Islamist cleric Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen

[mookiemookie]

US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry said.

He had played a "significant operational role in the Christmas 2009 Detroit airline bomb attempt, said officials, and in the plot which sent two bombs in printer cartridges on US-bound cargo planes in 2010. They were intercepted in the UK and Dubai.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

While it's undeniably a good thing that another terrorist is dead, the fact that the CIA is now assassinating U.S. citizens is a very scary precedent.

[Dread Knot]

While it's undeniably a good thing that another terrorist is dead, the fact that the CIA is now assassinating U.S. citizens is a very scary precedent.

When hundreds of thousands of US citizens donned a foreign uniform in 1861, the Federal Government showed no compunction in killing them in droves for the next four years, even though it still considered them American citizens (in rebellion, the US never recognizing Confederate authority.)

The guy was a rebel and a traitor. Good riddance.

[mookiemookie]

The guy was a rebel and a traitor. Good riddance.

You don't get to deny someone their constitutional right to due process just because they're a jerk, a psychopath, you're overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt or even if they admit to their guilt.

There is a difference between a civil war and an assassination. While I shed no tears for another terrorist being turned into a smoking hole in the ground, I'm simply pointing out that this is a bad precedent and a slippery slope.

[August]

When hundreds of thousands of US citizens donned a foreign uniform in 1861, the Federal Government showed no compunction in killing them in droves for the next four years, even though it still considered them American citizens (in rebellion, the US never recognizing Confederate authority.)


Well to be fair those rebel US citizens had no compunction in killing other US citizens either and they were the first to fire on the Federal government, not the other way around.

[AVGWarhawk]

You don't get to deny someone their constitutional right to due process just because they're a jerk, a psychopath, you're overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt or even if they admit to their guilt.

There is a difference between a civil war and an assassination. While I shed no tears for another terrorist being turned into a smoking hole in the ground, I'm simply pointing out that this is a bad precedent and a slippery slope.


Obama would disagree.

President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing.

[mookiemookie]

Obama would disagree.

Even scarier. The president can order the killing of an American citizen now.

[Skybird]

While it's undeniably a good thing that another terrorist is dead, the fact that the CIA is now assassinating U.S. citizens is a very scary precedent.

:doh:

Neither is it a precedence, nor is it anything worrysome. Nationality is not a factor here, but Islam and terrorism are the two factor to mention. Islam knows no nationalistic conceptions, and terrorism is not just any ordinary crime like everyday murder. From a moral standpoint I find it impossible to "assassinate" a terrorist, since the term "assassination" somewhat implies a negative moral assessment of the deed - but there is nothing bad in the act itself of killing/murdering/shooting from the distance/stabbing him while he sleeps/air-bombing a terrorist. It is a good deed to take out terrorists.

Problems can only raise when there is doubt about somebody being a terrorists. But this is not case here.

Terrorists are being taken out. Not because they have this or that nationality, but because they commit deeds of terrorism.

A troubled mind you must - and will - have when you kill people accidentally or are uncertain of the rightfulness/correctness of your motivation to kill them. When you are certain about it, you must not feel regret. It is depending on your moral standards, and thus is depending on the cultural context you grew up in, yes. But by the moral standards I live by, I feel no uncertainty whatever about this guy being taken out. So to hell with his passport.

I could claim that I feel disgusted that the Austrian and German countrymen of Hitler do not mind that Hitler committed suicide. Isn'T it a human tragedy? Didn'T it prevent a court to find justice for him having triggered the death of millions and millions? Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum. - One can trouble the water needlessly with this argument, yes. But is it really necessary, and can anything be won from doing so?

There is reason to worry over the intel services acting against their own country'S population. But this death of a terrorist - is not one of them.

[BossMark]

Goodbye to bad rubbish

[AVGWarhawk]

Even scarier. The president can order the killing of an American citizen now.

