It was the military that tried him and killed him. Between that and your CIA issues, I fear your definition of “military force” isn’t necessarily consistent.
It was also the targeted killing of a US citizen. All you are doing is simply repeating “MILITARY” over and over and over as if it can justify every action the President takes. As we learned from Padilla and Hamdi, and Reid v. Covert, and the rest, that simply isn’t true.
The more things change…
If Al-Awlaki were a Christian pastor, saying the same things, but about Christendom, would he have been targeted in this way?
All the US has been doing in Yemen is proving Al-Awlaki right. The USA does hate the Faith, and is the enemy of Islam, and Muslims are justified in opposing it.
Please point to where I used the term “military force” as a term that could be construed to apply to court proceedings? The Armed Forces are not using military force when they are subjecting someone to a formal criminal process.
You’re correct, no one would ever claim that anything the President does under the banner of “military force” is allowable. However when it comes to attacking the enemy with military force, i.e. missile strikes, drone attacks, infantry, artillery, naval forces or etc I can guarantee you that your argument has no legs to stand on that we need to go through some trial process before doing any of those things in action against the enemy.
He was not killed “on US soil” so your last sentence makes no sense.
Beyond that you’re ignorant of history because several hundred thousand citizens were killed by the US government without trial during the 19th Century.
Perhaps you hate Abraham Lincoln but most of us don’t.
Al Awlaki could have had a trial if he’d wanted one, but he wanted to be a soldier instead and he was treated like a soldier and killed like a soldier.
How do we ever know anyone is an enemy military asset?
No.
Same thing. It is wrong. Either we believe in the justice system or we don’t. Obviously many of us do not.
I think this kind of thing is terrible. I will use terrorism to stop terrorism.
Well stated. Old Al might have been an American citizen, but when he openly aided and abetted a gang of terrorist thugs in planning the murders of other American citizens, he forfeited whatever rights he might have claimed.
The only problem with his death is that it’s like killing a cockroach. Yes, we are better off without the cockroach, but it would have been much better if we had been able to wipe out the nest.
Ah, yes, the big boy table, where we call each other pussies and bitches when we don’t agree with each other about incredibly complicated constitutional matters. For fuck’s sake.
I’m not going to be saying anything that hasn’t already been covered here, but you’re acting like you can’t even imagine understanding what Hamlet’s talking about, so maybe I can help. You’re demanding case law, when the argument doesn’t need to go beyond the face of the fucking text to have serious merit.
Let’s break this down to the basics - an American citizen was killed, by the American government, without a fucking speck of due process. Yes? It’s not like the rule we’re talking about is that vague, so I don’t think there’s an argument here. He was a person, deprived of his life, and there wasn’t insufficient process of law, because there wasn’t any. He wasn’t indicted, nobody has presented any evidence to anybody, nobody ruled on anything except the guys who did the killin’.
I’m looking right at the 5th Amendment, and it says that isn’t going to happen. Not that I really need it, but I’m also aware that Hamdi held that you can’t even imprison a citizen as an enemy combatant without some due process – “not a blank check.” Now I’m being told you can go ahead and just kill them. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to ask where that rule from came from, and what the difference is between it and the rule that the president can do whatever he likes.
I’m pretty sure the military killing someone requires force. Maybe our military has a secret weapon, one which violates the laws of physics, in which killing someone does not require force, but I’m guessing that’s not true.
You continue to change the goalposts, your definition of “military”, your definition of “force” to suit whatever point you’re trying to make. The President used the military to seize and detain without charges US citizens, and the Supreme Court eventually had to step in.
So then you’re saying that Muslims like myself who don’t hate America and give up American citizenship are traitors?
Does that mean we should be deemed legitimate targets by Jihadis?
We should at least establish the polite fiction of trying the guy in absentia first.
I’m with Hamlet on this one, and although there is a slippery slope out there wrt to killing anyone the president want to kill, I don’t see any slope or slipperiness in the actual world we are living in now.
Execution is a form of judicial force if you will, not military force.
Detention is generally a police power, holding POWs is a military power. The SCOTUS had issue because we were not holding them as POWs but as detainees, but generally to execute police power you need to adhere to the laws that govern it, which we were not doing.
None of that relates to a military use of force against the enemy.
You guys are trying to make associations that just aren’t there. You’re finding things significant that aren’t significant. If someone is a valid military target, their citizenship is irrelevant, and they can be hit as a valid military target, period.
If you’re asking if the government of Christendom would have killed him, the answer is no, because it doesn’t exist. if you’re asking if he would have been killed if there was evidence suggesting he was part of a Christian network that had murdered Americans in the past and was still trying to do so, that’s kind of a different question.
Just to clarify, firstly military has a few definitions.
One:
“of or relating to the military.”
Another one:
“of, for or pertaining to war.”
When I’m using the term military force I’m talking about the waging of war, not “any act of force by the military.” Not all acts of force by the military are “waging of war.” MPs are not waging war, but they use force all the time, as an example.
Then read the rest of my posts if you don’t get it. The point was that if you are relying on the AUMF as an authorization for the President to use extrajudicial targeted killings of US citizens, you cannot draw the line at the US border. Either the entire world is the battlefield or it isn’t.
Again, it helps if you read my posts, because I covered this one too. ““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.”
If he was killed as a soldier on the battlefield, I’d have no problem with it. If he was killed while he presented a significant threat of imminent death or serious physical injury, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But I don’t like the idea, and think it flies in the face of the Constitution, that a US citizen has to request a trial before he gets killed by the government without trial.
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.
Even if the “military target” is a US citizen in the US?
I think there are arbiters of this. Do you think there would be no consequences if the President started using drones on apartment buildings in the United States? When it happens, we can watch and talk about it.
I agree that executing a U.S. citizen requires constitutional oversight. Attacking valid military targets has never required any oversight other than Congress has the power to declare war and approve the use of force prior to the President waging war (although things are obviously murky there since we do not like to formally declare war any longer and we allow the President some leeway to just do things without pre-approval under certain conditions.) But generally Presidents still seek things like the AUMF before starting a full blown campaign. That is the only oversight of military action I’ve seen in the Constitution.
All the constitutional oversights you are talking about do not apply to military action, and it is telling that as many times as I’ve asked you’ve never provided one cite showing an instance in which any of those principles have been held to apply to war making. Never in the history of the United States has a court had to approve of the President bombing the enemy, or deciding on where he will focus tactical operations. That stuff is his purview, as Commander in Chief, and the SCOTUS has never meaningfully interfered with it.
He was killed on the battlefield.