any US citizen at will, without criminal charges or a trial.  On the surface, that seems like a pretty tall order.  It's clearly illegal, right?  What to do?
> 
> ...



I'd say there probably is no fallout, because people probably aren't thinking about 'due process' but instead, just ridding the world of one more dirtbag terrorist, regardless of how major/minor his role may be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2012)

MJS said:


> I'd say there probably is no fallout, because people probably aren't thinking about 'due process' but instead, just ridding the world of one more dirtbag terrorist, regardless of how major/minor his role may be.



And that, to me, supports my contention that this was just a step in a process.  Now we have precedent.  Eventually, we'll be completely inured to it.  Just another day at the office.


----------