Well, it was either now or later for treason. In these hard times Obama saved us a bundle I would say! :D

[mookiemookie]

:doh:

Neither is it a precedence, nor is it anything worrysome. Nationality is not a factor here, but Islam and terrorism are the two factor to mention. Islam knows no nationalistic conceptions, and terrorism is not just any ordinary crime like everyday murder. From a moral standpoint I find it impossible to "assassinate" a terrorist, since the term "assassination" somewhat implies a negative moral assessment of the deed - but there is nothing bad in the act itself of killing/murdering/shooting from the distance/stabbing him while he sleeps/air-bombing a terrorist. It is a good deed to take out terrorists.

Problems can only raise when there is doubt about somebody being a terrorists. But this is not case here.

Terrorists are being taken out. Not because they have this or that nationality, but because they commit deeds of terrorism.

A troubled mind you must - and will - have when you kill people accidentally or are uncertain of the rightfulness/correctness of your motivation to kill them. When you are certain about it, you must not feel regret. It is depending on your moral standards, and thus is depending on the cultural context you grew up in, yes. But by the moral standards I live by, I feel no uncertainty whatever about this guy being taken out. So to hell with his passport.

President Mookie: "Fine. Neal Stevens is an Islamic terrorist. I am certain of it. CIA, please go take out Neal Stevens."

You don't see the issue with that?

[Skybird]

President Mookie: "Fine. Neal Stevens is an Islamic terrorist. I am certain of it. CIA, please go take out Neal Stevens."

You don't see the issue with that?
There is evidence and a long list of facts about Anwar Awlaki. There is no such evidence and long list of facts about Neal Stevens.

Now its my turn:

US-president Mookie: "Fine. Skybird from Germany is an Isalamic terrorist. I am certain of it. CIA, please go take out Skybird."

Is this better for you because Skybird is German and not American - while the problem you tried to point at still remains to be there? Is nationality really the issue here?

Or isn't it about records, data, facts and evidence showing Awlaki's/Neal's/Skybird's guilt or innocence...?

[AVGWarhawk]

The worst part here is Awlaki will not be able to see Facebook Timeline. He was such a big user of Facebook and would have loved to have seen his life pass before his eyes on Facebook.

[Oberon]

If the US government wanted to take out US citizens, you really wouldn't know about it. I know that sounds a bit like something that someone from Indonesia would say, but to be honest Awlaki gave up his right to be a US citizen when he called for the US to be destroyed.
He was a smart guy, that made him dangerous, and now the threat is removed...well...one threat anyway. Good call Obama. :yep:


Call me cynical though, but in the run up to the 2012 elections, how much do you want to bet that more terrorist heads are going to roll than at any time in the past four years? :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

but to be honest Awlaki gave up his right to be a US citizen when he called for the US to be destroyed.

Bingo.....

[mookiemookie]

There is evidence and a long list of facts about Anwar Awlaki. There is no such evidence and long list of facts about Neal Stevens.

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Is nationality really the issue here? Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZD.html) that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.

but to be honest Awlaki gave up his right to be a US citizen when he called for the US to be destroyed.

Careful...now you get into the rights of free speech, and does it pass the "imminent lawless action" test. It's not black and white.

[the_tyrant]

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZD.html) that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.

Now I'm not too sure about the process, but what exactly is the process of removing someone's citizenship?

can Obama sign a form or something before hand "kicking him out" of his american citizenship?

[joegrundman]

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZD.html) that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.



Careful...now you get into the rights of free speech, and does it pass the "imminent lawless action" test. It's not black and white.

out of curiosity - is the united states legally allowed to assassinate non-us citizens in countries, and of countries, that the us is not at war with?

are there defined limits to this?

[AVGWarhawk]

Wiki:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at "usc|18|2381" [25] states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

[Skybird]

Mookie,

so you want to say that killing a man on basis of intel data (that you question in principle anyway) is not okay if he is American, but is okay if he is not American?

Really...?

That would border a nationality-based pendant to racism. Americans are more valuable than non-Americans, "in dubio pro reo" is valid for Americans only, but not for non-Americans.

Mookie, that guy was a terrorist, and a Muhammdan. The first means he was a murderer and master of terrorising people, the secon means his national identity by his passport had no meaning whatever for him.

