No.
The fact that the guy was born here. I mean, I’m fine to talk about this, but it’s been how many months now?
I said defected, not defecated! Is defected a past tense variant of defecate?!
If so, that’s even better. He pooped.
If Obama gives the nod to assassinate him, and this man seems to be linked to (or is taking credit for) 9-11 in ways that are 10,000,000 times the magnitude of Saddam Hussein (rolleyes @ that miscalculation), then I can’t see how this doesn’t apply.
Even if not, I still doubt the claims of “illegal!” by some. Obama said the military and CIA was authorized to kill him. The entire international community has had a chance to crack down on this one.
The CIA (which is a civilian branch that carries out some ‘military’ duties) reports to the Director of National Intelligence. He oversees the intelligence community. We’re talking military intel, CIA, ya ya ya. His job is to advise the President and and the NIC is supposed to make the gathering of intelligence an efficient process through inter-agency (if that’s how you say it?) coordination.
There is so much oversight on the IC, and again, Congress isn’t having a cow.
The U.N. (if anyone wants to spew that) recognizes the right of nations to defend themselves. If a-A is an immediate threat, it would appear that the U.S. can ‘kill him first’. Same applies inside the borders. If a man points a gun at an officer, the officer has a right to shoot. The gun-toting madman just lost his right to due process.
It isn’t? He has Yemeni citizenship.
I’m all for reading some law that prohibits the killing of U.S. citizens. How are we *not *authorized to take him out? Seriously, I haven’t seen that argument except for “he’s a citizen!” and “the Constitution prohibits it!”
The Constitution most certainly does not.
Sure, there’s no long-standing policy of a hit list on U.S. citizens, but I think it’s silly to believe that the U.S. has never engaged in the assassinations of its own citizens. You want transparent government? Ya got it.
“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I’m kinda having a problem with depriving a US citizen of his life without due process of law.
I do. I believe in a government of laws, and not of men. //johnadamsactionthere
But please show me where the law prohibits such an action that you describe. A law is not a law because you think it’s a yuckiness.
1.) A military trial isn’t going to afford the guy of the same process as a civilian one.
2.) If you make him a military target, he is just that. Kay? Not a member of the Marine Corps who went bonkers in Iraq and switched sides.
3.) I am not sure that the military courts allow for trials in absentia.
I have a high opinion of the military. I also think (and so far, every one of my military friends have noted this to me) that any guy related to al-Queda or 9/11 that has this much influence about the day to day operations of our lives is probably going to get a stick up the ass.
1.) Congress has the power to pass laws.
2.) SCOTUS can decide if those laws violate the Constitution.
3.) This man isn’t on U.S. soil.
4.) He’s not being detained. He’s being targeted.
Why did Timothy McVeigh get a trial?
I used the right word. D-E-F-E-C-T-I-O-N.
We know that already. Obama is the one who gave the authorization. The question is whether he can actually do that, and whether it violates the law regardless of whether or not Congress cares.
Congress hasn’t had a cow about a bunch of Constitutionally questionable things in the last decade.
What? I said I don’t think anyone in Yemen is buying Saleh’s claim that he’s behind the military strikes and not allowing the U.S. to operate in his country.
The Constitution provides for due process for those accused of a crime.
I’m pretty much with you on this, but consider this scenario: We have intel that a bunch of AQ operatives are at a certain location. We also know that this guy is with them. Do we not bomb the place? Is it OK to bomb the place as long as he’s not there?
Or, is it a matter of not going in, mano a mano, and killing him without trying to arrest him first (assuming he pulls and ObL and doesn’t fire on our guys).
Except.
When a guy aims a gun at you, he just pissed on his own Fifth Amendment.
When a guy plots to kill Americans citizens and possible military targets and camps out on foreign soil and operates a terrorist network, his gun just got bigger.
There’s no Fifth Amendment precedent to apply here. 
He was pulled over on the interstate by a police officer because he was driving a vehicle without a license plate on it. Upon going to the driver’s side the officer immediately noticed McVeigh had a bulge under his shirt and McVeigh admitted it was a firearm. He was arrested for not having tags and for illegal possession of a concealed weapon. He went peacefully. If he had been in a fortified compound even here stateside, in which him and compatriots opened fire at any approaching law enforcement, it’s likely he would have been killed as well.
This shouldn’t be an issue if this administration had already given Al Awlaki a trial, got the death sentence and had an order allowing for his killing. Had they done what they should and provided some kind of due process oversight before authorization of the assassination, it wouldn’t be a problem.
