US citizen & Al-Qaida leader al-Awlaki killed...hmmm

[MJS]

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...y-kill-a-citizen-overseas-without-due-process

A LEO can shoot and kill someone, which is fine if the circumstances dictate it, yet here we have a known terrorist, who has no interest in America or Americans, and we're worried about whether or not its ok to kill him? I say **** him! Once he became a terrorist, and plots to kill Americans and bring harm to this country, then screw him! Yes, yes, I know, I know...this isn't the popular view. Thats fine. Its my opinion, its how I feel, and I'm sticking to it.

Honestly...we need to do more of these types of things....more drone attacks, more SF missions, and take out all the scum that thrives on causing harm to us. And yes, I know, its a never ending battle. Take out one **** bag, and 2 more **** bags will float to the surface.

 

[billc]

I agree MJS, this guy was over seas conducted terrorist operations against this country. Killing him, with a presidential order only makes sense. Now, if he was on U.S. soil, the regular legal code should take over. Overseas is a different story.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...y-kill-a-citizen-overseas-without-due-process

A LEO can shoot and kill someone, which is fine if the circumstances dictate it, yet here we have a known terrorist, who has no interest in America or Americans, and we're worried about whether or not its ok to kill him? I say **** him! Once he became a terrorist, and plots to kill Americans and bring harm to this country, then screw him! Yes, yes, I know, I know...this isn't the popular view. Thats fine. Its my opinion, its how I feel, and I'm sticking to it.

Honestly...we need to do more of these types of things....more drone attacks, more SF missions, and take out all the scum that thrives on causing harm to us. And yes, I know, its a never ending battle. Take out one **** bag, and 2 more **** bags will float to the surface.

A LEO can shoot and kill someone; but a LEO cannot walk up to a man wanted for murder and shoot him dead on the spot, can he?

And that's the issue. Not whether or not a scum bag deserves to die; but the manner in which we uphold our own laws.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree MJS, this guy was over seas conducted terrorist operations against this country. Killing him, with a presidential order only makes sense. Now, if he was on U.S. soil, the regular legal code should take over. Overseas is a different story.

Why is overseas a different story? What is the legal precedent for that?

If we can assassinate US citizens on the President's orders overseas and it is legal, then there is no law that stands in the way of it happening inside our borders. Once the door is opened to the President ordering the assassination of US citizens, there's no reason he can't order any US citizen killed, anytime, anywhere. Is that OK with you?

 

[billc]

I believe I mentioned that if he was on U.S. soil he would be protected by American Law. I would include overseas, during war time, fighting for the enemy and maybe even include as part of the enemies leadership, which he was. I think all of those things would help ease the fears of some here. It is a good time to visit the topic though and if people are concerned, contact your political reps. and get a law put into place that addresses the issue. As far as anytime, anywhere, on U.S. soil you are protected by the constitution which would make assassination illegal as far as I am concerned. Do all the things this guy did...and it is open season for the sake of protecting American lives here and overseas.

Overseas is important because the President has more room for action outside of our borders as commander and chief and the political leader in foreign affairs. He is hemmed in by the constitution within our borders. Outside our borders, it is the wild west, except where we intentionally bind ourselves through treaties.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I believe I mentioned that if he was on U.S. soil he would be protected by American Law.

And I ask on what basis you make that statement. There are no laws that say US citizen's rights end when they leave the country and come back when they return. Show me any such law. As far as I can tell, this is your opinion, but unsupported by any legal theory whatsoever. It's just what you *think* should be the case.

I would include overseas, during war time, fighting for the enemy and maybe even include as part of the enemies leadership, which he was. I think all of those things would help ease the fears of some here. It is a good time to visit the topic though and if people are concerned, contact your political reps. and get a law put into place that addresses the issue. As far as anytime, anywhere, on U.S. soil you are protected by the constitution which would make assassination illegal as far as I am concerned. Do all the things this guy did...and it is open season for the sake of protecting American lives here and overseas.