Maybe it would be best idea you stop trying to make it complicated over nothing. Terrorist mastermind is dead - good. CIA was right - also good. Believe me, trust me, I tell you: this guy was no saint. And I assure you you can still safely sleep at home, trusting in that Obama'S CIA death squads are not haunting innocent US citizens at night to raise false accusations and bring death and fire over them and their families. A terrorist got killed. The system this time functioned well. No accidents this time. No mishaps. No rivaling sevices ruining an operation. It worked all well. Period.

I hope there will be more successes like this in the future. In an ideal world, all of Awlaki's kind would get identified, targetted and taken out. Highly unlikely, but at least one can dream.

Back to my pizza lab now. ;)

[mookiemookie]

Maybe it would be best idea you stop trying to make it complicated over nothing. Terrorist mastermind is dead - good. CIA was right - also good. Believe me, trust me, I tell you: this guy was no saint. And I assure you you can still safely sleep at home, trusting in that Obama'S CIA death squads are not haunting innocent US citizens at night to raise false accusations and bring death and fire over them and their families. A terrorist got killed. The system this time functioned well. No accidents this time. No mishaps. No rivaling sevices ruining an operation. It worked all well. Period.

I've got to run, but I agree with you here, to a point. Make no mistake about my argument, this is a good thing. The end results are positive here. The guy was scum and the world is a better place without him in it.

I'm simply saying that the ends don't always justify the means. We have a process for a reason. When the process gets circumvented, it raises issues as to why we have the process in the first place, and were the things the process was set in place to ensure really done right. That's all.

[tater]

Mookie is right here. Note that anyone who complained about gitmo, rendition, enhanced interrogation, etc under Bush should be enraged beyond bounds as this is far worse than all such non-lethal actions combined.

My passport says that joining a foreign military can terminate my citizenship (it says "foreign state"). I think that clearly since 9-11 we should have made that SOP. John Walker Lindh (sp?) should have had his citizenship terminated, for example so he could be dealt with without legal ramifications. There was no need to inform this scumbag Obama just killed, but to dot all the "i"s they should have officially removed his citizenship with the stroke of a pen before ordering him killed. Note that the requirement of it being a "foreign state" needs to be changed in the modern world of deadly, transnational, non-state actors.

[AVGWarhawk]

Mookie is right here. Note that anyone who complained about gitmo, rendition, enhanced interrogation, etc under Bush should be enraged beyond bounds as this is far worse than all such non-lethal actions combined.

And why are they not complaining? Why the much vocalized complaints with Bush 2 years ago concerning Gitmo and water boarding, etc. yet nothing but silence from the same folks concerning this?

[Osmium Steele]

Somebody call Hell. See what the temperature is down there. Must be getting chilly, because I find myself agreeing with Mookie again.

(BTW: the scariest thing written above is "President Mookie". /shiver)

USC|18|2381 only applies if the person has been convicted of treason.

Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime in the U.S. As an american citizen, the federal government had no legal basis to order his death, period.

The evidence was voluminous. He could have been tried in abscentia, but that never happened.

For the non-americans here, yes, his being an american citizen vs. non-citizen is very important in U.S. law, as the United States Constitution specifically prohibits the government from acting in this manner, against a citizen, without due process of law.

That being said... ...:woot::yeah::up::rock::sunny: Glad he's dead.

[MothBalls]

I have a problem with this. If you read his profile on Wikipedia, and of course I have no idea if it is correct, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Awlaki, nor do I know if his citizenship was legally revoked or not, it states he had dual citizenship in the US and Yemen.

Regardless of the circumstance, ordering the execution of any citizen without due process goes against everything that this country was founded on and what we stand for. Everyone should be afforded due process and the laws of the land should not be set aside when convenient.

None of us here will ever know all of the facts, the whole story, what intelligence was used, etc. Again, regardless, the bottom line is an American Citizen was executed without due process. That is just wrong.

[tater]

Note that an American who dies in any attack on an otherwise legit target is not at issue. In this case, however, the American was in fact the primary target.

I'm fine with this POS getting killed, but it is because I think the second he joined the enemy he ceased to be a US citizen. I'd be fine with removing citizenship for anyone joining, or materially supporting any terrorist organization on the US list of such organizations.

