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

[Bill Mattocks]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not sorry the guy's dead. But I do have some uneasy thoughts about the entire thing...

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=240029

US official confirms al-Qaida's al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
By REUTERS
09/30/2011 14:00

US-born cleric, branded a "global terrorist" by American authorities, killed in air raid, according to Yemen's Defense Ministry.
...
US authorities have branded him a "global terrorist" and last year authorized his capture or killing, but Sanaa had previously appeared reluctant to act against him.

Whilst I have no problems with the US targeting and killing terrorists wherever in the world they may hide, this was a US-born citizen. When he was put on the 'kill list' by the Obama White House last year, I was bothered by it. We have a long tradition of our citizens, even the bad ones, being entitled to due process. That generally means capture, try, and then if found guilty, punishment. If they're killed while resisting arrest, that's one thing. Just bombing them from above is a bit different.

To me, a door has been opened, a threshold has been crossed, and I'm not sure it's a good one.

In theoretical terms, if you can put one American citizen on a 'OK to kill without trial' list, you could put any American citizen on that list. Whilst I do not believe that our government is evil or capricious enough to start killing political dissidents or protesters or even people it just doesn't like, there is now nothing stopping that from happening. This was not the result of some court process; it was a simple decision made (presumably) by the President of the USA. This president, or some future president, could presumably wake up one morning and decide that I was a person who needs killing. Reality? It probably won't be seriously misused. Theoretical? It could now happen to any one of the citizens of the USA, terrorist or not. Remember, if you think the government would never target a US citizen for killing who isn't a terrorist, you are basically saying that we should trust the government without limit that they won't do the wrong thing. Has that ever been a good idea?

I also wonder what's to stop the government now. If we can kill US citizens outside the USA who are terrorists or who otherwise end up on the "OK to kill" list by the White House, what's to stop us from killing people who are currently inside the USA? We shoot missiles from unmanned drones into vehicles and houses outside the USA now; collateral damage is limited, but people other than the target do get killed. What happens when the house next door to yours gets blown up some night by our own government, because someone inside it is believed to be a terrorist, and you are injured or killed? Will that be acceptable to you? Is it OK, in the War on Terror, if the government starts killing designated enemies inside the USA without trial?

Yes, I'm imagining scenarios that don't exist, and they may never exist. I certainly hope not. My concern is that now that this line has been crossed, the erosion will begin, little by little, until in twenty years we do end up with such a nightmare scenario on our hands; and it started with this.

I am glad a threat to our nation is ended. I am not sorry that this man is dead. I'm concerned that the ends in this case many not have justified the means. The fact that he was our enemy is one thing. The fact that he was a US citizen, born here, and was killed on an order from our President without due process...that's something else entirely.

So I am of mixed opinions here. What say you?

 

[granfire]

That thresh hold has been crossed a few years back.
due process has been thrown out with the patriot act and Gitmo.

I do think there is a clause somewhere in the 'enemies, foreign and domestic' part...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That thresh hold has been crossed a few years back.
due process has been thrown out with the patriot act and Gitmo.

I do think there is a clause somewhere in the 'enemies, foreign and domestic' part...

I agree that the Patriot Act and Gitmo, etc, were destructive to our civil liberties, no matter how much they are intended to 'protect us'.

The quote you gave is also from the Oath of Enlistment into the US military, though. It refers to defending the CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic; not the country, but the Constitution. That would put it against the concept of extra-judicial killing of American citizens, wouldn't it?

 

[Balrog]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not sorry the guy's dead. But I do have some uneasy thoughts about the entire thing...

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=240029



Whilst I have no problems with the US targeting and killing terrorists wherever in the world they may hide, this was a US-born citizen. When he was put on the 'kill list' by the Obama White House last year, I was bothered by it. We have a long tradition of our citizens, even the bad ones, being entitled to due process. That generally means capture, try, and then if found guilty, punishment. If they're killed while resisting arrest, that's one thing. Just bombing them from above is a bit different.

To me, a door has been opened, a threshold has been crossed, and I'm not sure it's a good one.

