Why Americans Argue About the al-Awlaki Killing

Lots of spirited debates going on about this.
Liberals claiming it is wrong to kill this guy because he's American.
Conservatives claiming it's wrong because Obama ordered it and they now have an ACLU alter-ego.
Liberals claiming it's okay because Bush isn't doing it.
Both sides citing the USC, UCMJ etc...


So okay, here's the thing.

This is about the fact that we now have an enemy wothout a politically defined boundary on a map somewhere. When didn't have that a couple hundred years ago unless you count indians and look what we did to them. So let's put it in a perspective that may offer some clarity.

Let's say there was a COUNTRY of AlQaedia that you could point to on a map. That country was a religious theocracy run by whackjobs who declared war on lots of countries, including the USA.
So if a US citizen moved there, became a citizen of AlQaedia, adopted their ways, joined their military, became a leading figure in that country's attacks against us and then was killed by a drone, what would people say? There would be no questioning the Constitutionality of it and his former status as a US citizen would not be a factor because he was now an AlQeadian. Enemy Combatant & Casualty of War, plain & simple.

So that's exactly what happened. Al Qaeda has a political structure & government, public relations, defined heirarchy, military etc... And they have declared war on us and killed US citizens.
The only difference is these particluar whackjobs don't have a country on a map somewhere. That is the only reason there is any argument over this.

 

Dead scum accrue no court costs....no argument.

 

US military costs are $38.000 a second. Something you should argue about.

 

Precisely, because it makes all the difference in the world. Because you you can't go to war against against a non-state. War, legally, can only take place between states. All national and international laws of war were and have always been defined with conflicts between states in mind.

Since these groups are not states, there is no and cannot be any war declared against them. The fact that they may say they are in a "war" against us is irrelevant babble on their part, legally speaking. They are criminals and the only actions taken against them can be police actions. And that means the standards of law enforcement and the judiciary apply, not those of war.

That would mean: arrest of the accused terrorist after a warrant is issued by a judge under the standard of probable cause, indictment by a grand jury under the standard of preponderance of evidence, and conviction by a trial jury of ones peers under that standard of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt under a presumption of innocence. With all attendant protections of habeas corpus, right to an attorney, to know the charges against you, to face your accusers, against double jeopardy and ex post facto laws, to not testify against yourself, to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

What's wrong with dealing with Awlaki and these other accused criminals that way? Because they're "really, really bad guys"? Yet that's precisely the how the Constitution empowers the federal government to deal with them and that's how our federal, state, and local governments have dealt with "really, really bad guys" throughout the nation's history: serial killers, child murderers, cult leaders like Charles Manson, Mafia and drug cartel bosses, communist spies giving nuclear secrets to the USSR, terrorists like McVeigh, Kaczynski, and 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui.

None of those guys was TOO evil for the US judicial system. Yet Awlaki is? Nonsense. We have these protections for a reason: the prevent the state from going around and attacking without check, oversight, or standard of proof. You know, like it did to the Indians.

 

And, since there is no country of Al Qaeda, al-Awlaki was an unlawful enemy combatant, and thus, a lawful target...

Score one for the good guys!!!

 

There is no war, so there are no "enemy combatants," only accused criminals currently subject to vigilante lynchings.

Good guys adhere to the standards of basic jurisprudence, not vigilantism. In fact, there is little difference between vigilantism and terrorism.

 

There may be little difference but there is a difference. Vigilantism goes after supposed bad people for supposed justice. Terrorism goes after the general public to scare and terrorize.

Good guys sometimes have to be bad to bad guys.

 

Again, wisdom of the rule of law, it is sad to see the ignorance of many on this forum when it comes to the rule of law and simply following our constitution, rep points added for your comment.

 

Naivete is not a good thing...

Terrorists are, in fact, bad guys...

They are acting under no directive from a government entity, and, as a result, are unlawful enemy combatants...

 

The ends don't justify the means. You cannot commit sin so that good can result. And when you abandon the principles of justice meant to protect people, you leave them sitting ducks.

And, like you say, vigilantism goes after supposed bad people, not proven bad people. The rights of the accused ensure that the crime is proven according to a very high standard before punishment. Vigilantes punish people with no proof but merely assumption.

For all the cheering of the killing of this "terrorist," he was never convicted nor indicted nor charged with any such crime. He was punished for a crime never proven, merely on the decree of one guy who's word, apparently, is law.