The trouble is that our passports as of yet to not state this. Like the very notion of "declared war," and even the Geneva Convention, they depend on the anachronistic concept of a "state." I think that the first thing we should have done post-911, having decided it was "war," would have been to establish new rules for non-state aligned troops. I'd say that operating out of uniform, and violating other "rules of war" renders them in fact "outlaws." Meaning "outside the law," and receiving NO legal rights whatsoever. Legally non-persons.

[mookiemookie]

Ron Paul makes a very good point:

"He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

"I think what would people ... have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/30/8059346-paul-condemns-assassinating-al-awlaki

[AVGWarhawk]

But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

Ok, lets haul in POTUS for questioning. :yeah::hmmm::shifty:

[tater]

Note that removing citizenship can require a judge, even in absentia. CIA, etc goes to a cleared judge, presents evidence that the target is a bad guy associated with an organization on the State Dept. list, and the judge signs off. The guy is now just an enemy troop awaiting his virgins.

Simple solution, well within what the spirit of what is on my passport is (just correcting for non-state entities), and solves the hairy legal issues.

[AVGWarhawk]

The guy is now just an enemy troop awaiting his virgins.:haha:

[Osmium Steele]

out of curiosity - is the united states legally allowed to assassinate non-us citizens in countries, and of countries, that the us is not at war with?

are there defined limits to this?

To my knowledge, there is no current statute/ordinance/law etc. prohibiting the federal government from such action. Such a law would be idiocy in the extreme.

Pres. Gerald Ford signed an executive order prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state, but iirc, George W. Bush recinded that order.

[TFatseas]

He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in, but that is purely academic at this point.

Personally I'm glad he became a smoking hole in the ground.

[Osmium Steele]

He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in,

Wrong! He was entitled to full legal protection due to his citizenship.

But, I'm sure the administration is counting on most people feeling otherwise.

Funny, you'd think a Harvard educated, Constitutional Law professor would have a better handle on things.

[TFatseas]

2001 AUMF:

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tflat,

did this individual plan or attack on 9/11/01? :hmmm:

[TFatseas]

Tflat,

did this individual plan or attack on 9/11/01? :hmmm:

He had contact with 2 of the hijackers as a "spiritual advisor" just days before the attack. And his phone number was found in Ramzi bin al-Shibin apartment.

[tater]

He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in, but that is purely academic at this point.

Personally I'm glad he became a smoking hole in the ground.

I'd defer to a lawyer (might see one this weekend socially and I'll ask), but intent matters. If there is a group of terrorists, and the US whacks them, and one happens to be American, then he chose his friends, etc, poorly. Tough crap.

If, OTOH, the government targets him specifically, knowing who he is, then I think there is a probably a problem. Bottom line is that anyone who was screaming for Obama to give gitmo scumbags civilian trials should be incensed right now.

Bush looked into the legality of of what the enemy was legally, and was pilloried in the press for it—"How dare they try to determine how far interrogators were allowed to go legally! Even thinking about that was unforgivable!" I fault his administration for not immediately pushing congress to redefine war to include certain non-state entities (then vote to declare such a war, explicitly). Obama, OTOH, made a big noise about legal rights, trials, etc, but bumps off people all the time (which is infinitely worse than depriving them of liberty in gitmo).

[AVGWarhawk]

He had contact with 2 of the hijackers as a "spiritual advisor" just days before the attack. And his phone number was found in Ramzi bin al-Shibin apartment.

Good enough for me brother! :salute:

[AVGWarhawk]

Obama, OTOH, made a big noise about legal rights, trials, etc, but bumps off people all the time (which is infinitely worse than depriving them of liberty in gitmo).

And we hear crickets about it.

[nikimcbee]

Even scarier. The president can order the killing of an American citizen now.

He can't help it, it's in his Southside Chicago genes.

[vienna]

There is a difference between a civil war and an assassination. While I shed no tears for another terrorist being turned into a smoking hole in the ground, I'm simply pointing out that this is a bad precedent and a slippery slope.


