See cnn.com’s article. Some pertinent quotes, for those who choose not to view the link:
Further information is available from the New York Times (free registration required):
I’m not claiming that the government had knowledge of Hijazi’s presence in the car prior to the missile strike, but rather that this is a very unfortunate turn of events. However, as things stand, an American citizen was killed by our government, and the DoJ and FBI had no role in this whatsoever.
The debate:
Does this mean that merely on association with terrorists, or suspicion of terrorist activities, an American citizen can be assassinated by his or her own government without regard for due process? Is this part of the price of security?
Will the government refer to this as an assassination or as a campaign in the war against terrorism? I can’t imagine that they would refer to it as assassination, therefore it is a part of war. At the very least Hijazi was in a questionable position, being with enemy higher-ups. I’m not well versed in military matters, but I would guess in the past somebody in Hijazi’s place would most likely have been summarily executed for collaboration.
The fact that Hijazi carried American citizenship does not fundamentally change the fact that he was a de facto enemy of the United States (and, IMHO, of humanity in general, as a pirate would be) and a legitimate military threat, if indeed he was working with al-Qaida members.
Let us suppose an American citizen had joined the Kaiser’s army in 1918 and fought against American forces. Let us further suppose that while he was eating his bratwurst one day behind the lines, an American artillery barrage was directed against his position. A shell lands on him and he’s blown to giblets. Would anyone suggest it was wrong to bombard his position because he was an American citizen? Or do ya takes yer chances when ya joins the other side?
I am sure there are a few examples of American citizens fighting agains the United States in both World Wars, at least. Why would anyone think the armed forces should inform the FBI or the DoJ before attacking them as enemies? In warfare, it’s what side you’re actually fighting for, not what passport you carry.
If it works better and reduces the chance of friendly soldiers getting killed - well, of course it’s a good thing.
I’m sure at some point someone said “Is it a good thing to have some peasant weenie with a fire-stick shoot people from afar rather than having a knight attack them with a sword?” The USA shouldn’t have to apologize for having weapons that make them better than their enemies at fighting wars.
Does the weenie really know what he is shooting at? Does he have good judgement? I recall that the first time it was a tall Arab looking guy thought to be Bin Laden.
This post assumes so many things for which no evidence is given and spins out so many hypothetical scenerios that it is impossible to give any kind of reasonable response.
Maybe the guy was just getting a ride to the next town. See, anyone can come up with hypotheticals which support any position. When writing them you are like the fiction writer who can make characters and events come out the way he wants it.
David, that is why what RickJay wrote is called a “hypothetical.” It assumes many things because no evidence is required when presenting a hypothetical.
The proper way to rebut a hypothetical is to introduce evidence that demonstrates that the hypothetical is inapt, or criticize the conclusions drawn from the hypothetical.
Another question, is guilt by accociation an instant death penalty? Who was the American in the car? Why was he there? Did he know the identities and the charges against the ONE person in the car that was ostensibly guilty of something. He could have been a hitchhiker or reporter or anything. Admittedly in this situation it looks pretty shady<6 adults crammed in a car> but the concept remains the same. Is there some responsibility to “protect” the other people in the car that have not had any demonstratable crimes other than that of being in the same car as someone who is wanted?
David, that is why what RickJay wrote is called a “hypothetical.” It assumes many things because no evidence is required when presenting a hypothetical.
The proper way to rebut a hypothetical is to introduce evidence that demonstrates that the hypothetical is inapt, or criticize the conclusions drawn from the hypothetical.
Well, I’m sorry but the poster began with the implication that the individual who was killed was “… a de facto enemy of the United States (and, IMHO, of humanity in general, as a pirate would be) and a legitimate military threat,” and then added the rather weak disclaimer “if indeed he was working with al-Qaida members” at the end. Sort of a “he might not be a terrorist, but …” kind of thing.
Hypotheticals aside, I don’t think that it is proper to make an argument based on the presumption of guilt without evidence to support that presumption other than mere association.
To quote from the CNN link, Amnesty Int’l’s statement that this incident might represent “extra-judicial executions in violation of international human rights law” should give any thinking person pause. This isn’t a case of an American citizen sitting in the German trenches in WWI. And I understand that war today(with terrorists) doesn’t make it easy to instantly tell the bad guys from the good guys.
