“military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization”
If we assume that the contribution is to military action against Al Qaeda then how is launching a drone attack to a undisclosed location in Yemen satisfying that?
I would understand it better if they had blown up an Al Qaeda training camp for example because that’s certainly a location where a military advantage can be gained by destroying it.
He won’t be planning attacks against us anymore, nor helping other terrorists do likewise. Which he was doing previously with AQAP (which made him a combatant under the AUMF).
Even if we accept that this is the correct interpretation under international law, there is still a lack of precedent for killing a US citizen off the battlefield.
What this is saying is that the President can circumvent a US citizen’s 5th amendment rights in a foreign country provided he carries out a military operation (consistent with international law) to kill that citizen.
Once again I prefer the presumption of liberty over the presumption of power. The President does have extensive war powers but the enumerated rights trump this until shown otherwise by precedent or a SCOTUS decision IMHO.
He is a citizen. Yes. He is also, according to the President’s and other posters on this board, a combatant. Hopefully, we just established that combatants taking part in the hostilities can be killed “off the battlefield” (I’m not interpreting that to mean an armed conflict anymore, which is a term of art, but to mean where people are actually engaging each other in combat).
I don’t think there is precedent for killing a US enemy combatant off the battlefield pre-detention and which, if any, constitutional protections he would have. There is lots of cases where US enemy combatants have been taken prisoner, ect (Hamdi, John Walker Lindh, Padilla, WWII cases). And they are combatants, which means they could have been killed prior to their detention…you’d just need to see when captured you thought they were “off the battlefield” or not. I have guessed in this thread that he should receive some 5th amendment protections regardless b/c this is a new type of war…or rather that his killing needed to pass some type of necessity test (as in necessary to kill him now because he’s a legit threat and capture not likely, if so, then do it).
Having said that, the ACLU, ect., don’t think this guy is a combatant because they don’t think there is an armed conflict with AQAP (nor can there ever be). That’s why they filed the lawsuit and that’s what they argued. Therefore, he is a civilian/criminal and the laws of war don’t apply and he can only be killed if he is an imminent threat to others (the same laws that govern when the police can kill someone not charged/not guilty). They claim he was not an imminent threat to others.
I don’t see what makes this worth fighting about. We got a major Al-Qaeda operative and figurehead; he waived his rights by associating with terrorists and organizing at least one (thankfully failed) attack. I fail to see what the big deal is here.
So terrorism ends here?
Freedom of speech is not so sacred after all. An American gets killed by our government for speech the president does not like, and you people love it.
I can not get on board. Put him on trial. If you can not, you can not execute him.
gonzomax, CoolHandCox didn’t even come close to saying that. This is a stupid response.
He wasn’t killed for “speech the president does not like.” He was killed for being part of a terrorist organization. In the course of being part of Al Qaeda, he said some stuff Obama didn’t like, but also met with two or three of the September 11th hijackers, the Fort Hood shooter, and the underwear bomber, and with the last one he’s supposed to have been more involved in plotting the actual attack. There were links upthread showing his involvement with another attempted terrorist. Criminal conspiracies are not protected speech. I realize the guy’s guilt was not proved in a court of law (although of course he was living in Yemen because he could continue doing his thing - supporting terrorism - while avoiding pesky things like trials) but continuing to insist that all he did was say bad things about the U.S. is stupid.
If you just would say, “I understand the Gov’t alleged he was involved in an operational role in AQAP to commit terrorist acts, but I do not trust the mere allegations by Gov’t officials as far as I can thrown them. Thus, all we really know is this American made some YouTube videos.” You’d get taken a lot more seriously. And it’s a pretty valid argument, too. You’d engage people’s inherent distrust with Gov’t. But to insist Obama killed him only for his speech is dumb and wholly false and no one is going to listen to you.
Even on that test I’m doubtful that he satisfied it.. He may be an “enemy combatant” in the sense that he was more than likely an operations commander of an organization that is at war with the United States.
However, are we to take it that the definition of “enemy combatant” is so wide that it covers Samir Khan (also a citizen) who was editor and publisher of the Al Qaeda magazine?
It appears that the US govt is using membership to Al Qaeda, rather than the specific role, to designate them “enemy combatants”.
