I don’t think Hamdi dealt with executions. But the point I’m making is killing someone on the battlefield isn’t the same as an execution. In the case of an English monarch, the law was different when he was suppressing insurrectionist noblemen versus when he was just wanting to have them beheaded for plotting against him. In the latter they had to have some pretense of law.
Well, it was the result of a SCOTUS decision. KSM was not in the same boat as al-Awlaki because he was on no battlefield.
The President / military does not have to prove to you someone is part of al-Qaeda, never in history has the military had to “prove” someone was part of the enemy before killing them on the battlefield.
But there are other detainees at Guantanamo not being given civilian trials. Why should KSM get a trial but not these other detainees? What’s the basis for this discrepancy?
As I said to John Mace: “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.” I don’t think it will ever happen (in part because I think the President knows that he would be violating the Constitution to do so), but I sure wish I was more sure.
And sending in Navy Seals to kill/capture people he considers enemy. I
sigh Yes, because it would be on the battlefield. But if Obama ordered the CIA to kill a US citizen in Miami because he was a member of Al Qaeda, you can be damned sure the courts wouldn’t allow it.
I know you want to limit the idea of “military action” to simply drone attacks, etc. But the fact is the AUMF authorizes the President to take any action deemed appropriate, which would include assassination of US citizens on US soil.
The most likely would be the same ones the officers in the Rodney King beating (Section 1983?)
So as part of the Global War on Terror, it would be perfectly legal for the US to kill the president of Yemen?
He’s in Yemen, that’s a battlefield!
You can draw whatever distinctions you like, since Hamdi and al-Awlaki will both end up on the same side of the line. And in Hamdi, the constitutional balancing of the right not to be detained with the exigencies of your active war was held to require some process. If you ramp up the liberty interest from bodily freedom to freedom of life, how do you end up with less process?
Yes, it is. Seizing someone and detaining them - unconstitutional. Killing them - constitutional. I think a vast majority of people would much rather be detained than killed. Also, I see no difference in the Constitution that would support the idea that killing is fine, but detention isn’t.
He might be back in Yemen now, but for the last couple of months he wasn’t. I leave it to you to look up the reason.
So once again, what is “the battlefield” and was Osama Bin Laden killed on it?
What process is due to Anwar al-aulaqi? I think this needs to be established before we can decide whether or not it’s been violated in this instance.
This is what we know: he is/was on a targeted killing list (in 2010). He could have removed himself from that list by surrendering. He did not surrender nor made any attempts to surrender. He is/was located in a territory in Yemen that is beyond any governmental control (civilian, not the military).
Alleged by DNI Director James Clapper (Clapper Declaration):
His increasing “operational role” is what led to his combatant status determination under the 2001 AUMF that allows enemies to be killed as a matter of first resort - Congress passed this. Thus, he was not killed solely (or at all) because of youtube videos. The President determines who the enemy should be. This is justified under International Humanitarian Law/Law of Armed Conflict/Laws of War. Thus, he is due whatever process is afforded to him under those laws…or, he is due the opportunity to surrender to the people trying to kill him. He chose not to.
I don’t necessarily agree with this, and think Congress should change the process due to these “enemies.” However, they have not done so at this time. I further disagree we should treat these enemies as criminals.
Nobody fucking knows, and no.
If “nobody fucking knows” what constitutes “the battlefield” how do we know Osama WASN’T killed on it?
What are you trying to say, Marley? That the Arab Spring is a terrorist movement?
I don’t know what point you think you’re making, but under the AUMF, the entire world is potentially a battlefield, and everyone is potentially a combatant.
By definition, he was killed during an “Armed Conflict.” Otherwise, his killing would have been illegal. I’m not sure how you define “battlefield”, though.
You’ve got it now!
That’s my mistake; I forgot AQ wasn’t behind the attack that almost killed Saleh. Let’s return to our discussion of why the government killed the leave Britney alone guy when all he was doing was making YouTube videos.
Don’t get your lace panties in a bunch.
Sorry, I forgot you’re the sole arbiter of what’s true and what isn’t. Because you said you are, you see.