In theoretical terms, if you can put one American citizen on a 'OK to kill without trial' list, you could put any American citizen on that list.
...snip...
So I am of mixed opinions here. What say you?

I don't think this was the case. Yes, he was an American citizen. But he was in bed with a gang of terrorist thugs, actively plotting the deaths of other American citizens. His own actions constitute treason and I believe the he forfeited any rights that his citizenship might have brought him.

The sad thing about killing him is that it is like killing a cockroach. Yes, we are better off because we have one less cockroach. But we didn't wipe out the nest.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't think this was the case. Yes, he was an American citizen. But he was in bed with a gang of terrorist thugs, actively plotting the deaths of other American citizens. His own actions constitute treason and I believe the he forfeited any rights that his citizenship might have brought him.

Well, from my point of view, that's exactly the problem. You CANNOT 'forfeit any rights' as a citizen. It's not possible. That's the kind of rationalization that Lynch mobs make. Only if one believes that the ends justify the means can this be OK, and that's exactly what I'm afraid of. Today we say it's OK because this guy was as dirty as they come. Tomorrow? Twenty years from now? We have a system of laws and civil rights that apply to ALL citizens, end of sentence. If they don't apply to all of us, then I'm afraid they may apply to none of us.

If the President can say X is a bad person even though a citizen and order him killed without trial today, can you promise that tomorrow the next president or the one after that won't order Y killed and claim the same thing, except maybe he's not a bad person after all? Once that door is opened, and no judge, no jury, and no due process controls the president ordering the killing of citizens, there is no mechanism to stop him from killing anyone he wants dead.

 

[Carol]

I don't think this was the case. Yes, he was an American citizen. But he was in bed with a gang of terrorist thugs, actively plotting the deaths of other American citizens. His own actions constitute treason and I believe the he forfeited any rights that his citizenship might have brought him.

I was wondering about that as well, so I did some digging. It is the Nationality Act of 1940 that puts forth the provisions that we see on our passport. Treason is one of them, but merely calling something treason is not enough.

Chapter IV, Sec. 401 covers loss of nationality. Part H says:

Committing an act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow or bearing arms against the United States, provided he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Has there been a conviction by court martial or court of competent jurisdiction?

Source:
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1940_naturalization_act.html

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Has there been a conviction by court martial or court of competent jurisdiction?

I think you nailed it. The problem is that I fear many people cannot make a distinction between a court of law and the court of public opinion.

Let's take an example. Many years ago, a young boy was allegedly molested by his karate instructor. The instructor was arrested and extradited from the state he had moved to. As the police were escorting him through the airport, on the way to jail and eventual trial, the boy's father, who had been pretending to talk on a pay phone, pulled a gun out of a paper bag and shot the alleged rapist dead, live on national television. He was himself arrested and tried.

The court of public opinion basically made the man a hero. He had done what the courts had not (although the karate instructor never got to defend himself in court, it was taken as 'proven' that he had molested the young boy). They did not like the fact that the father was on trial for doing what any father would have done (although no, not any father would do that, but many would understandably want to). The father received a very light sentence. The karate instructor? Well, he remained dead - and unconvicted of any crime.

Now, was the karate instructor guilty? I would say based on what I've read that yes, he was. And is such behavior deserving of a death penalty? Again, I don't really have a problem with that either.

The problem is that some people stop right there. Was he guilty? Yes. Should such people die? Yes. OK, then, that's all I care about. A guilty bastard died. Good.

But that is not how our nation is designed to operate. If it is OK for parents to take revenge whenever they feel something horrible has been done to their child, then eventually someone is going to kill an innocent person; and we'll never know, since that person will never get a trial. And frankly, any parent could take it upon themselves to shoot anyone dead and claim that the person had molested their child and get away with it. That's why we have laws, that's why we have rights, that's why we have due process.

So when the President of the United States can say X is a bad guy, so kill him, and he's right that X really is a bad guy, some people say that's great, super, wonderful, yay for our President! But when that precedent is established, someday some president will do the same thing, except Y might not be a bad guy. What then? We can't return his life to him. We can't even know if he was or was not a bad guy; like the karate instructor, he's dead and can no longer defend himself in court.

