# 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:** 13
**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, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/241 "2011-10-01T03:23:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I do not believe that the AUMF would authorize such a thing. It specifically says that the President may use force to stop international terrorism. I would generally say that US citizens in the United States plotting an attack on the United States would be domestic terrorists. “That 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.” I do not think your reading of the AUMF is correct. I do not read the “future acts of international terrorism” to be a limit on the President’s power to detain (or kill) US citizens in the US. I would like your interpretation to be true, but nothing in Padilla or Hamdi indicates that it is. But at least we agree that a US citizen living in the US cannot constitutionally be killed by order of the President without due process. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Since I answered your question, please answer mine: do you believe that there are any circumstances under which Congress may authorize war that would make Americans legitimate military targets? On the battlefield, sure. If Congress had attempted to specifically grant the power of targeted killing of US citizens in foreign countries, it would certainly be a closer question. If Congress tried to define when and where those targeted killings were allowed, that too would be influential in the determination. Like in the Youngstown Steel cases, Congressional approval (or disapproval) is influential in a court’s determination of claimed Presidential power. I would love it if Congress created a system that conforms with due process and allows targeted killings of US citizens abroad. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/242 "2011-10-01T03:23:45Z")
Bush needed sleazy lawyers to paper over his crimes. Obama is a constitutional law professor, thus being his own sleazy lawyer. ---
**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, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/243 "2011-10-01T03:27:32Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > What’s the NLF? The National Liberation Front, more commonly known to ignorant Americans as the Viet Cong. They weren’t a nation and, by your standards, despite their declarations, they weren’t at war with the US. Obviously, then, by your standards they should all have been accorded civilian trials. > [@](#): > > They were nationals of an enemy nation, sent to perform actions to the benefit of that enemy nation during a war,. How do you know they were “sent to perform actions to the benefit of that enemy nation”. Shouldn’t a civilian court and a jury of their peers been the one to determine that. By your standards had any of the men asserted they were American citizens accidentally swept up they should have immediately been given civilian trials. Beyond that, by your standards that means anyone living within the US, can be jailed without civilian trials if they’re citizens of a foreign power the US has deemed an enemy. Obviously, as an Iranian I’m a bit concerned by that. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/244 "2011-10-01T03:34:57Z")
Bush declared war on terrorists, especially Al Qeada. Therefore they are at war with us. i suppose if they killed our 2nd in command while he was in America, we would understand that. After all he is their enemy. That is what is done nowadays.They are allowed to wage war against our military leaders wherever they are, whatever country they are in. I guess borders don’t matter and innocent civilians are just collateral damage. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/245 "2011-10-01T04:10:17Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Bush declared war on terrorists, especially Al Qeada. Therefore they are at war with us. i suppose if they killed our 2nd in command while he was in America, we would understand that. After all he is their enemy. That is what is done nowadays.They are allowed to wage war against our military leaders wherever they are, whatever country they are in. I guess borders don’t matter and innocent civilians are just collateral damage. Bush does not have the power to declare war, only Congress does. Bush called for a war on terror, not terrorists. He declared war on an emotion, not the people subverting the emotion to wage war. Bush did not declare war on Al Queda. But I do agree that we are effectively in a state of war with Al Queda. ---
**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, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/246 "2011-10-01T04:12:37Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Dude, I’ve explained this over and over and over and over and over. You change your definition of “military”, “military action” whenever it suits your purpose. Killing a citizen on the battlefield - military. Capturing a guy on the battlefield - not military. The military detaining a citizen and then killing him after military tribunal - not military. The military marching into a house in Miami and killing someone with no trial - military. It’s hard to take you seriously when you play those kinds of games. Here’s the crux of it though, never in the history of the United States has any court decided for the President where the battlefield stops and starts, it is a legal fiction of yours that his is an issue of constitutional law. I’ve certainly not changed my definition of “military action” even a single time in this entire thread, you obviously did not understand my use of it originally, and have only slowly come to understand what I mean when I use the term. I actually gave some explicit definitions earlier to help you with your confusion. Only an idiot would call a military trial and execution a “military action.” Military actions refer to the waging of war. The military force of a modern nation is going to be large and will have its on criminal justice branch that will try and punish crimes, but that doesn’t mean that those trials and those punishments are “military actions.” Obviously in the world of Hamlet, anything the military does is 100% the same thing. There is no constitutional difference between dropping a bomb from a B52 onto Adolf Hitler and sentencing German spies to execution, they are 100% the same thing. Oh wait…not the same thing whatsoever. One is clearly a military operation (dropping of bombs) the other isn’t (trying and executing.) I’m sorry you don’t