You mean all the things he is accused of doing. From what I can tell, he was unindicted. Not formally charged with any crime whatsoever. Yes, I am fully of the opinion that he did everything he is accused of by public statements and probably much more; I do not doubt he's guilty as hell. But he was never even charged with a crime formally, much less convicted.

It may seem crystal clear in this guy's case; we all believe he's guilty as charged. But with that precedent, tell me what keeps it from happening on someone who has had the charged ginned up to make it seem he's a bad guy?

Overseas is important because the President has more room for action outside of our borders as commander and chief and the political leader in foreign affairs. He is hemmed in by the constitution within our borders. Outside our borders, it is the wild west, except where we intentionally bind ourselves through treaties.

No, it's not the Wild West. The President can't even make war with out the permission of Congress.

 

[billc]

Once we are in a war, he has vast powers to conduct that war. Since congress authorized the use of force, a declaration of war by any other name, that opens up the killing of people like this guy who are aiding the enemy. Before everyone chimes in that it wasn't a declaration of war, there is no exact phrasing of "declaration of war" that is the official version from the Constitution. We have some precedent, from WW2, but even more precedent with korea and vietnam. The president during WW2 knew that we had the German code and every night both he and Churchhill had access to which parts of England were going to be bombed, and they let the bombing happen, without warning the innocent citizens so they could clear out. The precedent of war time actions by a President are quite substantial. Someone fighting for an enemy during war would not be under the U.S. legal system anyway if they were caught on the battlefield.

I will say, this should be cleared up before it is done again, but I am fine with what we did so far. Two guys I respect Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Levin, both constitutional lawyers are fine with it, and they are the experts on con. Law. that I trust.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Once we are in a war, he has vast powers to conduct that war. Since congress authorized the use of force, a declaration of war by any other name, that opens up the killing of people like this guy who are aiding the enemy.

When did Congress authorize the use of force? I am not saying that the President has to have the approval of Congress to engage in military action, but he certainly needs it to go to war. You say he has it. When did this happen?

Before everyone chimes in that it wasn't a declaration of war, there is no exact phrasing of "declaration of war" that is the official version from the Constitution. We have some precedent, from WW2, but even more precedent with korea and vietnam. The president during WW2 knew that we had the German code and every night both he and Churchhill had access to which parts of England were going to be bombed, and they let the bombing happen, without warning the innocent citizens so they could clear out. The precedent of war time actions by a President are quite substantial. Someone fighting for an enemy during war would not be under the U.S. legal system anyway if they were caught on the battlefield.

Was he caught on a battlefield?

I will say, this should be cleared up before it is done again, but I am fine with what we did so far. Two guys I respect Hugh Hewitt, and Mark Levin, both constitutional lawyers are fine with it, and they are the experts on con. Law. that I trust.

The White House is saying the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cutive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

And all I'm saying is this:

a) The assassination authorized by the President was 'extra-judicial'. That is, it occurred outside of the judicial system. While killing in wartime of enemy combatants (by our military, not our CIA) is considered legal under general conditions (and regardless of citizenship of the enemy), this was not done on the battlefield against an armed enemy. It was not done by our military, but by the CIA. It was not authorized by our judicial system, but by the President acting on his own authority as Commander in Chief.

b) If the President can kill a US citizen on his own authority, and without the consent of Congress or due process, he can kill any US citizen. Period.

I have asked - and you have refused to answer - what is to stop the President from authorizing the assassination of any US citizen, inside or outside the USA? If there is some legal principle that allowed him to kill a known terrorist and enemy of the USA who happened to be a US citizen outside the US, what is it? And how would that principle keep the President from doing the exact same thing inside the USA? And how would it keep the President from assassinating anyone he didn't like?

I understand that Anwar al-Aulaqi (and Samir Khan, another US citizen killed in the same attack) was a very bad person. I am not at all unhappy that he is dead. However, I do not understand the legal authority by which the President can order the assassination of a US citizen without due process. Yes, I completely understand that we're at war and he is the enemy. I also understand that he was not engaged in military action on a battlefield against us at the time he was killed.

