# 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:** 15
**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 2, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/281 "2011-10-02T00:10:19Z")
There’s a difference between killing someone in the course of an actual battle, and deciding it is OK to kill a US citizen with a “due process” that is completely secret. No one disputes the constitutionality of the former. But if we’re going to to put a “wanted, dead or alive” tag on a US citizen, there should be some sort of credible due process. I don’t see any in this case. ---
**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 2, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/282 "2011-10-02T00:15:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > There’s a difference between killing someone in the course of an actual battle, and deciding it is OK to kill a US citizen with a “due process” that is completely secret. No one disputes the constitutionality of the former. But if we’re going to to put a “wanted, dead or alive” tag on a US citizen, there should be some sort of credible due process. I don’t see any in this case. He was given the same due process as any al-Qaeda leader hiding in an area where they are only accessible by military force. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/283 "2011-10-02T00:23:26Z")
I have a real problem with killing a US citizen without a trial; in fact, I’d have a problem with killing instead of arresting a US citizen after a trial. Apparently John Dillinger was killed without a trial, though. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/284 "2011-10-02T00:45:29Z")
Ya know, there is all this slippery slope stuff and exactly what did or did not make this legal or not legal… But when you make a handful (or even worse make it a lifestyle choice) of voluntary choices that any retard would know at the very least will put you in a world of shit (including possibly death from above) with the powers that be I cannot feel too sympathetic. Particularly when your choices are so extreme that its something that only between one in 10 million and one in hundred million people would choose to do. This ain’t the edge of the slippery slope. Hell, its not even close. Its a hundred miles from the edge of the plateau. I’m going file this one under the ole “some people just need killin”. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/285 "2011-10-02T01:57:25Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > I’m going file this one under the ole “some people just need killin”. But what if a president decides that growers of carnivorous plants need killin’? Or those who fish for billfish, whatever those are? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/286 "2011-10-02T02:02:48Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > But what if a president decides that growers of carnivorous plants need killin’? > Or those who fish for billfish, whatever those are? 🙂 THEN I’ll worry. Well, me anyway. I don’t give a rats ass about you. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/287 "2011-10-02T02:16:16Z")
He was an American citizen killed by his country for his speech. He was not guilty of anything since there was no trial or evidence. How would you feel about us blowing away Karzai? He is an untrustworthy ally whose brother is reputed to be a main player in international drug trading. How would you feel if we sent a drone his way? He may be a huge backer of the Taliban in secret. His secret police were rumored to have been involved in 911. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/288 "2011-10-02T02:55:39Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > He was an American citizen killed by his country for his speech. He was not guilty of anything since there was no trial or evidence. > How would you feel about us blowing away Karzai? He is an untrustworthy ally whose brother is reputed to be a main player in international drug trading. How would you feel if we sent a drone his way? He may be a huge backer of the Taliban in secret. His secret police were rumored to have been involved in 911. If we had a better leader I wouldn’t really care but it might be like Diem in Vietnam where we got worse leaders. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/289 "2011-10-02T03:06:28Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > THEN I’ll worry. > > Well, me anyway. I don’t give a rats ass about you. THEN it will be too late. And I don’t give a rats ass about you either, you dukey butt! 🙂 ---
**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 2, 2011, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/290 "2011-10-02T04:19:17Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > His secret police were rumored to have been involved in 911. I didn’t realize that you were a truther. I guess you’re an even bigger moron than I thought. I’d recommend you actually learn something about the Middle East before continuing to make a fool of yourself. ---
**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 2, 2011, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/291 "2011-10-02T04:21:01Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > He was an American citizen killed by his country for his speech. Can we assume that you favor the immediate release of Charles Manson and Omar Abd Al-Rahman who are “jailed for their speech”. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/292 "2011-10-02T09:24:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Can the President order the killing of a US citizen in the US based only on his say so that that person is our enemy? Why would he need to? When an enemy agent is working to overthrow the US from within US soil, you don’t drop bombs on his house - you _send the police to arrest him._ Things like drone strikes and Seal kill teams are reserved for places like, say, _anarchy-stricken regions of Yemen_, where you lack police power. I can’t imagine a scenario short of civil war where the president of the US would need to summarily assassinate people on US soil. ---
**Author:** ![masterbeta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dec6dc/32.png) [@masterbeta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/masterbeta)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/293 "2011-10-02T09:57:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. There is no such thing as a presumption of power in the Constitution, all powers of the federal govt are enumerated expressly. There is however a presumption of liberty as the 9th amendment proves. So the burden is on you to prove: 1. Al-Awlaki was not amenable