If such a precedent doesn't petrify you, you're not paying attention.

 

Terrorism is a crime. To be legally considered a terrorist, you must be convicted of such in a court of law.

You can't be an unlawful combatant unless there is a war, and there is no war. There is no war. There is no war. There is no war. There cannot BE a war unless two sovereign states have declared it against each other. Since there is no war, there are no unlawful combatants in the war. There are only criminals or rather people accused by the government of crimes no yet proven in court.

 

Agreed. If he had given up his US citizenship this would be another matter altogether. If the US had grounds to revoke his citizenship this would have been another matter altogether. As fas as I know, neither of these things happened.

What is positive is that americans are having this debate.

 

Although it's true that he was an American citizen and didn't give up his citizenship (treason is considered grounds for that, but it must be proven in court), the Constitutional protections in questions apply to non-citizens as well. Foreign nationals accused of crimes on American soil has the right to a jury trial, for example.

The fact that he was an American citizen, however, should make the precedent set by this act especially disturbing.

 

No, you don't have to be convicted in court...

Would you say Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist then?

A war is not required for one to be deemed an unlawful combatant...

In fact, declared war exists amongst government entities and its combatants are backed by a government...

The lack of said backing by a governmental entity creates a situation where one would be acting in a rogue manner, and, as such, would be deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, as they are not acting by the guidelines of the Geneva Convention or LOAC, thereby making themselves legal targets...

 

Well oh well. It happened, it's legal and he's dead. Hooray!

 

I think he was, but it was never legally demonstrated in court. There's a difference between what you and I think and what is the legal position. It makes all the difference in the world, from a legal standpoint, that that jury acquitted OJ. You may call him a murderer. I may call him a murderer. But legally, he never made it based the alleged murderer position.

"Combatant" means a combatant in a war. You can't just define people as combatants. Why don't we define local gang members as combatants, so they don't have Constitutional protections?

 

You have to amend the Constitution then, to make it legal for Congress to declare war against private individuals. Then it would have to declare war on Awlaki. Nonetheless, there was plenty of "terrorism" or similar activity then, perhaps more so than today. They called it piracy, and the Constitution does give Congress tools to go after. Just not war.

There are many cases of people committing crimes in one jurisdictions and then going to another. It can create difficulties but there are ways of dealing with it. Although Yemen said it wouldn't extradite Awlaki, I think it would have been more likely to do so if the US had presented charges. Yemen doesn't want to annoy the US and ended up going after Awlaki anyway. Even if not, it you can go in their with drones to kill him, you can surely go in their to arrest him.

My interpretation of law is based on my reading of fact. If you disagree you need to make an argument about where my reading of the facts is wrong.

Bin Laden wasn't willing to kill himself, living in his cushy home, and there are plenty of examples, as I said, of criminals going between countries. It doesn't justify throwing the law out the window. Nor does "practicality." Remember A Man for All Seasons?

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

 

You're a tool.

 

Horse(*)(*)(*)(*). They are to be treated as enemy spies which can be shot on sight. Look it up.
Criminals my ass. They are unlawful ununiformed enemy combatants. Fair game in all situations.

 

No. You are.

 

Why not define all accused criminals as enemy combatants, then? We can say they're enemy combatants against the laws of the United States; therefore, they can be shot on sight.

In actuality, you can't just define the law down simply by saying something is a war. If you're going to say that war allows weaker protections for people, you need to make it defined and official, with some amount of accountability and oversight, as to what a war is, when it can be waged, and when it's over. Then you need to clearly and explicitly declare it. And wars can only be declared by states against states.

Otherwise, the government could just declare anything "war" whenever it's convenient for it to not worry about that pesky "jury trial" business.

 

You are waisting your time here. All these mindless cheerleaders could care less that their government executed a fellow citizen without a trial. They also

They're pretty Michael sheep.

 

That's a poor argument...

Gang members are on our soil committing crimes that are covered under our legal system...

al-Awlaki fled the country because he knew he was wrong...

And as he was in a different country, promoting & inciting terrorism against us & others, he became an unlawful enemy combatant, and his killing was legal...

 

Perhaps your hangup is your need to consider someone a terrorist legally in order to take them out.

 

He was a college professor in Yemen who was very vocal against policies in the US.
People not blinded be nationalism and trusting fellow humans that are in leadership positions would question things.