see the difference, but I think history and the SCOTUS doesn’t share your confusion. You are. You argue the entire world is a battlefield, as long as the President says it is. According to you, if the President decides Guantanamo is a battlefield, he can kill anyone there without due process. > [@](#): > > I understand battlefield. I don’t think the entire world constitutes a 'battlefield". I’ve explained this over and over and over, and you remain oblivious to it all. No wonder you’re shocked. Who said the entire world was a battlefield? Again, al-Qaeda certainly does not occupy every square foot of our globe. ---
**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, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/247 "2011-10-01T04:14:12Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Hamdan, IIRC, wasn’t a US citizen and wasn’t on US soil until Guantanamo, so I don’t think he would have been entitled to Constitutional protections in Afghanistan. Hamdi, as a US citizen, could have been killed on the battlefield, but once off it (thanks to his detention) he was entitled to due process. So obviously you recognize that when someone is on the battlefield due process does not apply. What remains a mystery is why you think al-Awlaki wasn’t 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, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/248 "2011-10-01T04:16:01Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Hamdan was a Yemini national. If he was not an enemy combatant, he could have been entitled to some constitutional protections depending on the circumstances. That’s not relevant if we both agree he was an enemy combatant, though. > > So good, we’ve both come to an agreement (and this thread is moving fast and I’m watching TV, so this might only be news to me). US citizens can be killed as a measure of first resort. We agree on that. But, that can only occur on the battlefield. (The correct context is is they are killed in an “armed conflict” but battlefield is fine). > > Question. Can US citizens in Langley be legally killed by opposing forces? Do you consider CIA HQ’s a part of the battlefield even though the war is in, Afghanistan? Say, could AQ legally kill a 25 year old female targeter staring at her monitor drinking a white chocolate mocha, no whip. Is that context a battlefield? Absolutely, Langley is a valid target and so is every single person there. I don’t know why people think that is controversial. I’d have no problem at all if the Germans had found a way to kill Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bradley, all their staff members and etc. Do you really think those persons weren’t military targets? They absolutely were, period. I wouldn’t be happy about it of course, as an American, but it’s ludicrous to claim the Germans would be attacking invalid targets. However, the international community does not recognize AQ as legal at all, so nothing they do is legal. So in your specific example I’d argue the international community would find nothing legal about killing people at Langley. As a matter of traditional warmaking though, I find it very hard to argue Langley isn’t a valid military target of our enemies. Our enemies aren’t valid military forces, though, which is part of the problem. ---
**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, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/249 "2011-10-01T04:18:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m not sure there’s a way around the fundamental “would you rather” at work here: > > (1) Fight terrorism as a criminal matter, and try to bring people like Al-Awlaki to justice through ordinary means. In practice, this probably means letting most of the Al-Awlakis of the world go free. > > OR > > (2) Permit the expansion of what counts as war (i.e., lawful due process-free killing) to this narrow case: a man who the executive believes is a national security threat who refuses to surrender and cannot be safely captured. > > The middle ground – trials\* in absentia\* or arbitrary definitions of the battlefield – is ultimately untenable or unstable, respectively. So you gotta choose. > > I’m not sure the choice is obvious. It would be a lot better if we could have an honest national dialogue about it. But, of course, that’s not possible. The choice has actually already been made. Military targets like al-Awlaki will be killed. Only the doves of SDMB are pussy bleeding over this. ---
**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, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/250 "2011-10-01T04:20:21Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Question. Can US citizens in Langley be legally killed by opposing forces? Do you consider CIA HQ’s a part of the battlefield even though the war is in, Afghanistan? Say, could AQ legally kill a 25 year old female targeter staring at her monitor drinking a white chocolate mocha, no whip. Is that context a battlefield? Also the whole “female targeter drinking a white chocolate mocha, no whip” makes you a piece of shit douchebag. You’re obviously projecting a bunch of bullshit there, and playing fucking fourth grade, ignorant, moronic emotional games. I find it fucking insulting you think you can postulate about some random yuppie cunt in Langley being killed as though that changes the fundamental calculus. It doesn’t, and you’re a piece of shit to act like it should. ---
**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, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/251 "2011-10-01T04:22:27Z")
Do you think you might be overreacting? ---
