Thought I'd share this, as it pertains to the topic. GOP Lifer is one of my favorite columnists even though I'm a raging liberal, and I think he summarizes the concern many feel about the killing of al-Awlaki. Who Should the President Kill? The crux of the issue is not whether the executive branch should ever authorize the assassination of someone who poses a risk to the US and its citizens. The issue is how the President makes the determination that someone is worthy of assassination. The existing laws have left a procedural vacuum, which makes it more likely that the "assassination privilege" could be abused. We've been lucky that the last 2 presidents haven't abused it (as far as I know), but it certainly could be in the future. And with such a vacuum in place, how can we hold anyone accountable if the decision to assassinate turns out to be faulty or (worst case scenario) malicious? Furthermore, it's easy to say that we'll hold the President accountable if he abuses his power, but what consolation will that be to someone who has lost their loved one (either as a target or as collateral damage) to an assassination order? I don't think Obama should be impeached for this, but I hope it opens a substantial conversation on what procedures could be put in place to "check-and-balance" this privilege.
Under legality, those guys joined and enlisted in German armies, whereas this guy never actually formally enlisted in a foreign army or actuallly pick up a gun and fight, although the argument can and has been made that by vocally denouncing the US and calling for jihad that he in fact did become an enemy of the state and his right to free speech crossed the line. I think what irks people the most here, is the whole idea that the president can simply order someone dead, simply because they're branded as terrorists. There is the concern that something like this could easily evolve into a practice of assasinating critics or dissenters of the president or the US government in general.
That seems to me to be a really shaky legal question, and a dumb justification. As far as I know, Al Qaeda doesn't keep membership records, and terrorist organizations frequently change their claims whether they're part of Al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki definitely supported terrorist groups. We know that. As far as I know, though, those terrorists were concentrating on attacking the Yemeni government. The Obama administration claims that they have more on him, but they haven't divulged that. It's obviously a different era, but I wonder what the people who are supporting this would have done if Reagan had bombed a church to kill an anti-American priest who supported the IRA. I totally support American assasinations of people (the citizenship argument is irrelevant to me) who are making war against the United States. I don't support American assasinations against people who are making war against Yemen.
I don't really have a problem with this any more than I have a problem with that fact executive orders exist, even though that also has plenty of potential for abuse. Sure, it's possible that a future President may go willy-nilly with drones, but it's not something that I anticipate to be a major concern as long as Americans remain politically active. Besides, what about other American traitors? Like I said in another thread, what if we had had the option to take out Robert E. Lee or Benedict Arnold with commandos? No one would complain, and I don't see a major difference between the two.
So we are dealing with "What ifs" or hypotheticals? If that were to be happening, then there would be a problem, this guy was an enemy combatant - he had a chance to turn himself in. DD
You might not agree with it but that is the standard of the Authorization of Force as spelled out by Congress in the wake of 9/11. Keep in mind I am not fully supporting this only arguing the legal issues of it. I agree this is a slippery slope and one that is potentially subject for abuse. In the case of someone like Awlaki I will admit to some ambivalence regarding him. I'm not going to weep for him but there is something troubling about an official assassination program. I raised some similar concerns when Osama Bin Ladin was killed. Regarding your specific example that is not directly relevant since the US never had an authorization for the use of force against the IRA. I am not even clear that the US had even officially designated the IRA as a terrorist organization. This might be an interesting question when applied to the British who went after IRA members who were British citizens. To my knowledge and the Brits credit they didn't run an assassination program, but did operate heavy handed against the IRA members, and currently against Islamic extremist, that side stepped previous British commitment to due process. Keep in mind that the government of Yemen is an allied power and the US generally considers enemies of allies enemies also. I don't know if there is a treaty that compels that in regard to Yemen but I can see a legal argument that would classify Awlaki as an enemy for acts against a US ally and also for collusion with people directly attacking the US.
I understand the guys reasoning but I am wondering how loud were the voices of people going by monikers like "GOPforLife" about the excess of executive power from 2001 to 2011?