Yes, there is a difference. And there is a difference between civil war, assassination, and battlefield actions. If someone, in effect, defects to the side of an enemy force, his death in a battlefield action is no longer an assassination; it is a casualty of war. This "cleric" chose his side in a war, acted in support of an enemy "army" (whether or not it is a part of or supported by an established state), engaged in the planning and execution of military actions, and died as result of an action as part of a war. His death is not a pure assassination. He was merely another combatant killed in action. there are some who may argue, given the techological aility to pinpoint a single target on the battlefield, we are engaging in a form of selective 'assassination". The counter is, throughout the history of warfare, removing the leadeship, military or civilian, of an enemy has been a goal of military planning. Taking out enemy leadership is seen as a means of demoraliizing enemy troops, debilitating the planning capabilities of an enemy, and, perhaps, shortening the overall length of combat and the attendant losses and injuries to one's own troops (not to metion the reduction of materiel expended in support of an exteden war). As recently as WWII, with the U.S. action labelled "Operation Vengeance" in 1943, Admiral Yamamoto, the primary architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor, was specifically was specically targeted and killed. These attacks aginst Al Qaeda are no diffent than any other prior actions taken by many, many nations througout the length of history.

As far as his being an American citizen and denial of due process is concerned, again, if someone defects to an enemy force, he has chosen his side and it can not be expected he should be shielded by expectations of "rights" he has renounced, from a country he has renounced (and denounced) and has actively sought to destroy...

[mookiemookie]

As far as his being an American citizen and denial of due process is concerned, again, if someone defects to an enemy force, he has chosen his side and it can not be expected he should be shielded by expectations of "rights" he has renounced, from a country he has renounced (and denounced) and has actively sought to destroy...

That's why we put people on trial for treason. And those accused of treason are given the constitutional right of due process. You don't get to withhold a citizen's rights based on their crime.

[AVGWarhawk]

That's why we put people on trial for treason. And those accused of treason are given the constitutional right of due process.

I think he got his due process. He certainly did not deny the allegation(I think he raised his hand and said he was involved), nor turn himself in to clear up his "good name" as it were. Looks ok to me sir. Send in the drone. :yeah:

[Osmium Steele]

2001 AUMF:

And I stand happily corrected. Thank you, sir.

[vienna]

I think he got his due process. He certainly did not deny the allegation(I think he raised his hand and said he was involved), nor turn himself in to clear up his "good name" as it were. Looks ok to me sir. Send in the drone. :yeah:

Agreed. Think of it this way: Suppose you were in a city in the U.S. and there was a known armed and dangerous felon gang member holed up someplace and the police located him. He is still heavily armed and capable of inflicting severe injury and/or death to innocent citizens in the area. He has already demonstrated he has no hesitation in using deadly force indiscriminately and has already fatally injured several other people and attempted to injure others in the execution of his gang's activities. The police contact him via phone or bullhorn and offer him a chance to surrender into custody and take his chances in a court of law. Instead, he continues to fire at the officers and place the general public at risk. The police make more offers for a peaceful end to the stand off but the felon ignores their offers. At some point, the safety of the general public outways the rights of the felon and a decision must be made. The Chief tells his officers to go in and get him out or neutralize his ability to be a continued lethal risk. Basically, this is a dead or alive situation. The most expedient method with the least risk to the officers and other citizens is to have a SWAT sniper get a clear view and take the shot. The sniper does and kills the felon. Unnecessary loss of life or injury is avoided and the situation ends. The felon could have had his day in court and his due process and any other sundry rights and/or privileges he could have been afforded, but, thropugh hia own actions, he declined to avail himself of these. The situation with the "cleric" is similar: he abdicated his rights and the shot was taken. He had the opportunities and lost them through his own will and actions...

[MH]

That's why we put people on trial for treason. And those accused of treason are given the constitutional right of due process. You don't get to withhold a citizen's rights based on their crime.

It was be one of those mind exercises my guess.:D
I cant really believe you are serious.

He was a member of international terror organisation of many nationalities.
He was killed as a hostile combatant in that organisation.
Is the fact that he is American makes him special in this case?
If he was just some american jihadist foot solder, not so famous would it matter?