**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, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/252 "2011-10-01T04:22:52Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Ummm, we could have come to that agreement on page one, because it’s never really been in contention. The issue with Al Awlaki is how far does the “battlefield” concept extend. That’s not an easy question, and it appears you wish to get into all kinds of examples of what is, or isn’t, a battlefield. I’m not really interested in spending countless pages dealing with “what about …” followed up by “yeah, well, what about …” and on and on. I am simply not convinced that the entire world is a battlefield (love, however, clearly is) and the President, and the President alone, gets to determine it. That’s cool for you, do you have any evidence **whatsoever** that anyone other than the President gets to determine what the battlefield is? I actually do, but I don’t think you have any such evidence. If you do, let’s hear it. ---
**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, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/253 "2011-10-01T04:25:21Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I think the issues of location of the citizen, the voluntariness of their residence, the state of the government in that area, the assistance/denial of assistance of the ruling government, and/or the “battlefieldness” of the location can all be issues to determine what process is due. For example, Al Awlaki, by hiding in the citizenry of Yemen and willfully avoiding any attempts of capture, is entitled to less due process than say a US citizen in the US who is seized and sent to Syria to be tortured. I just don’t think saying “military” or “enemy” suddenly means the Constitution stops applying to US citizens. No one else thinks that either. But yeah, when you’re a leader of an organization we’re at war with, and you’re hiding at Yemen, I think we can say we’ve done more than just go “uhh…military…uh…enemy…uh…battlefield.” But again, I’m sure since your argument is based on constitutional principles you can find a single case in the history of the U.S. constitution that supports your argument. ---
**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, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/254 "2011-10-01T04:28:56Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I don’t see the Constitution suddenly not applying if the citizen is difficult to capture. As I said, I think Al Awlaki’s decisions to hide among the populace of Yemen and specifically avoid capture or challenging of his state to be important to determine the definition of what kind of process is due, but I also don’t think “Cause I said so” by the President to meet that standard. What part of the constitution would support al-Awlaki? Again, don’t just mumble random amendments, specifically cite a SCOTUS case in which an enemy was deemed to be constitutionally protected and the POTUS was required to get some sort of court proceeding against that person prior to engaging that person with military force. We both know you have no response to this because you’re talking about something that is a fairy tale. ---
**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, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/255 "2011-10-01T04:29:56Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > We agree on that. I just don’t think the spinelessness of the other branches means the Executive gets to engage in extrajudicial killings of US citizens. So you’re arguing that if I’m a U.S. citizen I can murder 500 people a day from my base in Yemen and until the POTUS gets a court ruling against me he can’t act to stop me? You’re an idiot if you think that. ---
**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, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/256 "2011-10-01T05:20:03Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Also the whole “female targeter drinking a white chocolate mocha, no whip” makes you a piece of shit douchebag. You’re obviously projecting a bunch of bullshit there, and playing fucking fourth grade, ignorant, moronic emotional games. > > I find it fucking insulting you think you can postulate about some random yuppie cunt in Langley being killed as though that changes the fundamental calculus. It doesn’t, and you’re a piece of shit to act like it should. Of course it doesn’t change whether she’s a legit target. And that was my point which I think was lost on you. That is definitely not your typical “battlefield” situation, and yet that agent is most definitely a legit target. Whip or no whip. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/257 "2011-10-01T09:29:15Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > So you’re arguing that if I’m a U.S. citizen I can murder 500 people a day from my base in Yemen and until the POTUS gets a court ruling against me he can’t act to stop me? You’re an idiot if you think that. Who did Al-Awlaki murder? The government could legally kill someone who was murdering 500 people a day for the same reason a cop could legally kill a man who is executing hostages. These are exceptions granted for extraordinary circumstances, not the rule: the cop can’t just shoot someone who isn’t presenting an immediate threat to other people. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/258 "2011-10-01T11:49:48Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I would like your interpretation to be true, but nothing in Padilla or Hamdi indicates that it is. Well, with Padilla, the Second Circuit seems to agree with this line of reasoning (they found that US citizens in the US may not be labeled enemy combatants); so saying that “nothing” indicates that my reading is correct would seem to be overly dramatic. Usually I take the word “nothing” to mean the complete absence of a thing, but in this case, the Second Circuit was completely clear on the matter (though their ruling was OBE). > [@](#): > > On the battlefield, sure. Do you have some relevant law which explain the limitations of military force to a pre-defined battlefield? Who defines the battlefield? I have to say, I’m pretty familiar with the law of armed conflict, and I’m not familiar with the distinction you keep drawing between the legitimate battlefield and the illegitimate battlefield. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/259 "2011-10-01T13:18:11Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Only the doves of SDMB are pussy bleeding over this. Classy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/260 "2011-10-01T16:19:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you have some relevant law which explain the limitations of military force to a pre-defined battlefield? Who defines the battlefield? I have to say, I’m pretty familiar with the law of armed conflict, and I’m not familiar with the distinction you keep drawing between the legitimate battlefield and the illegitimate battlefield. We’ve been over this before, and my take (which seems to jive with some legal folks being quoted in the newspaper) is that this “battlefield” is defined as places where there is essentially no government control. Examples: Germany and France: Not part of the battlefield. Yemen and Somalia: Part of the battlefield (for the former, at least those tribal areas where the government has no effective control). Still, I would prefer that this battlefield be defined by Congress rather than the President. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=14)