I also must say I don’t agree with the “some people just need killing.” That can’t be a moral justification. If he’s someone who would ordinarily be subjected to civilian society’s criminal legal system, then that is how he should be handled. Regardless if he’s a raping murdering pedophile serial killer, it would have been wrong to put Ted Bundy on the curb side and subjected him to summary execution.
However, as long as al-Awlaki is a belligerent, it is valid military practice to kill him. But I don’t think we should rely on the “some people just need killing” doctrine, as that undermines much of the laws of our civil society and even the laws of warfare. I believe if al-Awlaki would attempt to surrender, or if Osama bin Laden had made obvious attempts to surrender, then the onus is on us to accept that and not kill them “because they need killing.”
I guess, but the evidence that Confederate soldiers were billigerants was that they put on uniforms lined up with rifles and attacked Union forts and armies. The evidence that al-Awlaki is a belligerent appears to be the fact that he talks smack about the US on the Internet, and some famous terrorists were fans of his religious sermons.
I’d be more comfortable with killing of people like al-Awlaki if I thought they had the option of turning themselves in and contesting their status as belligerents in a trial. Then at least we could tell ourselves that we gave them an option to defend themselves and they chose not to take it. But given the US’s recent history of torturing terror suspects, and our squirreliness over giving them a chance to defend themselves in court, I don’t think we really give them that option. If I were accused of being a terrorist, even if I was innocent, I’d probably run for it to.
The American government had nothing to do with that; that ambush was set up and led by an ex-Texas Ranger and a few locals; all of them would probably be indicted for murder today. That isn’t to say that Bonnie and Clyde didn’t need killing because they did.
Yeah, I know the perpetual conspiracy theory crowd has reason to doubt that he’s a belligerent. I don’t really give that view “mainstream” status.
There was a legal review by the White House prior to Obama authorizing al-Awlaki’s assassination. Surely the President of Hope & Change who promised an end to the Bush era abuses wouldn’t have signed off on it if it had not passed the rigorous legal review of the White House and if they did not have compelling evidence he is actively engaged in terrorist training or activities.
Well, and many high value terrorist targets have done just that. Many of them have been captured or killed. I won’t get into the perpetual debate in which people cry about torture endlessly, but I can guarantee al-Awlaki has a much higher chance of living his life out peacefully in a prison cell if he surrenders than if he doesn’t.
The part that makes me pause is the fact that this guy is in a foreign country whose citizens and government (IIRC) have had… rough spots with the U.S. from time to time.
Absent various exceptions, and assuming correct memory above, that seems to be a pretty clear declaration of intent that makes this a little more complex to me than might otherwise usually be.
I don’t think that really differs from the “he needed killin’” excuse. I guess its nice that a secret proceeding with no legislative authority made the determination that he “needed killin’”, but I don’t think that really makes a difference.
But again, there’s no guarantee, or even likelihood that most of them will get to defend themselves in court, or even be treated humanely. My point with the ability to turn themselves in was not that it might extend their lives (after all, even under normal legal proceeding they well may face execution), but that it should give them the opportunity to face their accusers and defend themselves. If such an opportunity existed, and the putative terrorist chose to stay on the lam, I’d have less problem with doing what needed to be done to remove him.
Being in Yemen is enough to assume he’s guilty? :dubious: Are we going to bump off the diplomatic staff at our embassy there, too? I mean, they are in Yemen.
I like that you qualify everything you just said with “allegedly” and “reportedly”, and then move on to:
He probably does need killing, but let’s drop the pretense, shall we? It will be an assassination.
“Legal review by the White House” doesn’t equal “trial”. The point of a trial is that at least one person has a vested interest in the court reaching an acquittal.
Absolutely. Because that is entirely what I intended, meant, and said.
Anyway, I’m actually surprised I haven’t seen more about this, especially on the liberal blogs I glance at every once in a while. Maybe I’m just looking in the wrong places.
I can’t figure out what you meant either. Your previous post does read like you think the mere fact of his being in Yemen helps justify trying to blow him up.
I dunno, maybe I’m the one that’s confused. But all “blowing people up” aside, it seems that someone mostly working out of, say, Iran has a non-zero increase in likelihood of wanting to do the Western world harm than someone working out of Wales.
Or maybe not. Like I said, maybe I didn’t think it through and I’m the one who’s confused. Though I don’t THINK I was trying to say anything about whether the sole fact meant we should or should not send a Predator drone to blow this guy up.
I have. Anwar al-Awlaki has declared war on the United States and should be treated as an enemy combatant unless he decides to turn himself in for trial, regardless of citizenship. Fuck him.
Also, when I said “Some people need killin’,” this thread was in MPSIMS and I was being facetious. I wouldn’t have said that if the thread were in GD like it is now, so please don’t take me seriously. But still, as long as he has declared himself an enemy of the US and favors indiscriminate and unprovoked killing of its citizens, he ain’t no American, in my book. Let Yemen have him.
It kills it’s own citizens on a regular basis so it is hardly a huge leap to extend the policy abroad and into the sphere of warfare where the requirements for evidence and due process are fuzzier and more malleable.
Were I a USA citizen I’d be worried about our conduct abroad but far more concerned about the state executions carried out within our borders and with the open blessing of those in power.
If, for instance, a US citizen joined a foreign army and waged war against us, would we be obligated to send in civilian police instead of soldiers? If soldiers came across him, would they be obligated not to kill him and instead capture him? How is this significantly different?
International and American law as well as the law of war, recognize that there are these things called “battlefields” where it is permissible to kill enemy soldiers. Take the same soldier, and put him at home, unarmed and unthreatening, and you’re not allowed to execute him.
I find the idea that the "battlefield’ is now “wherever the fuck the President says it is” to be an unwarranted expansion of presidential power. By that logic, the President can declare the US to be a battlefield, and detain or even murder, without trial, anybody he wishes, citizen or not. I don’t think that’s legally or morally justifiable.
If Al Awlaki is on the battlefield, if he’s taken up arms against the soldiers who are there with him, by all means, shoot the hell out of him, stick his head on a pike, and grind his bones to make your bread. But he’s in Yemen, not the battlefield. And unless you are willing to accept the expansion of the term battlefield to whereever one guy decides it is, that could be a problem.
Even if you allow the extra judicial killing of people who the President decides is an enemy, which I can kinda sorta see if I were a terrified sheep told almost daily that people want to kill me because I’m free, it is another thing entirely to do it to a US citizen.
Here in the US, we have a little thing called the Constitution. We also have a Constitution that can, and does, apply outside the territory of the US. It protects citizens, even very bad, very evil, very murderous, US citizens. And it shouldn’t just be ignored because a relatively small group of evil men flew planes into buildings killing Americans.
Just to attempt to stave off the inevitable strawmen that will be built, I don’t think we need to arrest Al Awlaki, I don’t think that we need to try him in civil courts, and we don’t need to give him a soapbox to spread his hatred and lies. But, we also shouldn’t ignore the Constitution.