# 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:** 3
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/41 "2011-09-30T16:33:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Use of military force approved by Congress, the military is commanded by the President to use it against the enemy forces. I’m sorry what are you confused about? The constitution most definitely allows the President to order military strikes against enemy formations and the concerns you have are outside the bounds of that discussion. Again, maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution where it says “Does not apply if done by the military”. Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the Authorization of Military Force allows the President to assassinate US citizens in the US without judicial oversight, as long as he says it’s a military strike against Al Qaeda? Are we really at a point where people believe it is constitutional for the President to order the Navy Seals to go kill some guy in Miami because he says he’s a member of Al Qaeda? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/42 "2011-09-30T16:35:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by What the … !!! > What if Bush had done it? > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > The same people on the left handwaving this away would be howling in protest. Actually, I’d probably say that > [@](#): > > I don’t usually go for extra-judicial executions, but I’m going to agree with this. They were both pretty clearly committing acts of treason, and were proud of it. Samir Khan had put in writing that he was “proud to be a traitor to America.” > > And I although I will not go “yeee hah!” or do a happy dance, I don’t condemn the US Govt for doing this. But you go ahead with your stereotypical characterization of “the left” if it makes you feel all warm and comfy. ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/43 "2011-09-30T16:37:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Then we have much in common. 😃 And I’m not ignoring the more valid concerns about the drone program. I had qualms about it before and I still do. The fact that Al-Awlaki is a citizen doesn’t matter to me - assassinations are troubling regardless of the passports involved. Oh, we agree again. Assassinations are troubling. But his citizenship makes it troubling … and unconstitutional. > [@Marley23](#): > > But saying the guy only made YouTube videos is stupid and incorrect. It’s like saying Al Capone was just a tax cheat. The issue here is that it’s a global problem that doesn’t have a good solution. The Yemeni government is not capable of dealing with these guys on its own (which is why it allows the drone strikes) and in that sense it’s not that different from Pakistan and Afghanistan. If there’s a better option for dealing with these guys, I’d support that, but I don’t see what it is. It’s not possible to invade all these countries for a huge number of reasons and arresting them seems to be equally impractical. There isn’t an easy solution. But we don’t decide to ignore the Constitution just because it’s too difficult. I’ve gone around this in my head, and I’m still not sure. But I think, at the very least, there should be “due process” before the President is allowed to kill US citizens. What does “due process” require for military action against an Al Qaeda member, I’m not sure. But I would be so much more comfortable with a military tribunal going over the evidence and having the determination reviewed by an appellate court BEFORE we go about killing US citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/44 "2011-09-30T16:42:14Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Military strikes against enemy formations are not and never will be restricted based on Constitutional concerns. The SCOTUS is never going to rule any attack on the enemy forces is subject to some court preapproval. I tend to agree that (assuming Yemen wasn’t going to let us arrest him) he had to be killed- but you are overlooking the fact that the CIA is not part of the military. Not to mention that even Frank Luntz couldn’t spin some terrorists in a car as an “enemy formation”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/45 "2011-09-30T16:44:13Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > You asserting it doesn’t make it true. And your assertion that Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t do anything except make YouTube videos is also not true just because you said it is. See if you can figure out the difference between something that hasn’t been proved in a court of law (he spent about a decade being involved with Al Qaeda, with wannabe terrorists, and with a guy who murdered 13 people) and something that is simply incomplete and wrong (he didn’t do anything but make YouTube videos). > [@Hamlet](#): > > I’ve gone around this in my head, and I’m still not sure. But I think, at the very least, there should be “due process” before the President is allowed to kill US citizens. What does “due process” require for military action against an Al Qaeda member, I’m not sure. But I would be so much more comfortable with a military tribunal going over the evidence and having the determination reviewed by an appellate court BEFORE we go about killing US citizens. I would support that. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/46 "2011-09-30T16:46:18Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Enemy formations? He was driving in a car. He wasn’t in some POW camp ringed by wooden watchtowers and machine gun nests that Chuck Norris happened upon. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize enemy formations were exclusively defined as POW camps ringed by wooden watchtowers and machine gun nests. I didn’t learn that during my time at the U.S. Military Academy nor have I ever heard such an argument in 30+ years of reading military histories and treatises. Interesting idea, though. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/47 "2011-09-30T16:47:53Z")