If he has received due process before the assassination order, I see no reason (outside of any other applicable laws or treaty obligations, they would have to arrest him first.
[quote=“Marley23, post:66, topic:581120”]
I used the right word. D-E-F-E-C-T-I-O-N.
Haha, now I’m using the wrong words. He still pooped. And I don’t see how you don’t think he is guilty of defection? What?
Which I think I addressed.
Such as?
Besides, I don’t see this guy filling anything with the Supreme Court.
That’s fine if you don’t buy it. But the Yemeni government is cooperating. Coordinating, even.
If they don’t forgo that right.
So you’re telling me the Fifth Amendment is applicable here? How? Precedent, please.
Exactly. It doesn’t provide for due process for those actively engaged in war against us, because the constitution does not afford protections to enemy belligerents in warfare, that isn’t part of constitutional law. Various military regulations and international treaties we are party to defines how we may behave in regard to belligerents, and I don’t see anything out of line in taking this guy out with a drone or a cruise missile or a special forces team.
It would be unconstitutional if we imprisoned him for life without a trial, or arrested him and executed him without trial. We would then be denying him due process.
As long as he’s actively engaged in war against us his right to due process isn’t dissimilar from the rights to due process that a bank robber who is actively shooting at police has–he still has those rights in regard to a trial, but the police can and will fucking waste the guy and it will be a legally accepted use of force.
I don’t think you can make a legitimate comparison between self defense by an individual and a planned military strike by a government. If your neighbor breaks into your house and you shoot him, it’s probably allowable as self-defense. If you think your neighbor is plotting to kill you and you go to his house and shoot him, that’s probably murder.
And the problem with terrorism is that it’s somewhere in between open warfare and criminal conspiracies. There needs to be a framework for how that’s dealt with, and I don’t see one.
But blowing him up is OK. At best this is a logical absurdity.
I am not going to waste much more time with your uncited allegations of what you want to think the Constitution requires. I will point out, however, that the Supreme Court has recognized that deadly force can be used if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. If Al Awlaki is standing there with a gun ready to shoot someone, by all means, shoot him. But I find the idea that “he’s plotting something against us in the future that may or may not happen, but he’s an enemy so let’s kill him”, to fall a bit short of the imminent and significant threat.
Well, I think the telling feature is terrorists consider themselves at war with us. So I think they would actually prefer to be treated as belligerents versus criminals. Unfortunately for them, they are not engaged in lawful warfare against us. There are lawful ways to conduct insurrections under the Geneva Conventions, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and various other terrorist entities are not doing that. Which means they are both belligerents as long as they aren’t in our custody and criminals when in our custody.
It’s similar to Nazi concentration camp commandants. You are allowed to kill them outright as belligerents, if they make an effort to surrender you should accept it and take them into custody. Because of their criminal actions, they are not simple POWs who get to go home, but also war criminals who should be punished.
I think you are confusing our treaty and international law requirements to non-citizens and the Constitution’s requirements for US citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “do not apply if President says the person is an enemy”.
There’s also no reason we can’t use a little bit of common sense here, either.
As I’ve already said, there is no requirement that you be a belligerent or a criminal. It isn’t a boolean, you can be both.
As to how to approach them, it should depend on context and what options are available.
So:
Belligerent seen on the battlefield openly engaged with our soldiers
Response: Shoot to kill/neutralize.
Belligerent hiding in mountain base deep in the wilds of Pakistan
Response: Use drones or airstrikes in an attempt to destroy them.
Belligerent snuck into London and is hiding in an apartment complex there.
Response: Local police or military forces should go in and attempt to apprehend him peacefully.
That’s reasonably logical except for the point of identifying them as part of a terrorist group. I have no doubt that al-Awlaki is involved with al Qaeda, but since they don’t wear uniforms and show up on the battlefield, that’s a tricky issue - and as Hamlet says, there is a troubling reliance on “the government says he’s a terrorist” in making that determination.
He’s on a hit list. He knows it. He’s been warned. You think he needs a trial? For what? Because he was born here? So that’s it – he needs a trial? Let’s try him tomorrow. He doesn’t show. He’s guilty on all accounts. Can we kill him now? Does a grand jury need to indict him?
Why do you think that military targets should be afforded ‘due process’?
Nowhere in the constitution does it say “does not apply if law enforcement says the person is an active shooter” yet law enforcement can and have shot and killed active shooters countless times throughout American history.