[mookiemookie]

I think he got his due process. He certainly did not deny the allegation(I think he raised his hand and said he was involved), nor turn himself in to clear up his "good name" as it were. Looks ok to me sir. Send in the drone. :yeah:

A confession is not a conviction.

[mookiemookie]

A confession is not a conviction.

Is the fact that he is American makes him special in this case?
Yes, it is the crux of the whole issue. United States citizens are afforded certain legal rights by the constitution. The United States government ignoring that fact and ordering a death sentence on one of their own citizens creates a worrisome precedent.

[mookiemookie]

I think he got his due process. He certainly did not deny the allegation(I think he raised his hand and said he was involved), nor turn himself in to clear up his "good name" as it were. Looks ok to me sir. Send in the drone. :yeah:

A confession is not a conviction.

Is the fact that he is American makes him special in this case?
Yes, it is the crux of the whole issue. United States citizens are afforded certain legal rights by the constitution. The United States government ignoring that fact and ordering a death sentence on one of their own citizens creates a worrisome precedent.

[MH]

Yes, it is the crux of the whole issue. United States citizens are afforded certain legal rights by the constitution. The United States government ignoring that fact and ordering a death sentence on one of their own citizens creates a worrisome precedent.

So my guess they should had send a team of SF to risk their American lives to get him or let him be.
Sometimes common sense has to kick in....
Well.. question is who is to decide about common sense and when it can be used for evil purpose and so on....
The good part in the story beside death of terrorist is that American people are informed about it.

[Thomen]

Well, I think one of the question for the legality would be if he would be still considered a US-Citizen.
A loss of citizenship because of treason or fighting an armed conflict against the US is decided by the Department of State, AFAIK, not a judge.


The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.


http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

The link further gives some details as to the reason why and how one can loose the US citizenship.

[Onkel Neal]

You don't get to deny someone their constitutional right to due process just because they're a jerk, a psychopath, you're overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt or even if they admit to their guilt.

There is a difference between a civil war and an assassination. While I shed no tears for another terrorist being turned into a smoking hole in the ground, I'm simply pointing out that this is a bad precedent and a slippery slope.

Agreed, it is a slippery slope. While I applaud this action, let's keep an eye on this.


President Mookie: "Fine. Neal Stevens is an Islamic terrorist. I am certain of it. CIA, please go take out Neal Stevens."

You don't see the issue with that?

I sure do!

[AVGWarhawk]

A confession is not a conviction.

By definition no it is not. Getting a conviction after a confession tends to be nothing but a formality.

[1480]

Having 1st hand experience about citizenship with our foreign adoption: the US does not recognize dual citizenship. My daughter is recognized as a US citizen but China, her birth nation, recognizes her as both.


Loss of citizenship (INA § 349, 8 USC § 1481)

Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html)] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:

becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18;
serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;
working for a foreign government (e.g., in political office or as a civil servant);
formally renouncing one's US citizenship before duly authorized US officials; or
committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US.

The primary effect of recent developments (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#1986) in the US regarding dual citizenship has been to add the requirement that loss of citizenship can only result when the person in question intended to give up his citizenship. At one time, the mere performance of the above (or certain other) acts was enough to cause loss of US citizenship; however, the Supreme Court overturned this concept in the Afroyim (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Afroyim) and Terrazas (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Terrazas) cases, and Congress amended the law in 1986 (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#1986) to require that loss of citizenship would result only when a potentially "expatriating" (citizenship-losing) action was performed voluntarily and "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality".
On 16 April 1990, the State Department adopted a new policy (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/policies.html#losscit) on dual citizenship, under which US citizens who perform one of the potentially expatriating acts listed above are normally presumed not to have done so with intent to give up US citizenship. Thus, the overwhelming majority of loss-of-citizenship cases nowadays will involve people who have explicitly indicated to US consular officials that they want to give up their US citizenship.

The devil is in the details: it only indicates one instance of committing expatriating act as not being considered, on its face, as an automatic revocation. In totality of circumstances however......

