When War On Terror Targets Americans

[MJS]

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]

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.




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.

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-after 9/11, the underwear bomber, and the Ft. Hood shootings-all things he was involved in- surrendered.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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-after 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.