Is what situations do you think it is okay for the US president to order the assassination of an American citizen?
I know this is kind of an old story, but I think Obama should be impeached for this order. There are few things that a president can do that are worse than ordering the killing of an American citizen without any due process of law.
The Constitution is very clear on this point:
Anwar al-Awlaki is not soldier fighting against American or even a military actor. He is a propagandist.
If administration wants to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, they should capture him and put him on trial. As an American citizen (and a person), the United States government cannot kill him without a trial that offers him a jury of his peers.
I hated what Bush did to the Constitution, and Obama’s action is, at minimum, equally bad, and probably worse.
Thanks for the link. I see that in that thread there was discussion of Anwar al-Awlaki as terrorist group leader and/or a military actor. We know he is not his group’s leader. He is a mid-level functionary. And there is no evidence he is a military or terrorist actor. All evidence suggests he is nothing more than a propagandist.
It is not like Anwar is on a battlefield. There is no evidence that Awlaki has participated in or planned any military or terrorist actions.
The President has decided to execute someone for crimes without any due process. To allow the President to do this is to say that the President can kill any American who is outside American territory.
The U.S. Constitution is not a universal document. It is the law of the land, and does not apply to any actions taken outside U.S. borders. It has nothing to do with citizenship. Does a non-U.S. citizen within the borders of the United States have a right to due process? Of course. Conversely, is a U.S. citizen abroad entitled to the protection of the Constitution? I’m not so sure.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force authorizes the President to attack those associated with Al Qaeda. Why does this not constitute due process?
Also, what does it matter whether this guy is the leader, the financier, the recruiter, or the cook of his terrorist group? At what level need an American be before he is dangerous enough to warrant military force to be used against him? If Bin Laden were American, would it be unconstitutional to send an F-18 out to drop a bomb on him?
I’m not sure it’s unprecedented, but if we have no ruling from the SCOTUS, then it’s not correct to state that the president “cannot” do this. As **Ravenman **noted, the AUMF gives the president that authority. Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, Congress gets the benefit of the doubt. And remember, the AUMF wasn’t something that narrowly passed through Congress. It had wide, bipartisan support. IIRC, only one person in the House voted against it.
You sure?
If a US citizen takes up arms with a terrorist organization and is shot dead by US marines during combat, is that unconstitutional?
If a US citizen takes up arms with a terrorist organization and his group of terrorists is targeted by US marines and he’s killed during combat, is that unconstitutional?
If a US citizen takes up arms with a terrorist organization and leads it, and his group is targeted by US marines and he’s killed during combat, is that unconstitutional?
Does it, then, become unconstitutional if a sniper or a missile is used instead of a marine fire team?
I don’t think it’s at all clear as some people are painting it.
Interesting idea. Everywhere I have ever traveled the U.S. embassy has been quick to inform me that my various U.S. constitutionally protected freedoms end when I leave U.S. jurisdiction and the local laws (or lack there of them) apply.
Yeah, you’ve done no research whatsoever before making this claim, have you? NOt even read the previous thread on the subject, in which you would have found this post:
There are some broad Constitutional principles, such as reasonableness, that may apply, but what you said is wrong: the Constitution as a whole does NOT apply to US citizens anywhere in the world.
And if he did, he would see that the conclusion from that discussion is: There are some broad Constitutional principles, such as reasonableness, that may apply, but what he said is wrong: the Constitution as a whole does NOT apply to US citizens anywhere in the world.
Because someone isn’t “associated with Al Qaeda” just because the President says so?
Your argument is invalid because a US citizen taking up arms and engaging US marines in combat in the United States could be shot dead, no questions asked. We’re not talking about killing people currently engaged in combat with the US military. We’re talking about going out of your way to kill someone who isn’t currently shooting at you, and how much oversight should be required for such a decision.