When War On Terror Targets Americans

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.


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.

So if he is an enemy combatant, you would not sanction anything other than a capture, and if not possible, you are OK with him continuing to fight against and kill US citizens?

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.

Well, I haven't gone into a big study about that myself, but the little have from the public media, it would appear he may have been. I was hoping to hear some debate about that. I think it is certainly arguable. Have you given any thought as to what it would take to make him a combatant in your mind?

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]

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]

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]

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.

Good points. But how do you define "in theater?" We consider ourselves to have been attacked on 9/11. Were we also attacked by the underware bomber, or at Ft Hood? Was Al-Awlaki directly responsible for those. Well, it may be more difficult to know for sure since he didn't have the due process of a trial. But if it were true, is he then a combatant, are we "in theater," and does he then have a right (or us to claim he did) to only capture as opposed to being taken out by bombing as other combatants are? News media reports seem to indicate he was responsible for the underware bomber and the Ft Hood attack. But you are correct, those aren't courts of law.

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.

As long as he wasn't publishing anything prohibiting by law, such as advocating the violent overthrow of the government, that is correct.

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?

In Arizona, no, of course not. But the point is, he was not in territory that we controlled, and he may have been a combatant. If he was not, of course that changes the argument.

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.

That's good food for thought, and must be guarded against for sure. I am not a fan of President Obama, nor of President Bush. A list of US citizens who are considered legitimate targets can only be based on law. If it wasn't, then we should all be writing our legislatures, for what good it may do, but it isn't only our right, it is our duty. I need to look up what was the justification for that list.

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.

All good food for thought. However, if the citizen is a combatant, I think he loses his protection outside our territorial limits. Your thoughts?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Bush.

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.

Interesting and informative reading. However, it certainly is different. First, we didn't have the capability to find nor execute by drone, persons who were committing the acts Al-Awlaki has done. Al-Awlaki is a member of a hostile force that is not a country and not signatories of any Geneva nor Hague Conventions (We of course are). He was hiding in an area over which we have not legal jurisdiction. He reportedly was engaging in hostile acts against the USA by fund-raising, recruiting others to commit hostile acts against the USA, providing religious/legal justification for hostile acts against the USA, planning hostile acts for recruits to carry out against the USA. If he wasn't a US Citizen, would we need this thread? Does the fact that he is justify not stopping him by military means?

Regarding Haupt, that does seem to have been a case of WWII hysteria. Not unlike Tesla's case against Italy. Harsh though it may have been, it was by Supreme Court decree, legal. Haupt would have helped himself if he had reported to the FBI immediately, as did the two who only spent time in jail. By not doing so, he appeared to be in a position to carry out his orders at a time his choosing. Perhaps J. Edgar Hoover had input to that as well..

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]

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]

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.

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.

I have to agree with this as well, except for one thing: "If A-A has none, neither do I." I still think there is room to argue that he may have placed himself in a position of not being able to hide behind "rights." That is my argument. Once we can agree on that issue (for or against), it may take us other places. I grant it is a sticky situation. First, we don't know all the facts, and aren't likely to.

If he is merely a rable rouser as you say, that certainly must be evaluated. Is he simply a loud mouth, who only wants to glorify himself, or is he like the person who incites to murder and is therefore culpable for the murders of those who follow his teachings and incitements? Then if the latter, and if he is part of an identifiable entity that can be accepted as engaging in war against us, does that legally allow us responses outside arrest and court?

And of course both sides here are hampered by lack of information as to just how deeply he is involved in "warring" against the USA. And again, make no mistake I believe there must be a line we should not cross, based on law. If we can't establish a constitutional grant of authority to treat him differently, we should not.

Again, just my thoughts.