# Al-Awlaki Killed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 30, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158 "2011-09-30T14:51:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/181 "2011-09-30T23:22:55Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Hamlet once again is ignoring Bullshit. I’ve responded twice to the bullshit “It happened in the Civil War so it’s OK now” crap you’re spread. > [@Ibn Warraq](#): > > Braying repeatedly “that was on the battlefield” without any sort of explanation doesn’t help. I’ve explained it repeatedly. There’s the battlefield, and there are places that aren’t. We are not at war with Yemen. The President’s power is at its height on the battlefield, when he orders extrajudicial killings outside of it, not so much. > [@Ibn Warraq](#): > > Furthermore, Hamlet is completely ignoring that the Constitution protects everyone not just American citizens. I’m ignoring it because it’s blatantly false outside of the US. I tend to ignore things that aren’t true. > [@Ibn Warraq](#): > > In short, whatever due process should have been accorded to Al Awlaki should also have been accorded Osama Bin Laden and various others. Again, you’re completely wrong. US citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections that other people, say people not in the US, aren’t. Feel free to read Reid v. Covert, which I’ve cited earlier in this thread. You’re doing nothing but spreading misinformation. I really wish you’d stop that. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/182 "2011-09-30T23:42:22Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Hamlet once again is ignoring the fact that during the 1860s hundreds of thousands of American citizens were killed without any sort of trial at the discretion of US forces and hundreds of thousands of others were held for years without any sort of trial. > > Braying repeatedly “that was on the battlefield” without any sort of explanation doesn’t help. The Supreme Court said, slightly more recently than the 1860s, that we cannot just lock a citizen up indefinitely as an enemy combatant. We aren’t allowed. It’s against the law. That has been pointed out quite a few times now. If you’re going to complain about other people “braying,” it would be nice if you’d address that in some way. Otherwise it isn’t really clear what you’re going for. As far as the battlefield thing, let’s see if you can explain it - under the rule that you’re saying applies to al-Awlaki, if the government decides that I’m an enemy combatant, and issues a little report explaining why, can they blow my ass up while I’m sitting in my car? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/183 "2011-09-30T23:43:23Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > you just need to show due diligence in making sure he’s the enemy, member of AQ or working with them, and you’re not indiscriminately killing people When you say you need to “show” due diligence, I assume you agree that the President shouldn’t be able to just cry “state secrets!” to worm his way out of this requirement for oversight? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/184 "2011-10-01T00:05:50Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > The Supreme Court said, slightly more recently than the 1860s, that we cannot just lock a citizen up indefinitely as an enemy combatant. We aren’t allowed. It’s against the law. That has been pointed out quite a few times now. If you’re going to complain about other people “braying,” it would be nice if you’d address that in some way. Otherwise it isn’t really clear what you’re going for. > > As far as the battlefield thing, let’s see if you can explain it - under the rule that you’re saying applies to al-Awlaki, if the government decides that I’m an enemy combatant, and issues a little report explaining why, can they blow my ass up while I’m sitting in my car? For starters I’ve never said I supported locking up American citizens indefinitely without trial thought there have been numerous examples of the US doing this, for example both during the Civil War and WWII. Beyond that, I haven’t provided a definition for “battlefield” or what constitutes a “battlefield killing”. I’m merely asking him if he’s saying that it’s legal for the US government to designate any foreign national an “enemy combatant” and kill them. Due process applies both to American citizens and foreign nationals. The US is not forbidden from assassinating Columbian Cartel members in the US, but allowed to do so in Bogota. Now perhaps he’ll be willing to explain why Abraham Lincoln shouldn’t have been impeached for jailing hundreds of thousands of alleged Confederates indefinitely without any trial, why Obama and the SEALS shouldn’t be arrested for murdering Bin Laden and finally explain what constitutes a battlefield. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/185 "2011-10-01T00:12:59Z")
> [@](#): > > As far as the battlefield thing, let’s see if you can explain it - under the rule that you’re saying applies to al-Awlaki, if the government decides that I’m an enemy combatant, and issues a little report explaining why, can they blow my ass up while I’m sitting in my car? I forgot to add, where have I ever said what laws applied to Al Awlaki? As to your question, well if you’re not part of a group that has declared war on the US and is trying to destroy it and has succeeded in killing thousands of Americans, them no I don’t think that would be right. Being white though, I don’t think you’ll have to worry(white skin privilege and all that). Can we assume you’d object to any foreign nationals captured on US soil being executed without civilian trials and it would be outrageous if this was done and the people responsible for this outrage should be punished. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/186 "2011-10-01T00:18:52Z")
