I saw a news report this morning about the unsuccessful attempt to kill Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen a few days ago. It was mentioned in passing that al-Awlaki was “an American-born radical.”
That means that Awlaki is a US citizen. Who the US government is attempting to assassinate without due process of law.
Sigh. Let me know when people start “disappearing.”
Well, yeah, but what’s the alternative? I mean, do you want to be the one to serve the warrant? It’s not like it’s really possible to just arrest him, and if we don’t do anything, he’s just going to continue inspiring terrorist attacks.
So, justice is only to be pursued when the pursuit is easy? 
I’m cool with that.
If you’re gonna go around assassinating people, does their citizenship really matter?
Actually, it could be argued that it is better for American forces to kill Americans rather than foreigners. I’m not talking about in a legal sense, but more along the lines of, “We created him – we’ll deal with him.” Kind of like putting down your own rabid dog.
Honestly, I go back and forth on the idea of state sponsored assassination. What it boils down to is that it is cheaper in money and lives, and less immoral, than general war.
In a better world, this would be handled as a matter of law enforcement rather than warfare. I think George Bush crossed that bridge and blew it up. Perhaps we’ll figure a way to get back across the river some day.
Ok, I’ve run out of metaphors…
The American government has a bit of a history assassinating people. Bonnie and Clyde were killed from ambuscade, for example.
Let’s see – can we make a list of who has been assassinated by Western governments (outside of their own borders) in the last century or so. I don’t think it’s real long, at least not up until the current unpleasantness. I’m excluding Russia, because I think they killed shitloads of expatriates and other enemies of the state.
The US assassinated Admiral Yamamoto in WWII.
The British assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in WWII.
Chile assassinated Orlando Latelier in Washington, DC in 1976.
I know the US was aware of, and perhaps assisted in some manner, a number of assassinations related to the overthrow of “unfriendly” governments, but AFAIK there wasn’t an American agent’s finger on the trigger.
How about Che? Was it an American who killed him?
And please add to the list. I’m sure there’s plenty I don’t know about.
Supposedly the same was done to Dillinger and a few others back in the 30’s by Hoover’s boys.
There’s nothing wrong with putting down Mad Dogs in the Street.
He’s reportedly a top al-Qaeda recruiter and trainer who alledgedly knew about the 9/11 attacks and met with two of the hijackers. He reportedly trained the “Christmas Day Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He reportedly is committed to carrying out deadly attacks on us, his fellow countrymen. He is a danger to the security of Americans everywhere, and his actions are equivalent to treason, to my mind. So, yeah, I’d be fine with it if we took him out. Some people just need killin’. Some American he is. It takes more than just being born here to call yourself an American. If you turn your back on your country and want to murder its citizens, you don’t deserve the rights and privileges that citizenship carries with it.
Yes, he’s a citizen. He’s also apparently a serious terrorist, and that’s not simple to deal with: it’s difficult to arrest them overseas, and leaving them alone is unsafe. It’s not a simple problem to resolve.
I note in passing that this is probably more of a GD topic.
Not simply equivalent to treason. The Constitution explicitly states that making war on the United States, or providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the US, is treason. He is a member of an organization that has declared war on the US, and is accused of plotting with known terrorists as detailed above. Presumably, he could be tried in absentia, if you want to be formal about it, but he would undoubtedly be found guilty of treason, which is (I think–not sure about current US codes) a capital crime. It may be unseemly, but assassinating him would not be so far outside the bounds of justice as the OP implies.
I like civil liberties, too, but I do recognize that at some point actions have consequences, especially heavy actions like this guy is accused of. If there’s evidence to the contrary–that he has not plotted as per the accusations against him–that would be another story. But it seems like he’s not exactly denying anything said about him. I doubt he’d be missed.
Some people just need killin’. And trials are the proper process for deciding who.
Under the rules of federal criminal proceedings, he has to be physically present for at least the start of the trial to be convicted of a felony in absentia. If he’s on trial for a capital offense, it may be that he needs to be present for the whole trial, but that question may not be entirely settled. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/NRule43.htm
Thank you for the clarification.
I agree.
Off to Great Debates.
Cajun Man
for the SDMB
What’s the rule on revoking citizenship?
I don’t think the government can “revoke” citizenship by birth unilaterally. And, frankly, that just sounds like too easy a way to weasel around the moral issues.
Didn’t the Federal Government kills hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens without benefit of trial between the years 1861 and 1865 because they were engaged in hostile actions against the United States?
Precisely **Odesio. **Sometimes the government must act outside the bounds of the legal system because the legal system is designed to handle civil matters.
If you’re a belligerent in a war I feel you are a valid target for military action, which can include being targeted for assassination. I have different opinions on political assassinations, and different opinions still on run of the mill criminals operating inside the United States itself.
However, this guy has essentially become a belligerent. The fact that he’s also an American citizen is only relevant if we try and arrest him. Since you do not have to attempt to arrest belligerents in war, there is no harm or foul in trying to kill him.
People must recognize war is not a police action and police actions are not warfare. Can you imagine that before each pull of the trigger in WWII there being a requirement that our soldiers yelled out, “Stop, lay down on the ground, or I’ll shoot!” That’s ludicrous and there are no known laws of war that have such a requirement. If someone wishes to surrender it has been known pretty much since “time immemorial” the onus is on the person surrendering to make it obvious, immediate, without obfuscation and visible (thus the traditional white flag.) FWIW that’s also my take on the ObL situation. He was a belligerent in war, he was a valid target of the military and unless he had essentially put out the white flag the military is not required to go through civil police procedures before opening fire. In war you open fire on any enemies that have not obviously surrendered for capture.
The fact that this guy is an American citizen would only be relevant if he had surrendered for capture, in that case I feel he should be entitled to the protections of our legal system when it comes to deciding what to do with him at that point. However, as long as he was a belligerent in war against us, and as long as he continues to be so, he is a valid target for military action which does not have to include efforts to apprehend without harm. If he wishes that the onus is on him to surrender.