However, conceding that al-Awlaki fits even the narrower definition I am still not convinced that he was taking part in the hostilities when he was killed.
So even off the battlefield it appears he was killed by a drone strike just for being a designated “enemy combatant”.
A necessity test does sound more appropriate if the burden rests of the govt to prove that they had no other alternative but to kill him.
I would argue for a test as follows:
There is conclusive evidence that he poses an inevitable threat to others.
Taking into account factors such as time, location and the ability to neutralize the inevitable threat without resorting to lethal force, killing him is the only effective way to neutralize the inevitable threat.
So imminent threats are not required but the evidence has to be conclusive.
Yes I think I’m going to disagree with the ACLU on this one. Whilst I don’t support designating a person as an “enemy combatant” merely for the fact that they’re a member of Al Qaeda, it appears that al-Awlaki was more than likely an operations commander of a group officially at war with the United States.
He was not an imminent threat hence I don’t believe it was self-defence to kill him but perhaps there was evidence that he was an inevitable threat.
I would prefer the Obama administration to come out and tell the public exactly what the test is for putting citizens on a hit list.
The issue is due process. He has been alleged to have committed crimes. We only have what the government has accused him of doing to go on. At no point in this process was anyone other then the government given opportunity to evaluate the facts and determine if he should even be suspected of what he’s allegedly done.
If tomorrow the government says Budget Player Cadet is a terrorist and we’re going to execute him would you be OK with that? Shouldn’t the people be allowed to say hey wait a second on what evidence are you killing Budget Player Cadet in my name? If the evidence is so overwhelming as in my opinion it was for Al_Awlaki it should be a no-brainer to at least put it before a grand jury and let them decide if there is reasonable suspicion of the crime. We got no say.
US Enemy Combatant
+
“Inevitable” might be the criminal law equivalent of conspiracy to commit. Not in the act, not on your way to the airport, but seriously planning to do it.
+
If he’s in a place that makes his capture unlikely by the host Gov’t or American Gov’t without risking our own lives, and he’s unwilling to surrender, then take him out when the opportunity presents itself.
Would you have applied the same to Osama Bin Ladin? Do you object to his killing? I understand the sentiment, sure, but there’s a difference here: I’m not an established terrorist operative. As silly as I find this whole “war on terror” schtick, I have to say that in any other armed conflict, if you find a major operative for the other side, you kill them. In WWII, if we had found, say, Göbbels, and killed him on the spot (assuming capture was not an option, which in this case kind of applies), nobody would’ve said anything negative about it. While I admit that this is somewhat different, is it not fair to say that we are effectively at war with, if not terrorists in general, at the very least Al Qaeda?
Maybe I’m just overestimating the amount we know about this case…
I object to any killing carried out by the US with out a system allowing the people of the US to evaluate it’s necessity..
Says you. Given we’ve handed the the executive branch the right to determine someones terrorist credentials and execute them without the people of the US ever being allowed to verify that status. What is to say they can’t or won’t determine you are an established terrorist operative? Shouldn’t the people be given some say in your terrorist status?
Only so far as it violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and therefore article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. Oh and probably Pakistan’s homicide laws.
But as a matter of US law there is nothing unlawful about it because Osama Bin Laden does not have 5th amendment rights in Pakistan.
Debatable.. was he an enemy combatant? I see him as similar to Samir Khan; they both spread hateful propaganda.
Furthermore, I’ve only found records of one Nazi Leader who was subject to a targeting killing by the west. Reinhard Heydrich was killed in Prague by British-trained Czechs.
So whilst this is a precedent it is interesting that it was not standard practice.
I think it should be slightly narrower than just a risk to life because ultimately there is always a risk to life when attempting to capture a dangerous terrorist. But we’re generally in agreement on this.
I prefer the compelling ineffectiveness of attempting a capture rather than just a risk to the lives of the soldiers involved. Obviously if the risk to the lives of soldiers is grossly disproportionate and especially if success of a capture operation is improbable then that supports the necessity for a drone attack.
So for example in the case of OBL I would say the Navy SEALS operation was the correct response rather than a drone strike since it was not a grossly disproportionate risk to the lives of the soldiers involved and there was a relatively good chance of success as was proven.
I don’t actually know if their orders were to capture at all but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.