I truly believe that you're justifying the action because it killed a bad guy. The problem I have with it is that the ends do not justify the means. If the President can order assassination of US citizens on his own authority, without trial and without due process, then there is NOTHING that can stop him from ordering the assassination of ANY US citizen, inside or outside the country.

I frankly think you're being penny wise and pound foolish. If we grant the President this power today, and in ten years we have a President who starts ordering the assassination of US citizens whom he just doesn't think vote the way he'd like them to, it will be the fault of you and people like you, willing to give away the power reserved to the Judicial Branch alone, because you wanted a bad guy killed today and didn't care how it was done.

 

[billc]

Here is a wikipedia article on the Declaration of the Use of Force:

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

I am justifying it based on the War powers of the president to defend the country from attack. This guy, citizen or not, was outside of the country conducting warfare against the United States, as part of a non-national group. President Bush received a declaration for the use of force by the duly elected representatives of the people of the United States to conduct military force against our enemies. This guy was an enemy, overseas, conducting operations of warfare against the united states. If he had been captured in the continental U.S. he would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the united states. There are no active U.S. courts overseas, so the Lincoln Habeus Corpus rulings from the civil war probably apply since in one of the civil war decisions there needed to be active u.s. courts in the theater of warfare. Gotta go.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here is a wikipedia article on the Declaration of the Use of Force:

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

I am justifying it based on the War powers of the president to defend the country from attack. This guy, citizen or not, was outside of the country conducting warfare against the United States, as part of a non-national group. President Bush received a declaration for the use of force by the duly elected representatives of the people of the United States to conduct military force against our enemies. This guy was an enemy, overseas, conducting operations of warfare against the united states. If he had been captured in the continental U.S. he would have fallen under the jurisdiction of the united states. There are no active U.S. courts overseas, so the Lincoln Habeus Corpus rulings from the civil war probably apply since in one of the civil war decisions there needed to be active u.s. courts in the theater of warfare. Gotta go.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.

If Anwar al-Awlaki was a 9/11 conspirator, why was he not arrested before 2002 when he was still in the USA? Or from 2002-2004 when he was in the UK? He didn't go to Yemen until 2005.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bill, we didn't know that until just now, because not enough guys had had swirlies done on them to make them give up the right names?
Just tossing a guess out there.

The US is at war with 'terrorism'. It's a nice broad declaration, with no real end set, so we'll be 'at war' for years to come.

 

[Makalakumu]

At least war is good for the economy...no guys, really it is!

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

Well the constitution would stop the assassination in the country. There, asked and answered.

--During the Civil War over 250,000 U.S. citizens were killed by the federal government without first being arrested, and brought to trial, thousands of others had their property destroyed or confiscated, many were held captive and all of this occurred inside the boundaries of the United States, under the protections of the constitution.

--As a former member of the Marine Corps. you yourself were not protected by the constitution of the United States even though you never surrendered your citizenship. For example, while doing your job, you could at no time simply quit and say " I've had enough, I'm going home," without fear of imprisonment and in some cases execution. If you worked at Walmart, you could say at anytime, "I quit, I've had enough," and walked away.

--The case of American Citizens fighting for Germany during WW2, which was also portrayed in the show "Band of Brothers." Our soldiers were under no special conditions to arrest these individuals for trial to determine if they had in fact committed treason before they fired on them.

There are many examples of citizens, during wartime not being covered by the protections of the constitution.

 

[billc]

They either didn't manage to catch him at the time or he hadn't been committing those crimes or they weren't discovered until he was overseas.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

They either didn't manage to catch him at the time or he hadn't been committing those crimes or they weren't discovered until he was overseas.

He was the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University.

And the Obama Administration is not claiming he was a 9/11 conspirator, merely that he recently crossed the line from rhetoric to actual planning of A-Q operations. And while I'm sure he was doing that, that's not covered under the 9/11 authorization you cited. Nor is the Obama Administration claiming it is covered.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, we didn't know that until just now, because not enough guys had had swirlies done on them to make them give up the right names?
Just tossing a guess out there.

