[C7JjVczP]

U.S. Tried but Failed to Kill Yemeni Cleric - WSJ.com

Anwar al-Awlaki targeted in US military attack in Yemen - CSMonitor.com

U.S. drone in Yemen missed al Qaeda's al-Awlaki: report | Reuters


Anyone else think it's pretty bizarre that we're authorizing the assassination of American citizens? Anyone else think it's an abdication of journalistic responsibility not to even bring it up? This ACLU blog post rounds up some pretty decent articles about it. I wonder if we can create a legal regime to insure we 'fairly' assassinate American citizens. Worth a discussion?

al-Awlaki is a clear danger to U.S. citizens and has taken up arms against us. I am not a lawyer but I think this qualifies as treason. I don't believe he is entitled to any special protection just because he is a U.S. citizen.

[leacturavar]

American citizens are sentenced death every in America. This guys a no good traitor kill him.

[Elissetecausa]

al-Awlaki is a clear danger to U.S. citizens and has taken up arms against us. I am not a lawyer but I think this qualifies as treason. I don't believe he is entitled to any special protection just because he is a U.S. citizen.

American citizens are sentenced death every in America. This guys a no good traitor kill him.

Yes, they are sentenced to death--but that's after a guilty verdict. This is the president being the sole decision maker with no input from the courts killing an American citizen. So, sure, let's call it treason, but it takes a court to determine that is the crime. I'm not even arguing that this has to be dealt with by current standard court but I do think there needs to be some process whereby 1) names of those on the targeted killings list are vetted and 2) a method of appeal.

[leacturavar]

no just kill them.

[Elissetecausa]

no just kill them.

I heard this guy CHIOSSO is the Moyamensing Killer bringing terror to South Philly. Let's get out the drones before he strikes again. --President gren

[leacturavar]

Its hard to get me because I hug you in the jungle. Just kill them.

[MarythePuppy6]

Yes, they are sentenced to death--but that's after a guilty verdict. This is the president being the sole decision maker with no input from the courts killing an American citizen. So, sure, let's call it treason, but it takes a court to determine that is the crime. I'm not even arguing that this has to be dealt with by current standard court but I do think there needs to be some process whereby 1) names of those on the targeted killings list are vetted and 2) a method of appeal.

IANAL but I think once someone is convicted of treason they can be stripped of their citizenship, at which point it is much less ambiguous what flexibility the executive/military have when dealing with combatants (and Obama and Holder have made it clear that they consider anyone connected with terrorism "on the battlefield"). So in theory maybe US citizens could be convicted of treason in absentia and then targeted more freely? Of course O and the CIA would never let whatever evidence they may or may not have be shown publicly in a court.

Obama seems to have taken on the Israeli strategy of high-level assassinations. It has worked pretty well for the Israelis and the American public seems to like it. Expect to see more terrorist organizers and leaders being knocked off.

Obama is following Bush's lead with this mushy war on terror law stuff. Ask for forgiveness rather than permission. As we have seen there are no real ramifications to breaking the rules; e.g., Guantanamo.

[Elissetecausa]

IANAL but I think once someone is convicted of treason they can be stripped of their citizenship, at which point it is much less ambiguous what flexibility the executive/military have when dealing with combatants (and Obama and Holder have made it clear that they consider anyone connected with terrorism "on the battlefield"). So in theory maybe US citizens could be convicted of treason in absentia and then targeted more freely? Of course O and the CIA would never let whatever evidence they may or may not have be shown publicly in a court.

Obama seems to have taken on the Israeli strategy of high-level assassinations. It has worked pretty well for the Israelis and the American public seems to like it. Expect to see more terrorist organizers and leaders being knocked off.

Obama is following Bush's lead with this mushy war on terror law stuff. Ask for forgiveness rather than permission. As we have seen there are no real ramifications to breaking the rules; e.g., Guantanamo.

And if al-Awlaki was denaturalized through the courts I'd have less problem with attempted assassination. But what we have right now is a policy where the president can order the assassination of an American citizen without any court order or oversight (at least when they're overseas). I do not think this is a power that should be in the hands of the executive without judicial review. Also--as far as I know--Israelis have not assassinated their own citizens without trial. Although, I may be wrong about that. I think it's important to see at least 3 separate issues here: 1) is assassination okay? 2) what should the process be for killing a foreign national? 3) what should the process be for killing an American citizen? I haven't even argued that there shouldn't be a process for assassinating American citizens--I've only argued that there needs to be oversight but apparently those who have responded thing assassination of American citizens without any oversight or obligations on the part of the executive is okay. That kind of seems worse than red light cameras to me.

