Al-Awlaki Killed

[Ibn_Warraq]

Hamlet,
Please define “battlefield”.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Hamlet

Even if the “military target” is a US citizen in the US?

I’m not answering that because it’s not a realistic question. Like I said, when it starts happening let’s see what happens.

[Shodan]

@Hamlet

Even if the “military target” is a US citizen in the US?

I thought the answer to that was established as Yes sometime between 1861 and 1865.

Regards,
Shodan

[Ibn_Warraq]

Was Osama Bin Laden killed “on the battlefield”?

If not then doesn’t that mean he was deprived of his rights and Obama should immediately be put on trial for his murder along with the SEALS who carried out the attack.

Also can we call what happened to him “a military strike” or does it not count?

[Hamlet]

@Martin_Hyde

I’m not answering that because it’s not a realistic question. Like I said, when it starts happening let’s see what happens.

I know you’re not answering it. And I know the real reason why.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Hamlet

Even if the “military target” is a US citizen in the US?

Actually, I will answer this even though I feel it is irrelevant. In return I ask that you answer a question of mine, I’ll answer first in good faith.

I do believe that the President can wage war within the borders of the United States if necessary. That would obviously include military action that might deliberately kill American citizens.

Now, my question for you:

Do you believe President Obama violated any criminal code in having al-Awlaki killed?

[Chessic_Sense]

@Onomatopoeia

Al who?

At this point I think these announcements of the killing of all these tin-pot wannabe practically-nobodies have gone over the top. Who’s next, Osama bin Laden’s barber?

Quick, name all the high-level terrorists that you can without looking them up. Go.

@MOIDALIZE

That would only be a valid comparison if Awlaki had an operational role in Al Qaeda. That’s never been proven.

It’s never been proven to you. It’s been proven in Yemeni courts.

@foolsguinea

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.

So what about the Yemen government, who is also fighting AQAP…are they also enemies of Islam?

[MOIDALIZE]

@Ibn_Warraq

Was Osama Bin Laden killed “on the battlefield”?

If not then doesn’t that mean he was deprived of his rights and Obama should immediately be put on trial for his murder along with the SEALS who carried out the attack.

Osama bin Laden wasn’t an American citizen.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Chessic_Sense

It’s never been proven to you. It’s been proven in Yemeni courts.

Welp, that’s good enough for me. I can rest easy knowing that the famously impartial Yemeni justice system has thoroughly looked into the matter.

[Martin_Hyde]

@MOIDALIZE

Osama bin Laden wasn’t an American citizen.

If it had been, would the raid that killed him be illegal? If so, what law would it violate?

[Hamlet]

@Martin_Hyde

I do believe that the President can wage war within the borders of the United States if necessary. That would obviously include military action that might deliberately kill American citizens.

Finally. Thank you for finally being brave enough to admit it.

I think your position is clearly at odds with the Constitution and what is moral/good/right. I find it astounding that the President is not allowed to permanently detain, without trial, US citizens on US soil, but he can outright kill them. It seems a bit … odd to me.

@Martin Hyde

Now, my question for you:

Do you believe President Obama violated any criminal code in having al-Awlaki killed?

President Obama, like the Presidents before him, has executive immunity, which, I think, would insulate him from any criminal prosecution for his actions. Do I think he broke the law, yes. Yes I do.

Unless I miss my guess, I’m thinking you’re now going to repeat the old canard that he won’t be prosecuted or impeached, so he didn’t do anything wrong. I’ll tell you now, that’s entirely unconvincing to me.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Martin_Hyde

If it had been, would the raid that killed him be illegal? If so, what law would it violate?

If he had been, I’m betting the government would have gone through all the traditional legal steps, such as issuing a warrant for his arrest. They would have done this because establishing probable cause would have been a piece of cake in the case of OBL. The fact that this was not done in the case of Awlaki speaks volumes.

[Martin_Hyde]

@MOIDALIZE

If he had been, I’m betting the government would have gone through all the traditional legal steps, such as issuing a warrant for his arrest. They would have done this because establishing probable cause would have been a piece of cake in the case of OBL. The fact that this was not done in the case of Awlaki speaks volumes.