Take a look...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

The FBI interviewed al-Awlaki four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks. [44][1] One detective told the 9/11 Commission he believed al-Awlaki "was at the center of the 9/11 story". And an FBI agent said that "if anyone had knowledge of the plot, it would have been" him, since "someone had to be in the U.S. and keep the hijackers spiritually focused".[44] One 9/11 Commission staff member said: "Do I think he played a role in helping the hijackers here, knowing they were up to something? Yes. Do I think he was sent here for that purpose? I have no evidence for it."[44] A separate Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks suspected that al-Awlaki might have been part of a support network for the hijackers, according to its director, Eleanor Hill.[44] "In my view, he is more than a coincidental figure", said House Intelligence Committee member Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA).[63]

...
Al-Awlaki was the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association's first imam to conduct a prayer service at the U.S. Capitol in 2002.[80][81] The prayers were for Muslim congressional staffers and officials for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).[82]

The FBI conducted extensive investigations of al-Awlaki, and he was observed crossing state lines with prostitutes in the D.C. area.[23][48] To arrest him, the FBI considered invoking the little-used Mann Act, a federal law prohibiting interstate transport of women for "immoral purposes".[23] But before investigators could detain him, al-Awlaki left for Yemen in March 2002.[23][48]

The US is at war with 'terrorism'. It's a nice broad declaration, with no real end set, so we'll be 'at war' for years to come.

I'm hip, and I'm suspicious of both that and the Patriot Act; I see them as massive power grabs and huge transfers of power from the Congress to the President.

I also see conservatives who used to be on the side of the Constitution stand up and cheer when a terrorist is killed by us, NO MATTER HOW WE DO IT. To hell with the Constitution; a dead bad guy is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than our liberties. The fact that the President can now order the assassination of any US citizen he wants to, without judicial review, without a trial, and without due process, scares the crap out of me. The fact that some conservatives are cheering it on makes me both scared and angry. Freaking morons are going to keep at this until we wake up one day in an autocracy and yes, it will be their fault; they crap on the Constitution and cheer when it is ignored, so long as the right bad guys are getting zapped. Short-sighted morons are going to piss away our rights until we don't have any.

 

[CanuckMA]

So I guess it's then OK for foreign assassins to come into the US to execute 'criminals' that were 'convicted' in other countries?

Goose, gander and all that.

 

[elder999]

Bill, we didn't know that until just now, because not enough guys had had swirlies done on them to make them give up the right names?
Just tossing a guess out there.

The US is at war with 'terrorism'. It's a nice broad declaration, with no real end set, so we'll be 'at war' for years to come.

This action was based on intelligence provided by the Yemeni government-they told us where to find him.

And...for the second time in recent memory......I completely agree with -choke!- billi.

If you think your 'rights as a U.S. citizen don't end at the border, try screaming about them from the basement of a Mexican jail, and see what good it does ya. There's an American girl facing her second murder trial in Italy, under rules where she's presumed guilty until proven innocent-where are her "rights as an American?"

If al-Awlaki wanted to exercise his rights as an American, he should have come back to the U.S., gotten himself lawyered up, and surrendered.

As for the Constitution-that noble, **** smeared document- various government organs and corporations have been wiping their collective behinds with it for so long that it's really just the quaint relic of our founding that I said it would become, and not worth the paper it was printed on.

 

[Makalakumu]

Just like the US Dollar, but that is a different story...or is it?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Carol]

So I guess it's then OK for foreign assassins to come into the US to execute 'criminals' that were 'convicted' in other countries?

Goose, gander and all that.

Interesting question.

I hope its not phrased with the backdrop of the United States acting alone? US-SOF had a great deal of cooperation and help from the Yemeni government. Al-Awaki was a dual-citizen, both countries were losing a citizen in the operation.