Normally, I'd agree, but this guy has been very consistent in his reasoning since he started blogging. He's one of the few moderate Republicans left, and while I don't agree with him on most policy issues, he always makes a logical point.
in his past blog articles, has he consistently been reasoning against The Authorization to Use of Military Force Against Terrorists?
He was a natural born American Citizen who preached and advocated violence against his nation. This was his right as an American citizen. They could not legally revoke his citizenship, they could not try him for treason how ever they were able to go around The Constitution and kill him. They say The Constitution is a living and breathing document, I say it is now dead. Both Bush and Obama did something way worse than Bill Clinton who actually got impeached. Just because the President says someone is a terrorist doesn't mean he is. The office of the president says they have evidence to prove it. If they did why didn't they prove it in a court of law? Slippery Slope and not the direction we should be heading. Which happens to be the same direction GWB was heading so much for change.
the last president authorized torture and lied us into a war which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. he didnt get impeached. i think obama will be ok.
For the sake of accuracy a couple of things need to be addressed. It is not an American's right to advocate violence against the nation. That is in fact a crime, and is not protected by the constitution. The rest of it is just me having a different opinion on the matter than you. The guy openly joined an organization involved in military action against the United States. The United States as part of it's military action against the organization killed one of the organization's members who happened to have been a citizen. You may feel that's against the constitution. I don't.
Hypothetically speaking of course since I believe that it is protected by the first amendment, but let's suppose it is a crime, as an American citizen he is granted certain rights one of them being due process, and more than anything that is where my problem lies. I don't like the President being the Judge, Jury, and the Executioner. This coming from a guy who voted for Obama. At least Bush took the time to present bad evidence to invade Iraq. Obama just says trust me. I don't. We found Bin Laden in his house had every opportunity to take him in and haul his ass to court, don't tell me we couldn't do the same for Awlaki. Then we can let the courts decide if he had operational role in AQAP and if he didn't we can decide if it was protected speech.
Nothing, that is the point, once you join the other side in a war, you are fair game to be targeted, US citizen or not. DD
Well that bat $hit crazy dude with the model airplanes and fake C4 was obviously a terrorist. We shoulda popped a cap in his a$$. But seriously, I don't care that this dude is dead but I do worry about who might be considered a terrorist. Once the precedent is set that the POTUS can order someone killed and the public knows it, things change. I am not naive enough to think our government doesn't kill people but I don't like the fact that this was done publicly and our President claimed responsibility for it. Why? This is something the terrorists would do. Kill the guy quietly and leak that it happened somehow.
If it was strictly a criminal matter than yes the govt. shouldn't be allowed to act as judge jury and executioner. However once a citizen takes up residence and joins with a group that is actively militarily involved against the US then it is acceptable to take military action against that group including any US citizen who is active with them. Yes American citizens are granted the right to trial by jury, but that doesn't preclude taking military action against them when they join groups militarily opposed to the US.
I don't think we do need to know. I don't think we assassinated him because he committed crimes nor because he is at war with us, but because we are at war with him. As a member of AQ, we've defined him as an enemy of the state, and a legitimate target. I don't see that it matters if he was operational or his operations targeted the US or whatever. If we've authorized force against terrorism, identify AQAP as an agent of terrorism, and identified Awlaki as a member of AQAP, then you're done. We haven't proven that AQAP is guilty of terrorism beyond a reasonable doubt nor that Awlaki has knowingly engaged in terrorism with AQAP beyond a reasonable doubt because we're not punishing a crime but waging a war. I don't think this makes much sense. We never issued a warrant for his arrest or leveled criminal charges against him. So, what process would even request his surrender? Any surrender would be a military surrender, because no criminal process was even started against him. When we were shooting Nazi soldiers, we didn't bother checking their papers to see which ones were US citizens and whether they had formally enlisted in the German army. If they wore the uniform that was probably evidence enough to start blasting. Likewise, Awlaki's affiliation with terrorist groups is probably sufficiently evident that we can feel free to treat him the same way. If Awlaki wasn't the target, but instead it was some Yemeni terrorist sitting next to him in the SUV, and Awlaki ended up dead as collateral damage, did we still violate his civil rights? But, in the end, I can and do agree with you and subatomic and others that this whole authority to assassinate is a little too loosy-goosey and could use some rules.