Kill terrorists? I'm all for it. Even if they are US citizens? Yes, especially if they are US citizens! But US citizens have rights; so we have to observe them. If we don't observe them for X because he's a bad guy, then they don't have to observe them for YOU or for ME. Are we bad people, deserving of death without due process? Well, it doesn't matter; the President can order our deaths if he wants to, apparently.

 

[WC_lun]

I understand your uneasiness with killing American citizens. It cracks open a door that might be better off left shut, even if it means someone like this goes unpunished. On the other side of the same coin, I am not sure being an American citizen should shelter you from sharing the same fate as your non-American terrorist bretheren. If a person actively pursues goals which include the killing of innocents, I am uneasy with nationality shielding them from retribution. I guess I can see both sides of this and I honestly do not know which arguement is stronger.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I understand your uneasiness with killing American citizens. It cracks open a door that might be better off left shut, even if it means someone like this goes unpunished. On the other side of the same coin, I am not sure being an American citizen should shelter you from sharing the same fate as your non-American terrorist bretheren. If a person actively pursues goals which include the killing of innocents, I am uneasy with nationality shielding them from retribution. I guess I can see both sides of this and I honestly do not know which arguement is stronger.

I understand what you're saying. Let me put it this way; if it were a military action and the person was killed fighting, no problem. We shoot people dead all the time who resist arrest here in the USA, regardless of their citizenship. Even as a citizen, you can't resist lawful apprehension inside or outside the country. So if OBL had been born in the USA, I'd still have no problem with the way he was taken out.

And I definitely don't think that being a citizen should shield one from the fruits of their crimes; they did the dirty, let them swing for it. No problem. If anything, I'd want them punished even more harshly for taking up arms against their own countrymen.

But I'd want that punishment to come from a legal court.

And I don't think that this means bad guys have to go unpunished. If we could draw a bead on this guy with a Predator drone, we could also put people in to take him down (or out if he resisted). It would take longer, cost more, and potentially endanger the lives of our troops, which is not a good thing; but we have rule of law in the USA; or do we?

I think there is a distinct difference between our President ordering that so-and-so be captured and brought to justice by any means necessary (even if it means he dies resisting apprehension) and ordering what is essentially a 'hit' on an American citizen without trial, without due process. Just the president saying "I want this guy killed" and it happens? Hmmm.

 

[WC_lun]

I agree Bill, that giving a president the power to order a hit on an American citizen screams against my sensibilities. I think my problem is that I believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Shouldn't being a terrorsit trump nationality? Why does this person's nationality make a difference in the morality of ordering his assasination? I understand that in war taking out the enemies command and control is a great way to win a war. Assasination is a way to effectively remove an enemy's command structure, and so a valid technique in war. Because a member of Al Quida's leadership is an American, does that justify creating greater risk for our soldiers in an attempt to capture him, rather than assasinate him as we would citizens of other countries, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

I'm not really arguing against what you have said, but these are questions that bother me. I just don't know what the correct answer is, if indeed there is a correct answer. I suppose when it comes to war and killing, we should be uncomfortable with it and should expect very few easy answers.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Shouldn't being a terrorsit trump nationality?

I think Carol said it quite well, above: "Has there been a conviction by court martial or court of competent jurisdiction?"

Was he a terrorist? Sure, absolutely. Well, wait a minute. There actually is no allegation he took part in any terrorist activities; he made speeches and encourage terrorism. But even if he was - we 'known' he was a terrorist, but where is the conviction in a court of law? Just like the man who blew out the brains of the karate instructor who allegedly molested his son; we 'know' the man was a molester/rapist; or do we?

There is fact and there is proven fact. A man can be a murderer in fact, but not have been proven guilty of murder in a court of law. In our system, we only punish the person convicted of the crime. The fact that they did it is not important until they are convicted.

Why does this person's nationality make a difference in the morality of ordering his assasination?