[RaicickKida]

And if al-Awlaki was denaturalized through the courts I'd have less problem with attempted assassination. But what we have right now is a policy where the president can order the assassination of an American citizen without any court order or oversight (at least when they're overseas). I do not think this is a power that should be in the hands of the executive without judicial review. Also--as far as I know--Israelis have not assassinated their own citizens without trial. Although, I may be wrong about that. I think it's important to see at least 3 separate issues here: 1) is assassination okay? 2) what should the process be for killing a foreign national? 3) what should the process be for killing an American citizen? I haven't even argued that there shouldn't be a process for assassinating American citizens--I've only argued that there needs to be oversight but apparently those who have responded thing assassination of American citizens without any oversight or obligations on the part of the executive is okay. That kind of seems worse than red light cameras to me.

Executive Order 12333

[Elissetecausa]

Executive Order 12333

I'm not sure what an executive order banning assassination has to do with checking executive power. Are you making the argument that the executive successfully checks its own power?

[MarythePuppy6]

I'm not sure what an executive order banning assassination has to do with checking executive power. Are you making the argument that the executive successfully checks its own power?

It also does not define assassination; a drone attack or special ops mission is hardly the kind of CIA political assassination that that 12333 was written to prevent. A report in the oughties determined that Clinton and GW Bush exercised *too much* caution in ordering assassinations, even in light of 12333, which as you imply is easily circumvented by another executive order if so desired or even necessary.

[Elissetecausa]

U.S.-Born Qaeda Leader Killed in Yemen
The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality - Yemen - Salon.com

[huerta]

Far as I am concerned he is a traitor and committed treason.
He was a danger to our country.
And I wish Ron Paul would STFU about it!

U.S. Tried but Failed to Kill Yemeni Cleric - WSJ.com

Anwar al-Awlaki targeted in US military attack in Yemen - CSMonitor.com

U.S. drone in Yemen missed al Qaeda's al-Awlaki: report | Reuters


Anyone else think it's pretty bizarre that we're authorizing the assassination of American citizens? Anyone else think it's an abdication of journalistic responsibility not to even bring it up? This ACLU blog post rounds up some pretty decent articles about it. I wonder if we can create a legal regime to insure we 'fairly' assassinate American citizens. Worth a discussion?

[Elissetecausa]

Far as I am concerned he is a traitor and committed treason.
He was a danger to our country.
And I wish Ron Paul would STFU about it!

It's not that he's not everything you listed. But you have no qualms about no trial, no review of evidence by a judge? Not even a trial in absentia?

[ptmQqoxw]

It's not that he's not everything you listed. But you have no qualms about no trial, no review of evidence by a judge? Not even a trial in absentia?

Nope!

[Narus63]

What if you can't capture him to give him a "fair trial" but you can kill him?

What if by failing to kill him, he killed innocent people- something he made clear he was doing his utmost to do?

Bad guy dead = better world.

Not a perfect world or even a simpler, black and white world, but a better one.

[leacturavar]

Treason is a difficult charge you need two people who were on it with you to testify.

[Elissetecausa]

What if you can't capture him to give him a "fair trial" but you can kill him?

What if by failing to kill him, he killed innocent people- something he made clear he was doing his utmost to do?

Bad guy dead = better world.

Not a perfect world or even a simpler, black and white world, but a better one.

Well that argument works against someone who's arguing they need to be present for a trial in federal court using their evidentiary standards.

What happened in terms of judicial overview was zero.

I think there's a world in between that. And I think when engaging in targeted killing of U.S. citizens there needs to be a process where someone judges evidence and then that evidence is eventually made public.

[AccusaJalsBub]

What, if any, process got him onto an approved target list?

[parurorges]

I heard it discussed today at length on NPR. His father appealed to the US courts on his behalf, and the courts ruled that if he wanted protection under the constitution he could petition himself, but that his father had no standing.

I hear what you're saying. But, in this case, I can't get too worked up about it. Sometimes real life intrudes on pure ideals. I respect that the ACLU shines light on that kind of thing, but it's my right to decide that, while it may not have been the best case scenario, this guy needed killing.