Unless arguably you count his support of the continued legalization of abortion (and I don’t think so personally) he is not a murderer in any sense of the word.
I don’t really disagree with that. I just don’t think there is any provision currently that gives the judiciary that ability. And I do think the president is given leeway to do that in the situation of war. So it doesn’t qualify Obama as a mass murderer. And it’s another failure of the legislature that we don’t have a system that enables what you suggest.
How about the constitution?
I don’t doubt that Obama is acting legally, according to the 2001 AUMF, so that clears him of murder charge. But I think the AUMF went too far, constitutionally. Unfortunately, I doubt we’ll ever get a court ruling on this, so we just have to live with it. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it. 
That was a case involving a person in custody.
Beyond that, during the Civil War, hundreds of thousands of American citizens were held in concentration camps without trial because they were accused by the US government of being “rebels”.
They weren’t given trials, either military or civilian. They weren’t given the opportunity to prove they hadn’t been accidentally swooped up by the Union Army and falsely identified as members of the Confederate Army.
I’ll assume you were outraged by this abd felt the men should all have been given trials to prove they were rebels.
Similarly, I’m sure you’re familiar with the case of Hans Haupt, an American citizen who was executed for “sabotage” during WWII. He was denied a jury trial and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld this and declared he wasn’t entitled to any protections not afforded to other combatants, even those captured on American soil.
In short Al-Awlaki, like Haupt, wasn’t entitled to be treated differently than others who took part in organizations actively fighting against the US.
Just as Haupt was treated the same as others captured on American soil who were accused of being saboteurs, Al-Awlaki was treated the same as Bin Laden.
Anyway, why get upset. He was a Mujahid(soldier of God), demanded to be treated as a Mujahid, and died as a Mujahid.
When you decide to take part in a war against the US, whether with a recognized army, like the Wehrmact, or an unofficial one like the Viet Cong or Al Quaeda that’s the risk you run.
To me, the elephant in the bedroom is…what if I am falsely accused of taking part in a war against the US? What if my neighbor turns me in? Or someone in government itself, perhaps a political rival.
I agree with nearly everything that’s been said in defense of the necessary powers of waging war. In the American Civil War, having a trial for each separate Confederate soldier would have been preposterous. But I get scared when an innocent person is in danger of being held without any rights – even the right to contact a lawyer.
The system needs some re-working to provide a presumption of innocence…
Trinopus
Well, I wasn’t alive at the time, so I don’t know how I could be “outraged”. But remember, Lincoln suspended the right of habius corpus during that conflict. Obama hasn’t done that. Also, detaining someone is slightly different than killing them. Just slightly, don’t you think?
But he was not denied a trial.
Nothing in that case supports that argument.
I’ve stated multiple times in this thread what my position is, why I hold it, and how I think we can easily, and with no additional danger to the US, deal with this sort of situation in a way that does not subvert the concept of US citizens having the right of habius corpus.
- It’s habeas corpus, and
- The Constitution allows the right to it to be suspended during rebellions. The Civil War was one such, but Al Qaeda’s attacks are not.
Did Awlaki file a writ with the court? Or anyone on his behalf? That’s how it works. I seriously doubt he was coming back to the US to stand before a court.
Don’t you have to be detained first to file a writ of habeas corpus?
This is where a lot of anti-war activists go off the rails by trying to sound reasonable to pro-war audiences. Let’s say the powers that be really did break the law and you point it out. Then they close the loophole, maybe becoming more tyrannical in the process. You happy now? If you’re gonna sit down and criticize, say, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan you wouldn’t be trying to figure out what Soviet laws the instigators might be breaking.
To really pick a nit, murder means unlawful killing. I don’t think Obama could even qualify as a murderer in any official capacity even if he ordered a nuclear strike on Canada. To count as a murderer he’d have to get up out of his office and start strangling secretaries or whoever.
His father did. He sought an injunction against a targeted killing on Fifth Amendment grounds, among others.
The case was dismissed on two counts: first, that the father did not have standing to bring the lawsuit; and second, that the courts do not get involved in political questions such as the conduct of foreign affairs – those decisions are left to the legislative and executive branches.
So apparently he had his day in court. Case closed.
I know his father went to court to try to force the administration to take Anwar al-Awlaki’s name off a list of dangerous terrorists - being on the list allowed for him to be killed at any time. I believe the court ruled the father didn’t have standing and that it was a political question, not one for the court system. EDIT: Ah, Ravenman got there first.
I think you’re correct from a technical standpoint, but there’s not much point in quibbling with a figure of speech.
If this was directed to the OP, I’d say I’m curious. Not an anti-war activist. But that’s cool. And I would most certainly sit down and figure out what laws the Soviets broke, but that’s just me.
Yes…Unlawful killing. I keep hearing this attack, and others, are unlawful. And it’s always someone getting killed. So we have those two words. Setting aside immunity, I just want to know what they are getting at. Or is it just something to say, “what he did was unlawful.”
I see that, Mace. But what I think you’re missing is that Article 4 does NOT eliminate the concept of francs-tireur. It merely establishes an area where such must be treated as POWs. Those partisans/terrorists/enemy combtants who do NOT meet those conditions may still be subject to summary execution.
It’s simply not true that the Geneva Convention of 1949 eliminated the concept of summary execution for irregulars and partisans. It merely established protections for SOME of them…not all. And I’d argue that most of the people involved here would not meet one or more of those tests.
I don’t understand where you’re getting this idea that summary executions are allowable under international law. GC common article 3 clearly prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” for ANY person not taking part in hostilities.
Once a combatant has been subdued, regardless if they are a legal or illegal combatant, they can’t be executed. It’s black and white law that’s repeated in each one of the Geneva Conventions.
ETA: Here’s ICRC commentary on this matter:
"In virtue of a humanitarian principle, universally recognized in international law, of which the Geneva Conventions are merely the practical expression, any wounded or sick person whatever, even a ’ franc-tireur ’ or a criminal, is entitled to respect and humane treatment and the care which his condition requires. "
I’m still not seeing where Awlaki was denied due process. He could have had a habeas writ filed on his behalf. If his father didn’t have standing on the habeas issue then Awlaki was not endorsing it. And I do not see any logic that would show that he was not taking an active part in hostilities.
I think there should be a better way to ensure that a president can’t abuse the power to call for this type of summary execution, but I’m not seeing the abuse in this case anyway.
I note who part (d) applies to: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities”, such that said acts are prohibited “with respect to the above-mentioned persons”. As for whether the acts are prohibited with respect to other persons – or, as Jonathan Chance put it, “partisans/terrorists/enemy combtants who do NOT meet those conditions” – the section is apparently silent.
I don’t understand what hair you are trying to split. If someone is actively in the fight, they are a legitimate military target and can be killed. Once they are out of the fight, such as if they lay down their weapons and surrender, or they are captured, they cannot be executed except in consequence of a decision by a competent court under normal processes.
In any case, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Common Article 3 (which John quoted) applies to Al Qaeda terrorists who have been captured. The speculation that there is a legal loophole by which we can execute terrorists – even the worst ones – without trial after they have fallen into our hands is completely without foundation. It’s absurd on its face.