If someone has voluntarily returned to the country from which he was descended, is preaching violent Jihad against the United States and has undertaken an operational role that has resulted in the intended or actual deaths of Americans, military and civilian alike, I have no problem with an assumption he has effectively renounced his American citizenship. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/48 "2011-09-30T16:48:43Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Again, maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution where it says “Does not apply if done by the military”. > > Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the Authorization of Military Force allows the President to assassinate US citizens in the US without judicial oversight, as long as he says it’s a military strike against Al Qaeda? Are we really at a point where people believe it is constitutional for the President to order the Navy Seals to go kill some guy in Miami because he says he’s a member of Al Qaeda? What does any of this have to do with the valid military strike in Yemen? If you believe some part of the Constitution has been violated, please tell me which specific part. If you believe a specific crime has been committed by someone, please cite the U.S. Code. Further, once you’ve done that _please_ contact the FBI. If you don’t suspect they will take you seriously then I strongly suggest you write a letter to the Department of Justice, or if that does not seem ideal then write your Congressman and ask him to open an investigation–if you believe the President is responsible that will probably be where you have to start so we can get impeachment proceedings going. Please keep us updated. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/49 "2011-09-30T16:51:09Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I’ve gone around this in my head, and I’m still not sure. But I think, at the very least, there should be “due process” before the President is allowed to kill US citizens. What does “due process” require for military action against an Al Qaeda member, I’m not sure. But I would be so much more comfortable with a military tribunal going over the evidence and having the determination reviewed by an appellate court BEFORE we go about killing US citizens. What part of the Constitution gives anyone the power to require the President hold tribunals before using military force against the enemy? Congress approved military action, the President executes the will of the Congress in the manner he sees fit. The only valid limitation on that is if Congress disagrees with how he is behaving they can rescind the approval. Or if you believe the President has violated criminal law he can be investigated and prosecuted. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/50 "2011-09-30T16:54:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I tend to agree that (assuming Yemen wasn’t going to let us arrest him) he had to be killed- but you are overlooking the fact that the CIA is not part of the military. Not to mention that even Frank Luntz couldn’t spin some terrorists in a car as an “enemy formation”. The CIA can and does participate in military actions. ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/51 "2011-09-30T16:55:16Z")
> [@lieu](#): > > If someone has voluntarily returned to the country from which he was descended, is preaching violent Jihad against the United States and has undertaken an operational role that has resulted in the intended or actual deaths of Americans, military and civilian alike, I have no problem with an assumption he has effectively renounced his American citizenship. [The US Code regarding the loss of nationality](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html). I don’t think Al Qaeda fits as an “foreign state” for the purposes of the statute, but the Code does say: “(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.” The slight problem is that Al Awlaki was never “convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction”. You can’t simply strip nationality because you want to kill a person. Although maybe there is a middle ground. Maybe the President could have conducted a court martial, or called a military tribunal a “court of comptetent jurisdiction” to hear the evidence against Al Awlaki and make a determination as to loss of citizenship. He would then lose his citizenship and thus the rights of a US citizen abroad. But he didn’t. Instead, he just killed him without oversight. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/52 "2011-09-30T16:56:36Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The Constitution simply doesn’t say “unless done by the military”. It applies to all citizens, including really bad guys. Deciding that the President can order the killing of a US citizen without due process flies in the face of the Constitution. Unless, of course, you are comfortable with the premise that the entire world is now, for the first time in history, the "battlefield’ for military actions. Me, I’m not comfortable with the conclusion that the Constitution allows the President to kill a US citizen on US soil simply because it was a “military strike”. I’m pretty sure that the Confederates were also still considered American citizens, albeit living in rebel states. Didn’t stop the government from killing thousands of them on the battlefield without trial back then, and I don’t see why there’s any distinction now for this guy. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/53 "2011-09-30T16:58:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And your assertion that Anwar Al-Awlaki didn’t do anything except make YouTube videos is also not true just because you said it is. See if you can figure out the difference between something that hasn’t been proved in a court of law (he spent about a decade being involved with Al Qaeda, with wannabe terrorists, and with a guy who murdered 13 people) and something that is simply incomplete and wrong (he didn’t do anything but make YouTube videos). The difference is that you can’t prove it. I can prove that he made YouTube videos. If making YouTube videos was a crime, Awlaki could be successfully prosecuted for it. Yet despite all the suspicions and the arrest warrants that were ultimately rescinded, nobody has proven that Awlaki had an operational role in Al Qaeda. All that’s left is his speech. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/54 "2011-09-30T16:58:46Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Although maybe there is a middle ground. Maybe the President could have conducted a court martial, or called a military tribunal a “court of comptetent jurisdiction” to hear the evidence against Al Awlaki and make a determination as to loss of citizenship. He would then lose his citizenship and thus the rights of a US citizen abroad. > > But he didn’t. Instead, he just killed him without oversight. The code you cited was criminal code, no one was trying to punish him under criminal code but was instead using force against a valid military target under the aegis of the GWOT AUMF which has been in force for some years now. Valid military action, someone got killed. Happens all the time, not unconstitutional, absolutely not subject to tribunal pre-approval of any kind under our current laws or constitution. ---
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/55 "2011-09-30T16:59:27Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What does any of this have to do with the valid military strike in Yemen? Are we at war with Yemen? Did I miss that declaration of war? > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > If you believe some part of the Constitution has been violated, please tell me which specific part. There’s quite a bit. The due process clause, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment can be a start. And nice dodging the question I directly asked you. That tells me volumes about your position. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/56 "2011-09-30T17:01:43Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > The difference is that you can’t prove it. > > I can prove that he made YouTube videos. If making YouTube videos was a crime, Awlaki could be successfully prosecuted for it. Yet despite all the suspicions and the arrest warrants that were ultimately rescinded, nobody has proven that Awlaki had an operational role in Al Qaeda. All that’s left is his speech. Proof is something in court, military strikes are done against the enemy. The enemy will be broadly defined by the Congress when they grant permission for the President to wage war, identifying specific enemies is the job of the President. ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/57 "2011-09-30T17:01:50Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’m pretty sure that the Confederates were also still considered American citizens, albeit living in rebel states. Didn’t stop the government from killing thousands of them on the battlefield without trial back then, and I don’t see why there’s any distinction now for this guy. “On the Battlefield”. Unless you extend the “battlefield” analogy to the entire world, including the US, killing a US citizen requires constitutional oversight. And I like to think that the US Civil War and all the constitutional problems it invoked, would not be a shining example for what the Constitution requires. ---
**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:** [September 30, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/58 "2011-09-30T17:03:59Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Are we at war with Yemen? Did I miss that declaration of war? > [@](#): > > Authorization for Use of Military Force > September 18, 2001 > Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23] > 107th CONGRESS > JOINT RESOLUTION > To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. > > Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and > > Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and > > Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and > > Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and > > Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it > > Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. > > This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’. > SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > > (a) IN GENERAL- 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. > (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- > (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. > (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. > > Approved September 18, 2001. > [@](#): > > There’s quite a bit. The due process clause, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment can be a start. > > And nice dodging the question I directly asked you. That tells me volumes about your position. In what way were the 4th and 5th Amendments violated. We actually had a discussion about this a few months ago, and you outright refused to answer several of my hypotheticals citing them as irrelevant. Well, in this case yours is irrelevant, we aren’t talking about anything that happened on U.S. soil. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/59 "2011-09-30T17:04:54Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Proof is something in court, military strikes are done against the enemy. The enemy will be broadly defined by the Congress when they grant permission for the President to wage war, identifying specific enemies is the job of the President. You’re clearly an expert at being an internet tough guy, but your grasp of our constitutional protections seems rather limited. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/60 "2011-09-30T17:05:50Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > The same people on the left handwaving this away would be howling in protest. Bullshit. With all due respect, of course. Terrorists and terrorist sympathizers have been in the crosshairs for decades, regardless of who is in office. Fuck them: when they choose to support and condone the killing of innocents, they paint a giant target on their backs and the planet is a better place without them. So sayeth this “libtard”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=4)