From a logical point of view, it doesn't. An enemy is an enemy. But from a legal point of view, it does. And we are a nation of laws.

I understand that in war taking out the enemies command and control is a great way to win a war. Assasination is a way to effectively remove an enemy's command structure, and so a valid technique in war. Because a member of Al Quida's leadership is an American, does that justify creating greater risk for our soldiers in an attempt to capture him, rather than assasinate him as we would citizens of other countries, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Yes, I believe it does. If his citizenship means nothing; then neither does yours, or mine.

I'm not really arguing against what you have said, but these are questions that bother me. I just don't know what the correct answer is, if indeed there is a correct answer. I suppose when it comes to war and killing, we should be uncomfortable with it and should expect very few easy answers.

I don't really have a problem with war or killing. I'm conservative, a veteran, former law enforcement, and I have no problem with the death penalty for guilty people. What I have a problem with is extra-judicial killings ordered by our President on his say-so.

Bottom line; if he can order a US citizen's assassination for terrorism, he can order your assassination. We just ceded him that power. Do you think he should have that power? Do you believe that power will always be used 'for good' and never 'for evil'? I don't trust our government that much.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I agree with Bill, but will post a counter point.

It's unlikely that he could have been taken alive. It's unlikely that had a trial been held, that he or a representative would have shown up to defend him.
So a trial prior to his execution wasn't going to happen.

As someone actively engaged in potentially treasonable actions, he was aware of the possible fall out.
He wasn't a stupid person.

As a 'key individual' he was most likely under heavy guard, making any attempt to capture him a high cost mission, with the potential for many US causalities. Is the life of 1 loyal US soldier worth expending here? Many would argue no.

So, Awlaki knew the risks he was taking, and paid for it. While I can see the danger, and the slide to arbitrary executions of US citizens on US soil, this to me is less 'murder' and more the taking out of an enemy commander during combat operations.


Again, counter argument posted, as I agree with Bills concerns.

 

[WC_lun]

Bill, it absolutley makes me nervous that anyone could order the assasination of an American citizen. I am not niave enough to think it would never be abused. I just don't think there are any cut and clear lines here. What makes it right to assasinate foreign nationals without a trial? As we have both said in the past, we are a nation of laws. I understand it may be neccesary, but so may killing an American citizen that is a terrorist. We are dealing with a lot of grey area here and some of it is morally ambigious.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree with Bill, but will post a counter point.

It's unlikely that he could have been taken alive. It's unlikely that had a trial been held, that he or a representative would have shown up to defend him.
So a trial prior to his execution wasn't going to happen.

As someone actively engaged in potentially treasonable actions, he was aware of the possible fall out.
He wasn't a stupid person.

As a 'key individual' he was most likely under heavy guard, making any attempt to capture him a high cost mission, with the potential for many US causalities. Is the life of 1 loyal US soldier worth expending here? Many would argue no.

So, Awlaki knew the risks he was taking, and paid for it. While I can see the danger, and the slide to arbitrary executions of US citizens on US soil, this to me is less 'murder' and more the taking out of an enemy commander during combat operations.


Again, counter argument posted, as I agree with Bills concerns.

Thanks, Bob. I appreciate your points as well.

I'll just add that while I agree it would have probably not been possible to actually apprehend him and bring him to justice, it would have served justice better to have tried and failed than to have ordered his execution.

I won't argue that his death was 'murder'. You don't see me weeping for him or demanding that President Obama be arrested for homicide. However, it can't really be denied that this was an extra-judicial killing; it took place outside of the legal system. While that role does fall to the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, he is also in a dual role; when American citizens are involved and it's not an actual military battle or engagement, he is the head of our Executive branch, which means he has the ultimate responsibility to enforce and uphold our laws.

