No, someone killed in combat or a raid on terrorists is justifiable. I think the arguments are about 'if'. If he surrendered or was captured alive, he should be given his legal rights.
Yes it has been the way, the same way we fought the Americans in the revolutionary war who were fighting for the King. This guy chose the wrong side, he tried to kill American citizens. He deserves what he got - death. I am sorry some of the bleeding hearts on hear want to discuss it like there is a bigger argument to be made....there just isn't... If you take up arms against this country you are risking your own life, he did that and lost. Good job USA ! DD
Yes. Some have said that a person doesn't deserve the rights of Americans or they have forfeited them. That is anti-American thinking. I don't have a problem with terrorists being killed in action by Americans. I do have a problem with the idea that anyone would somehow forfeit their rights. That isn't what America is about.
You're scenario is a preemptive killing done in self-defense. Its more analogous to the mass murderer driving down the street, not actively engaged in violence, and bombing his car from the air. Would such a police procedure be legal, and if not why?
I'm uncomfortable with this assassination -- any assassination -- but not because he's a US citizen. I don't see why that's relevant, actually.
No problem. I guess it also should have been "It's more analogous" instead of "Its more analogous". I always get that mixed up with the possessive "its".
Was he an actual citizen? I thought his parents came from Yemen....he was American born, but I don't believe he is/was a citizen. Does anyone know? That would sort of render this discussion moot. DD
Yeah I should have known that, especially after all that talk about Yao Ming's daughter being born in the USA. DOH ! We should change that, make it to where you have to APPLY to be a citizen.....so only those that want to become one. DD
My god, it's like you're driving a fertilizer truck full of ignorance right into the middle of the thread and are determined to take out as many people as you can in a suicide run.
I sat here trying to verbalize my disbelief for about 10 minutes, thank god you came along. Count me among the casualties... checking out of this thread now.
The Constitution doesn't specify that the rights it guarantees are only for citizens. It's for everybody in the perview of the US government. In your example, the mass murderer is (I assume) on US soil, so the US must treat him a certain way. Dropping a bomb on his car would be a violation of his right to a fair trial, among other things. Even so, the police do have a right and obligation to aprehend the mass murderer and are authorized to use all necessary force to do so. If asking nicely doesn't work, pointing a gun at him, tazing him, beating him with billy clubs and so on suddenly become more justifiable. If that doesn't work somehow, shooting him becomes an option. If this mass murderer is somehow too dangerous to even try that with (say a Mexican cartel leader escorted through Texas by a large contingent of Zetas or something), at some point they may be able to justify dropping a bomb on him simply because he won't surrender. Letting him go isn't an option. But Awlaki and bin Laden were not on US soil, so we don't guarantee thier rights. The obligation of defending the due-process rights of all people is not there, based on territory. We do like to protect the rights of citizens abroad through our embassies and whatnot, though I don't think we have a Constitutional obligation to do so. And this man is a member of an organization we are at war with. So, why do we want to? I think we have a right to be passive about Americans' rights abroad. What's left is why we're justified in being aggressive in violating due process rights. Again, he's a declared enemy of the state. And, we don't have extra-territorial rights to go and make an arrest. That would be as much an offense against Yemen's soveriegnty as dropping a bomb. Nor can we safely bring police in to forcibly arrest him. Given that we have no obligation nor interest to protect his rights in Yemen, but we do have an obligation to use all necessary force to apprehend him, and have no safe way of capturing him alive, dropping a bomb on him seems like the most justifiable course of action.