You can assume lots of things, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/187 "2011-10-01T00:22:46Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Due process applies both to American citizens and foreign nationals. The US is not forbidden from assassinating Columbian Cartel members in the US, but allowed to do so in Bogota. I think I see where you are confused. Foreign nationals in the US are, by and large, entitled to due process and Constitutional protections. US citizens who are foreign nationals abroad are entitled to some (not all) constitutional protections. But non-US citizens who are not in the US are (generally) not entitled to Constitutional protections. Did that help? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/188 "2011-10-01T00:24:20Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > You can assume lots of things, apparently. Such an eloquent response. I’m sorry if I was wrong and you’d have no problem with foreign nationals arrested on US soil being executed without civilian trials. Would you mind clarifying your position on the matter rather than using snarky one liners. It didn’t work for dear old Dio and it doesn’t for you. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/189 "2011-10-01T00:25:02Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Can we assume you’d object to any foreign nationals captured on US soil being executed without civilian trials and it would be outrageous if this was done and the people responsible for this outrage should be punished. What nation has declared war on the U.S. that the decedent was a citizen of and an actor for? I hate to break the news to you, but al-Qaeda is not a nation, it is a criminal organization. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/190 "2011-10-01T00:35:00Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > But there are other detainees at Guantanamo not being given civilian trials. Why should KSM get a trial but not these other detainees? What’s the basis for this discrepancy? This is a side issue, but basically KSM is a publicity thing. After the SCOTUS decisions we had to give the Gitmo detainees status hearings, and the ones deemed criminals we were supposed to try for crimes. That is where the military tribunal act came from in congress, with KSM they at first wanted to try him in a regular Federal court in order to make a political statement, but that didn’t work out so well. Basically, KSM has been treated the way he has because of publicity reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/191 "2011-10-01T00:39:11Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > As I said to John Mace: “If you were to ask me 11 years ago whether a US President would order the killing of a US citizen on US soil, I would have agreed with you. But after 9/11, Padilla, Hamdi, Hamdan, Guantanamo, and now Al Awlaki (by the very President who was so damn against the prior stuff when running for the position), I’m nowhere near as sure.” I don’t think it will ever happen (in part because I think the President knows that he would be violating the Constitution to do so), but I sure wish I was more sure. And sending in Navy Seals to kill/capture people he considers enemy. Well, as I said I think technically the President could drone strike a theoretical American al-Qaeda leader hiding in Miami without any prior court approval. I don’t believe he would, either, but not because of the Constitution but because of the politics of it. In such a scenario, regular law enforcement can get at the guy, no reason to do something that would cause _massive_ political backlash. As an aside, the mayor of Philadelphia actually bombed a building in his city once, so it isn’t as crazy as it sounds. > [@](#): > > _sigh_ Yes, because it would be on the battlefield. But if Obama ordered the CIA to kill a US citizen in Miami because he was a member of Al Qaeda, you can be damned sure the courts wouldn’t allow it. I think we both agree it wouldn’t happen because we have FBI tactical teams that would just go in and take them out and/or try to apprehend them. It’s obviously just legal wanking to argue about whether it would or would not be legal to drone strike someone hiding in a house in Miami. > [@](#): > > I know you want to limit the idea of “military action” to simply drone attacks, etc. But the fact is the AUMF authorizes the President to take any action deemed appropriate, which would include assassination of US citizens on US soil. I agree, in theory. I think in practice it wouldn’t happen, and remember if the President gets too out of control you need no proof of a crime to impeach the President, only the right number of votes. > [@](#): > > The most likely would be the same ones the officers in the Rodney King beating (Section 1983?) I don’t see how that statute would apply to the killing of al-Awlaki, at all. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/192 "2011-10-01T00:40:11Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > You can draw whatever distinctions you like, since Hamdi and al-Awlaki will both end up on the same side of the line. And in _Hamdi_, the constitutional balancing of the right not to be detained with the exigencies of your active war was held to require some process. If you ramp up the liberty interest from bodily freedom to freedom of life, how do you end up with less process? Hamdi was in our possession, al-Awlaki was on the battlefield. SCOTUS has never made rulings to govern battlefield behavior of the military. Do you have cites to suggest the SCOTUS has ever put restrictions on how we wage war on the battlefield? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/193 "2011-10-01T00:41:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Yes, it is. Seizing someone and detaining them - unconstitutional. Killing them - constitutional. I think a vast majority of people would much rather be detained than killed. Also, I see no difference in the Constitution that would support the idea that killing is fine, but detention isn’t. Well, again, to remove it from modern political fervor: -Henry VIII summarily executing someone he had arrested would be against the law even in 1520 England. -Henry VIII ordering his soldiers to kill a nobleman and his soldiers when they had started battle against the crown, not against the law, because it was the sovereign using his military force against the military force of the enemy (who happened to also be an Englishman.) ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/194 "2011-10-01T00:41:47Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > He is also a US Citizen…The Constitution doesn’t stop applying when we’re at war. You sure? Answer the hypothetical…my post again: > [@](#): > > I guess a question would be, to see if there’s any solid footing we could agree on is, if this guy was fighting for Germany in WWII, would he be required the same due process you’re claiming he’s entitled to now (5th protection, ect) or could we just kill him in a firefight along with all the other Germans. If you’re answer is yes, he could be killed in that scenario (which is nothing like the scenario in which he was killed), we at least agree there are some situations where Americans can legally be killed with very limited due process (i.e., he was identified wearing a German uniform working with Nazi’s in the war effort). Then, it’s just a matter of how wide you/we/society want to enlarge that “classic” battlefield scenario to apply in 2011. I’ll change it slightly to mean we could bomb the Germans; it doesn’t have to be a firefight. There’s a group of Germans in WWII. One was born in America. Does he get constitutional due process? Yes or No. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/195 "2011-10-01T00:44:10Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > What nation has declared war on the U.S. that the decedent was a citizen of and an actor for? > > I hate to break the news to you, but al-Qaeda is not a nation, it is a criminal organization. Er… you’re ascribing to me positions I don’t hold. Moreover, it’s not clear from your response your opinion to the question I was posing. Are you saying that the US government has the right to execute foreign nationals on US soil without giving those arrested jury trials and all the rights granted to American citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/196 "2011-10-01T00:45:06Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, as I said I think technically the President could drone strike a theoretical American al-Qaeda leader hiding in Miami without any prior court approval. I think this is the gist of the issue. I think the Constitution is pretty clear that the President doesn’t get to violate the Constitution simply because Congress declared war against a nebulous group of terrorists. Again, I find it unfathomable to believe that it is unconstitutional to detain without trial a US citizen (or even foreign nationals), but it is constitutional to kill him without due process. It’s simply nonsensical to me. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/197 "2011-10-01T00:45:31Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > He is also a US Citizen. That citizenship and the rights it grants doesn’t magically disappear when the President decides your an “enemy combatant”. It’s anathema to the Constitution and the idea of a limited government to allow one person to decide for himself and unreviewable that the Constitution no longer applies to you. I’m a citizen too, if I walk into a police station with a shotgun, point it at the desk clerk and start firing, I’m going to be put down for the count. I have in fact voided my right to a trial and all those other things at that moment, because I’ve put myself on a collision course with police officer’s bullets, fired in legal and entirely constitutional self defense. Likewise, as an American citizen if I raise an Army to wage war against my country, then my country’s military can kill me as an enemy soldier, and no trial would be necessary. > [@](#): > > The Constitution doesn’t stop applying when we’re at war. I would love it if Congress would modify this area. Or the Courts. But with the fear of terrorism still unabated, no one has the fucking stones to stop the President from ordering the killing of US citizens without due process. Obviously it doesn’t, but since the constitution has never governed how the President commands troops **against the fucking enemy** , your points are totally unrelated to anything that happened to al-Awlaki. Are you honestly so stupid that you think al-Awlaki lived in some fairy tale world with courts and motions and summonses? Dude was on the battlefield fighting against us, he lost, we won. That’s war. ---
**Author:** ![Goosie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@Goosie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Goosie)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/198 "2011-10-01T00:46:50Z")
As much as many here condemn the attack on Al-Awlaki, is there anyone on the Straight Dope who will actually advocate FOR Al-Awlaki’s position, since he was clearly in favour of opposing U.S. foreign policy? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/199 "2011-10-01T00:53:22Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m a citizen too, if I walk into a police station with a shotgun, point it at the desk clerk and start firing, I’m going to be put down for the count. I have in fact voided my right to a trial and all those other things at that moment, because I’ve put myself on a collision course with police officer’s bullets, fired in legal and entirely constitutional self defense. Of course. As I said before, were Al Awlaki holding a gun pointed at US soldiers, or had he walked into the police station with a gun, he could have been shot. The government is allowed to use deadly force without due process in some cases. That’s why I cited to Tennesee v. Garner. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Likewise, as an American citizen if I raise an Army to wage war against my country, then my country’s military can kill me as an enemy soldier, and no trial would be necessary. If it’s on the battlefield, or in your police station, you’re right. If you’re in Yemen, not so much. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Obviously it doesn’t, but since the constitution has never governed how the President commands troops **against the fucking enemy** , your points are totally unrelated to anything that happened to al-Awlaki. You seem to think that “enemy” (or “fucking enemy”) is a magic word that immediately cancels out the Constitution. As Hamdi, Hamdan, and even Boudemeine have held, that’s simply not true. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Are you honestly so stupid And we’re back to namecalling. I can tell when you get desperate you have to resort to that. Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/200 "2011-10-01T00:53:55Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think I see where you are confused. Foreign nationals in the US are, by and large, entitled to due process and Constitutional protections. US citizens who are foreign nationals abroad are entitled to some (not all) constitutional protections. But non-US citizens who are not in the US are (generally) not entitled to Constitutional protections. > > Did that help? Not really though I do appreciate your attempts to do so. You do ignore that members of the Wehrmact who’d been born in the US weren’t entitled to a host of protections their compatriots weren’t. You also have failed to answer whether or not you think that Obama broke the law by killing Bin Laden and if he should be prosecuted for murder or if the President has the authority to designate anyone on the planet as an “enemy combatant” and kill them with impunity so long as they aren’t American citizens. Perhaps you can be nonchalant about this. I suspect you’re a white middle class American who has no fears of governmental persecution. I myself was not born in the US, much of my family lives outside the US and so I can’t be so nonchallant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=11)