On a side-note. Every new term, every new president, we seem to be expending the power of the Office of the President. Little by little, Congress abdicates their role as law-maker and turns that authority over to the Executive branch. It does not matter what political party is in office; the power transfer continues year after year. And the public does nothing about it; in many cases, we applaud it! This way lies madness. We're heading directly towards an authoritarian nightmare that will make a mockery of our republic. Not today, not tomorrow. But soon. And when we wake up and find our freedoms gone, we'll have no one but ourselves to blame. We wanted this; once we have it, we'll be sorry.

 

[Carol]

I agree with Bill, but will post a counter point.

It's unlikely that he could have been taken alive. It's unlikely that had a trial been held, that he or a representative would have shown up to defend him.
So a trial prior to his execution wasn't going to happen.

As someone actively engaged in potentially treasonable actions, he was aware of the possible fall out.
He wasn't a stupid person.

As a 'key individual' he was most likely under heavy guard, making any attempt to capture him a high cost mission, with the potential for many US causalities. Is the life of 1 loyal US soldier worth expending here? Many would argue no.

So, Awlaki knew the risks he was taking, and paid for it. While I can see the danger, and the slide to arbitrary executions of US citizens on US soil, this to me is less 'murder' and more the taking out of an enemy commander during combat operations.


Again, counter argument posted, as I agree with Bills concerns.

He was indeed a key individual, he was travelling in a motorcade when the drone got him. That to me is a decent indication of how protected he was. Also, a high cost mission would have also been of cost to Yemen. I think its safe to say that a surgical strike from an unmanned drone in to a motorcade is perhaps about as meticulous as such a thing can get, with regards to saving the lives of the surrounding Yemeni citizens. Yemen has not had a cozy relationship with the US, I suspect they might not have been so willing to help had Yemeni forces and citizens been more at risk.

The concerns still bother me...and they dig at me even more knowing that we are on the brink of what will certainly be a hotly contested Presidential election.

 

[WC_lun]

We should undertand politics definitely had a hand in this too, as much as danger to US personel probably. A failed capture attempt would be met with calls of not valuing US military lives. A successful attempt would be met with calls that Obama sent money and risked lives to make himself look good befoe an election, and why wasn't the terrorist killed with a drone. Everything about this story just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, except that a terrorist has been neutralized.

 

[Twin Fist]

this sums up my feelings and does so better than i could myself

I understand your uneasiness with killing American citizens. It cracks open a door that might be better off left shut, even if it means someone like this goes unpunished. On the other side of the same coin, I am not sure being an American citizen should shelter you from sharing the same fate as your non-American terrorist bretheren. If a person actively pursues goals which include the killing of innocents, I am uneasy with nationality shielding them from retribution. I guess I can see both sides of this and I honestly do not know which arguement is stronger.

 

[Makalakumu]

What say you?

When the door is opened, people walk through it. It's only a matter of time now...

 

[Makalakumu]

I agree that the Patriot Act and Gitmo, etc, were destructive to our civil liberties, no matter how much they are intended to 'protect us'.

The quote you gave is also from the Oath of Enlistment into the US military, though. It refers to defending the CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic; not the country, but the Constitution. That would put it against the concept of extra-judicial killing of American citizens, wouldn't it?

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

 

[billc]

Mark Levin, a constitiutional lawyer and head of the Landmark Legal Institute weighs in on the assasination...

http://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/assassinating-a-citizen/436260670945

Assassinating a citizen? No, assassinating a terrorist who seeks to murder American citizens.

Given the debate over a president's power to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen -- but not just any U.S. citizen -- one who has declared war against the United States by his own actions and words in repeated efforts to murder American citizens while hiding out in Yemen, let's turn to Title 8, Section 1481 (a)(3)(A) of the United States Code states: " A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality — entering into, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States ..."

Of course, most terrorists are not serving in formal armed forces of foreign nations; that's why they are characterized as unlawful enemy combatants under relevant Geneva Accord provisions. That is, they are worse than soldiers in an enemy army. Nonetheless, the government could go through the formal steps to strip such a terrorist of his U.S. citizenship. Section 1481(b) provides, in relevant part: "... Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily."

If the issue is concern about the power of a president to order the assassination of a citizen, then strip such a barbarian of his citizenship. But this truly seems like form over substance.