That defies the logic test. If they didn’t do that for al-Awlaki who is a U.S. citizen why would they have done it for a hypothetical American-born ObL? Defies the logic test given we don’t have to talk about what actually happened hypothetically.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@MOIDALIZE

Osama bin Laden wasn’t an American citizen.

So then you think the President can order anyone killed so long as they are not a US citizen?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@MOIDALIZE

Osama bin Laden wasn’t an American citizen.

The US government killed hundreds of thousands of US citizens without trial during the 1860s and jailed hundreds of thousands more without trial.

Are you saying that Lincoln should have Bern impeached and jailed for violating their constitutional rights?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Hamlet

Finally. Thank you for finally being brave enough to admit it.

I think your position is clearly at odds with the Constitution and what is moral/good/right. I find it astounding that the President is not allowed to permanently detain, without trial, US citizens on US soil, but he can outright kill them. It seems a bit … odd to me.

Well, part of it I think is we’re talking about stuff that just wouldn’t happen. I do think that technically, since the President can indeed wage war against the enemy, if the enemy happens to be within our borders, he can wage war there. Waging war involves things like missile strikes, drone strikes, tanks, infantry, attack helicopters, the whole kit and caboodle.

If a column of Canadian armor came storming across the border with Vermont, lead by a renegade American Army captain I don’t necessarily think most people would be shocked if Obama launched a bunch of attack helicopters to tear them up from above. There would be no expectation the renegade captain be tried in absentia first, or given any special consideration because at that moment in time he would be a military asset.

We have to talk about such crazy scenarios because the reality is, the waging of war on American soil is a far out scenario, it just wouldn’t happen.

President Obama, like the Presidents before him, has executive immunity, which, I think, would insulate him from any criminal prosecution for his actions. Do I think he broke the law, yes. Yes I do.

Unless I miss my guess, I’m thinking you’re now going to repeat the old canard that he won’t be prosecuted or impeached, so he didn’t do anything wrong. I’ll tell you now, that’s entirely unconvincing to me.

I think we both agree he wouldn’t be prosecuted, but I was hoping if you felt he genuinely broke a law, what specific law he broke.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Hamlet

Finally. Thank you for finally being brave enough to admit it.

I think your position is clearly at odds with the Constitution and what is moral/good/right. I find it astounding that the President is not allowed to permanently detain, without trial, US citizens on US soil, but he can outright kill them. It seems a bit … odd to me.

Also, is that really as odd as you’d think?

Let’s go back to where our law comes from: English law. There were protections since basically forever that the King could not just have a man killed for no reason. That’s why even the worst tyrants like Henry VIII at least ran show trials. Later on those laws got real teeth.

However, no one would have expected Henry to even conduct a show trial against an Englishman waging active war, no, Henry’s men would have been free to kill that guy on the field of battle, no questions asked. Going back to English common law, those protections from arbitrary execution never applied to the battlefield.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Martin_Hyde

That defies the logic test. If they didn’t do that for al-Awlaki who is a U.S. citizen why would they have done it for a hypothetical American-born ObL? Defies the logic test given we don’t have to talk about what actually happened hypothetically.

Why did the US conduct legal proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when they could have just let him rot in Guantanamo?

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Martin_Hyde

However, no one would have expected Henry to even conduct a show trial against an Englishman waging active war, no, Henry’s men would have been free to kill that guy on the field of battle, no questions asked. Going back to English common law, those protections from arbitrary execution never applied to the battlefield.

Hamdi says they do apply, doesn’t it?

[MOIDALIZE]

@Martin_Hyde

Also, is that really as odd as you’d think?

Let’s go back to where our law comes from: English law. There were protections since basically forever that the King could not just have a man killed for no reason. That’s why even the worst tyrants like Henry VIII at least ran show trials. Later on those laws got real teeth.

However, no one would have expected Henry to even conduct a show trial against an Englishman waging active war, no, Henry’s men would have been free to kill that guy on the field of battle, no questions asked. Going back to English common law, those protections from arbitrary execution never applied to the battlefield.

A man posting videos to YouTube is not “waging active war” against the United States.