to 5th amendment rights 2. The President has the Constitutional power to kill him > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Which part? I am still amazed at how fundamentally stupid the people are in this thread, who genuinely have no idea how American history has happened or how our constitution works. > > Not a single cite has **ever** been produced in this entire thread showing that the President has _any_ limitations on where and how he may direct military force against an enemy. The only limitations are those that Congress put upon the Presidency (since Congress must authorize use of military force, and since they must fund operations.) Once again.. burden is always on you to prove there are no such limitations on Presidential war making power. Don’t try to pretend the burden is reversed just because no specific case on a point can be found. I noticed that you cited the AUMF. IF Al-Awlaki has no 5th amendment rights and the AUMF was passed within the limits of Congress’ Constitutional power then I agree that this is the legal basis for targeting him. However, so far the case law goes against you. In Reid v Covert (1957) the SCOTUS ruled that: “When the United States acts against its citizens abroad, it can do so only in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution, including Art. III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” > **[Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/)** > > Reid v. Covert: Constitutional protections are not suspended for U.S. citizens in foreign countries, so they are not subject to military jurisdiction. Also, the Constitution supersedes international treaties. Enemy combatant status by itself is not good enough of itself unless you have some evidence that Gitmo detainees who are US citizens can be lawfully killed without due process of law. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. I think you’re conflating enemy combatants with battlefields and legitimate military targets as though they’re always one in the same thing. If Langley is directing troops on the battlefield then they’re as much a legitimate target as the troops on the actual battlefield because they are posing an imminent threat to others. Killing them would be a lawful act of self-defence EVEN if they’re not technically enemy combatants as would killing POTUS if he had his hand on the button. However, a person who happens to be an enemy combatant in the sense that they’re enlisted to fight but is also residing in barracks or a private dwelling and thereby not posing an imminent threat to anyone is not a legitimate target. Perhaps you recall the Fort Hood shooting where 12 soldiers were murdered amongst others? The fact Al Qaeda was at war with the United States did not permit them to kill soldiers who weren’t posing an imminent threat. In fact did you know it is illegal to kill a wounded soldier on the battlefield if they’re no longer an imminent threat? That’s the law of hors de combat under the protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention. So it is all about the circumstances of the case not just the status of the target. Since Yemen was not in a state of war and Al-Awlaki was not killed on a battlefield nor it seems was he about to order a terrorist attack which would have made it defence of others, he had 5th amendment rights not to be killed without due process of law. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/294 "2011-10-02T09:58:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Why would he need to? When an enemy agent is working to overthrow the US from within US soil, you don’t drop bombs on his house - you _send the police to arrest him._ Things like drone strikes and Seal kill teams are reserved for places like, say, _anarchy-stricken regions of Yemen_, where you lack police power. I can’t imagine a scenario short of civil war where the president of the US would need to summarily assassinate people on US soil. Exactly. At its core, this is a jurisdiction issue. Saying that the U.S. can arrest someone in Yemen is saying that Yemen is U.S. soil. Frankly, the U.S. claiming jurisdiction over faraway lands would scare me a whole lot more than the odd killing. ---
**Author:** ![masterbeta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dec6dc/32.png) [@masterbeta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/masterbeta)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/295 "2011-10-02T10:06:36Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Exactly. At its core, this is a jurisdiction issue. Saying that the U.S. can arrest someone in Yemen is saying that Yemen is U.S. soil. Frankly, the U.S. claiming jurisdiction over faraway lands would scare me a whole lot more than the odd killing. Yea its not about claiming jurisdiction, which requires the consent of the foreign sovereign, as much as it is about the Constitutional basis for federal officials to act against US citizens overseas. Notwithstanding that they may be violating the laws of the other country, the US govt cannot suddenly ignore the rights of citizens by acting outside its borders. The SCOTUS is pretty clear on that as they held in Reid v Covert (1957).. see my post above. ---
**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 2, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/296 "2011-10-02T13:19:25Z")
> [@masterbeta](#): > > However, so far the case law goes against you. In Reid v Covert (1957) the SCOTUS ruled that: > > “When the United States acts against its citizens abroad, it can do so only in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution, including Art. III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” That case is about a woman who murdered her husband in Britain and was subject to a military commission for punishment. Furthermore, you fail to quote a couple of important lines in the concurrence: > [@](#): > > The proposition is, of course, not that the Constitution “does not apply” overseas, but that there are provisions in the Constitution which do not necessarily apply in all circumstances in every foreign place. In other words, it seems to me that the basic teaching of Ross and the Insular Cases is that there is no rigid and abstract rule that Congress, as a condition precedent to exercising power over Americans overseas, must exercise it subject to all the guarantees of the Constitution, no matter what the conditions and considerations are that would make adherence to a specific guarantee altogether impracticable and anomalous. . . . But, for me, the question is which guarantees of the Constitution should apply in view of the particular circumstances, the practical necessities, and the possible alternatives which Congress had before it. > > On this basis, I cannot agree with the sweeping proposition that a full Article III trial, with indictment and trial by jury, is required in every case for the trial of a civilian dependent of a serviceman overseas. Aside from that decision, there is also Ex Parte Quirin, in which a unanimous court stated: > [@](#): > > Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. . . . Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations. I think that’s a much more clear and concise explanation of how the war power interacts with constitutional protections. > [@](#): > > However, a person who happens to be an enemy combatant in the sense that they’re enlisted to fight but is also residing in barracks or a private dwelling and thereby not posing an imminent threat to anyone is not a legitimate target. Absolute, complete nonsense. If you don’t know anything about the laws of war, don’t make shit up and expect others to swallow it. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/297 "2011-10-02T14:31:20Z")
I’m sure the text messages Awlaki traded with Major Hasan before the Fort Hood massacre were just about trading lentil soup recipes and dishing about the Jersey Shore. But the safe money says the authroities have those messages and that evidence alone constitutes **imminent** incitation of violence. ---
**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 2, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/298 "2011-10-02T14:57:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > That case is about a woman who murdered her husband in Britain and was subject to a military commission for punishment. > > Furthermore, you fail to quote a couple of important lines in the concurrence: Pot. Kettle: “And so I agree with my brother FRANKFURTER that, in view of Ross and the Insular Cases, we have before us a question analogous, ultimately, to issues of due process; one can say, in fact, that the question of which specific safeguards of the Constitution are appropriately to be applied in a particular context overseas can be reduced to the issue of what process is “due” a defendant in the particular circumstances of a particular case.” and “So far as capital cases are concerned, I think they stand on quite a different footing than other offenses. In such cases, the law is especially sensitive to demands for that procedural fairness which inheres in a civilian trial where the judge and trier of fact are not responsive to the command of the convening authority.” It seems clear from Reid v. Covert that there are certain protections (NOTE: not the full panoply of Constitutional protections, but at least some due process), guaranteed in the Constitution that apply to citizens abroad. There is an argument to be made that Al Awlaki received enough due process (I’d bet dollars to donuts that that is the finding of the Justice Departments’ memo OK’ing the targeted killing) for his situation, but it is wrong to say that the due process clause doesn’t apply at all. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Aside from that decision, there is also Ex Parte Quirin, in which a unanimous court stated: In Quirin, the President didn’t order the targeted killling of the “unlawful combatant” without trial, he tried them in military commission, they were given habeas rights and allowed to appeal, and THEN killed by the military. That’s not what happened to Al Awlaki. ---
**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 2, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/299 "2011-10-02T15:18:19Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It seems clear from Reid v. Covert that there are certain protections (NOTE: not the full panoply of Constitutional protections, but at least some due process), guaranteed in the Constitution that apply to citizens abroad. There is an argument to be made that Al Awlaki received enough due process (I’d bet dollars to donuts that that is the finding of the Justice Departments’ memo OK’ing the targeted killing) for his situation, but it is wrong to say that the due process clause doesn’t apply at all. I think this is an important debate because we’re not entirely clear how “much” of the constitution applies outside the US to US citizens, but that case deals with a civilian. Not an enemy combatant. If a person is an enemy combatant, then cases discussing which constitutional rights follow US (civilian) citizens around the world do not apply in the same way. Right? That civilian/combatant distinction has to come into play in the debate, in conjunction with the person’s nationality. But also, yea, I’m sure in this particular case (Awlaki) he was given constitutional due process considerations because he was an American citizen. We don’t know how much, only that it was much less than if they were to consider him a civilian. ---
**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 2, 2011, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/300 "2011-10-02T15:37:55Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > I think this is an important debate because we’re not entirely clear how “much” of the constitution applies outside the US to US citizens, but that case deals with a civilian. Not an enemy combatant. Do you see the irony? He’s an “enemy combatant” because the President said, without review, that he’s an enemy combatant. Call him an enemy combatant to take away his rights as a citizen so you can kill him without violating the constitution. It’s completely circular. We can’t kill you without due process because you’re a citizen, so we’ll call you an enemy combatant and _poof_, now we get to kill you. > [@Cool Hand Cox](#): > > If a person is an enemy combatant, then cases discussing which constitutional rights follow US (civilian) citizens around the world do not apply in the same way. Right? That civilian/combatant distinction has to come into play in the debate, in conjunction with the person’s nationality. As the Supreme Court ruled, simply calling someone an enemy combatant doesn’t take away their rights under the Constitution. > [@CoolHandCox](#): > > But also, yea, I’m sure in this particular case (Awlaki) he was given constitutional due process considerations because he was an American citizen. We don’t know how much, only that it was much less than if they were to consider him a civilian. Perhaps he was given due process. It should would be nice to know he had an attorney, was allowed to appeal, and had a neutral magistrate though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=16)