Since some posters are taken with hypotheticals, let’s suppose that the next time one of our GI’s rapes a teenager in Korea/Philippines, etc., the local version of the CIA takes it into their head to “off” the guy, even though he is a suspect. Oh, I forgot to say, he was riding with two US servicemen in a jeep. They were not guilty of anything, just happened to be riding in the jeep that was bombed. But they were in his unit.
If Abu Ali, the suspected former Al Queda target had been offed by a mysterious rifle shot to his head, or killed by himself in a car bomb, no one would care. How do we now argue against other governments when their CIA’s deliberately kill a “suspected terrorist” who just happens to be a US, British, German, Australian, etc. citizen?
Particularly when it seems to me that these people could have just as easily been apprehended by authorities or US troops that are stationed in Yemen. In fact IMHO it would seem thier intelligence value would be better with them alive than dead plus you could at that point seperate more fairly who was guilty and who wasnt in the vehicle.
David, I believe you completely missed the point of my post. You certainly never addressed it. The disclaimer wasn’t weak, but even if it was, can you at least be moved to comment on the OP or any of the responses?
samclem asks:
Let me attempt what David did not, and actually address your hypothetical.
The reason this would be wrong - in fact, it would be first degree murder - is that the United States of America is not at war with accused rapist GIs, and never could be, unless a bunch of rapists got together and announced they were the International Rapist Army and started attacking U.S. interests or something. There’s no basis here for military action because there’s no military threat. You don’t drop bombs on shoplifters, either, and you don’t deploy tanks to blast the cars of people who roll through stop signs. Military action is appropriate in response to a physical threat against national security that is best opposed with a military action - for instance, a paramilitary organization that enjoys blowing up buildings and sinking ships on the high seas. Like, you know, al-Qaida. It seems to me that thre is a substantial difference in how you use force against common criminals, like rapists, and enemies arrayed as a military force. Should they have just sent a couple of detectives to bust Jefferson Davis?
The reluctance of people to accept that there is a difference between criminal enforcement and fighting wars strikes me as being… well, sort of surreal. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, should the USA have sent police officers to arrest Tojo, Yamamoto, and all the naval aviators who bombed Pearl Harbor? That would have been hilarious. Did it constitute “summary execution” to bomb and shoot Japanese servicemen? Did it constitute “summary execution” when their soldiers fought back against ours? I’ve certainly never heard anyone suggest that. So why is it “summary execution” to bomb and shoot members of al-Qaida?
I used the comparison to pirates quite deliberately; there you had a stateless military threat that at one time was a pretty serious international security threat, and a popular and ultimately effective solution was to use national military forces to engage and destroy them on the high seas, and sometimes on land… not try to serve arrest warrants. There were trials, sometimes, when a pirate was captured, just as I would like a trial if they captured Osama bin Laden. But war’s war, and not everyone can be captured.
I imagine you could argue they don’t constitute a military threat, and I guess there’s an argument to be made there, but I believe they do, and I suspect the U.S. government does, too. I think most reasonable people will agree that law enforcement and war require two different plans of action.
Executive Order 11,905 (Gerald Ford, 1976), in part: “No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire in, political assassination.”
In spite of any official spin claiming that the persons targeted were “combatants”, it seems to me that most people would consider the missile strike in Yemen a political assassination. The persons killed apparently were targeted specifically and were not at the time engaged in combat with anyone.
According to the above, it would seem that not only the killing of the American citizen, but the strike itself, were illegal under US law. Not that anyone is likely to ever be prosecuted over this.
Also, just asking here, hasn’t the State Dept. routinely waxed wroth when such actions are carried out by allies like Israel?
IANAL, but doesn’t your above referenced EO apply only to legitimate governments? Seeing as how the US never recognized the Taliban or al-Qaida as a sitting government, I’d think this doesn’t apply. Beyond that, IIRC, al-Q is considered a militant force instead of a political entity. Again, it shouldn’t apply.
My personal opinion: Oops, too bad, so sad. Terrorists and their allies got what they deserved. Unavoidable collateral damage.
Tripler
I haven’t read the entire thread all the way through. I will, tho.
How do you call the attack a ‘political’ assassination? If some American or British spy had been able to shoot Hitler in 1943 would that have been qualified as apolitical hit?
Is the US involved in a war or not? If it isn’t a war, then what is the term for what has been going on?