[1480]

And Bush was a liar, murderer and evil potentate.....:haha:

[1480]

McBee, I am glad you correctly pointed out that the anointed one is from the south side....and a sox fan to boot!

[Madox58]

They popped another Scumbag. So what?
Was he a U.S. Citizen? Maybe but I do think he gave up all rights when he attacked the U.S. then fled to another country.
Where he continued to encourage attacks against that country.

Cry for the bad boys all you want. They depend on that. They plan on cry babies worrying about their 'Rights'.

I say kill them all and let God sort them out.

[Ducimus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

While it's undeniably a good thing that another terrorist is dead, the fact that the CIA is now assassinating U.S. citizens is a very scary precedent.

Personally i think people's who's actions are tantamount to treason deserve capital punishment, in whatever form it may come in.

As for the bearded raghead who got greased by a drone...... Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE), because ya know, anytime any of these guys gets waxed, it's celebration time! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeTgx_pj6m8)

[1480]

They popped another Scumbag. So what?
Was he a U.S. Citizen? Maybe but I do think he gave up all rights when he attacked the U.S. then fled to another country.
Where he continued to encourage attacks against that country.

Cry for the bad boys all you want. They depend on that. They plan on cry babies worrying about their 'Rights'.

I say kill them all and let God sort them out.

:rock: Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in retroactive birth control. Once you give terrorists: domestic or foreign, rights, they become college professors, (William Ayers) or US congressmen (Luis Gutierrez)......notice the irony in this.....

[yubba]

A smoking hole, I was listening to a radio show about this, I guess it took 2 hellfires too get him, the first took out the car that Sidmar Cann was in and Anwar was seen running down the street before the second hellfire got him, so he was running for his life, so he knew what was come-ing Justice Served. For all the bleeding hearts, he shouldn't have been a terrorist calling for the deaths of Americans. Find them Chase them Kill them.

[August]

I'm not sorry he's been vaporized but I wish they'd gone through the process first. It just sets a bad precedent.

[Madox58]

The one thing that worries me?
Why do people seem to believe this is a first time situation?
:hmmm:
All Countries have been whacking people from day one since Countries were invented and before.

Hell, I'd whack the Guy next door if I had the power to cover it all up!
And so would every Man Jack reading this!
:har:

Simple.
You betray a trust given to you?
You DIE!!
Most Hard Core Bikers will tell you that!

[1480]

I'm not sorry he's been vaporized but I wish they'd gone through the process first. It just sets a bad precedent.

Obamnassiah is never wrong. Shame on you comrade, the inquisition is on their way to your location as we speak to re-educate you. Only hurt for a minute.....

[mookiemookie]

I sure do! I figured you would. I humbly assume you'll forgive me for using you in my example. :salute:

I'm not sorry he's been vaporized but I wish they'd gone through the process first. It just sets a bad precedent.

Time to make a wish, it's that once in a blue moon time when August and I agree on something. ;)

[August]

Obamnassiah is never wrong. Shame on you comrade, the inquisition is on their way to your location as we speak to re-educate you. Only hurt for a minute.....

I don't have the room to take them all prisoner so unfortunately I won't be able to accept their surrender.

Was there anything else?

[1480]

I don't have the room to take them all prisoner so unfortunately I won't be able to accept their surrender.

Was there anything else?

Do people who jump out of perfectly good air planes, actually take prisoners?
:har:

[August]

Do people who jump out of perfectly good air planes, actually take prisoners?
:har:


Sure, once the perimeter expands enough... :DL

[1480]

Sure, once the perimeter expands enough... :DL

Usually a little too late by then. but, hey-they brought it upon themselves.

[Oberon]

I don't have the room to take them all prisoner so unfortunately I won't be able to accept their surrender.

Was there anything else?

:har:

:yeah:

[CaptainHaplo]

I have to admit - this is one of those that I agree does become a slippery slope. However, only because the legal foundation that allows this to occur is a bit of a stretch.

While there was no conviction and punishment set by the judicial system, and while the target could have claimed constitutional protections, you have to realze that the basis for this action was one rooted in the concept of self defense. His actions - inciting others to violence, providing direction and thus assistance to those attacking us, meant that he was a direct threat to the lives of others. However, there is no way of knowing if he was headed to a safehouse to finalize or oversee an attack, or if he was just on his way to camelking for a burger (one hump, or 2?) and fries.

Its like when an armed person is in a house and can threaten others. As long as other people are in danger, the subject is a target that can be taken out if he looks out the window or door. How many times a week do you hear of police officers shooting someone due to them being a danger to other people? It happens all the time. So the rational that he was a danger - short or long term - is the justification.

The problem is - in cases where the police shoot - there has to be an IMMEDIATE or IMMINENT danger to the lives of innocent people. There is no claim by the government that this hit took place because there was intel showing he was an immenent threat.

Thus the slippery slope.

Do I think the killing was legal? Yes. Do I think it still bears watching? Absolutely.

Just remember - "evidence" is manufactured every day by governmental offices. Other governments - and ours. Its simply a question of who they choose to target. If the citizenry does not watch them closely now - the government will watch the citizenry closer that we would ever want.....

Its our job to keep government honest and in line with the rules. This convo is one good way to help do that.

[1480]

The funny thing is, Obama criticized Bush for everything he did in regards to handling the war against terror, but I do not remember Sadam being killed outright. I believe we were taking these terrorists prisoner for the most part, otherwise we wouldn't of needed Gitmo.

Liberals, do as I say, not as I do.

[CaptainHaplo]

Now see - as a conservative - I'd rather save the time and money for transport, security and trial. Its quicker just to take him out.

Course - I am for a return to hanging - we could use the same rope and save even more....

[CCIP]

One argument that might be made, and I suspect will be made if any more protest is made over the raid, is that the target was actually Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, a Saudi bomb expert also reportedly killed in the raid. He's the guy who allegedly made the luckless underwear bomber's device, among other things. In which case an argument could be made that the US citizen Awlaki (and his friend Samir Khan, also a US citizen and terror supporter, also killed in the raid) was nothing more than collateral damage.

I don't think it changes the legal repercussions of it this much, but, just playing devil's advocate!

[1480]

Now see - as a conservative - I'd rather save the time and money for transport, security and trial. Its quicker just to take him out.

Course - I am for a return to hanging - we could use the same rope and save even more....

Preaching to the choir. :rock:

I would stand up and give a standing ovation but the double standard and hypocrisy of this current administration makes me shake my head in amazement.

[Platapus]

His actions - inciting others to violence, providing direction and thus assistance to those attacking us, meant that he was a direct threat to the lives of others.


I believe that would have made him an indirect threat actually.

[mookiemookie]

Liberals, do as I say, not as I do.

I criticized both, so what's that make me? Don't paint everyone with that broad of a brush.

[CaptainHaplo]

I believe that would have made him an indirect threat actually.

Your right. I stand corrected.

I criticized both, so what's that make me?

That makes you a wiser individual than some, Mookie.

Don't paint everyone with that broad of a brush.

But using those little ones means it takes FOREVER to spread the pain!

[Jimbuna]

You've created an interesting thread with a very debatable topic/point Mark :yep:

For what it's worth IMHO the guy gave up his right to the 'protection' and 'values' of the constitution the seconmd he turned on his country....traitors over the centuries have always suffered the same fate whenever found out.

[August]

You've created an interesting thread with a very debatable topic/point Mark :yep:

For what it's worth IMHO the guy gave up his right to the 'protection' and 'values' of the constitution the seconmd he turned on his country....traitors over the centuries have always suffered the same fate whenever found out.

But traitors usually get a trial first, even if it's in abstentia. No reason we couldn't have had one in this case.

[Ducimus]

Terrorists deserve to reap what they sow. The very idea of trying to put a terrorist on trial and afford them the same rights they deny others, is some bleeding heart liberalisim at it's finest. (edit: And yeah August, im saying that last part just to get your goat :O: )

[Gerald]

I guess there was not time for that, for several reasons which will not be in the public media,and as they here the operations going on around the clock worldwide, there is very tactical reasons for that, there was a trial, although this would have been good.