Assassination of Americans

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I see Paul's point that the President should consider due process, ...

According to the Constitution, due process does not apply in some circumstances.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. [Emphasis mine.]

[jwoodswce 0]

There is an important fact missing from this discussion...al-Awlaki did have his day in court.

His father with the support and resources of the ACLU sued in federal court. The judge ruled that the President was acting within his political discretion.

In the case of al-Awlaki, justice was done; however, on the general question, I do think that the Congress, including certain Republican presidential candidates who talk more than pass legislation, failed to act to create a statutory framework to insure the protection of rights in cases of evident traitorous terrorists. Was it procedurally easier for the President to sign al-Awlaki's death warrant than to tap his phone?

I write a bit more about this in a recent post, with a link to a relevant article in the Washington Post:

Obama Kills an American Traitor http://jimwoods.thinkertothinker.com/2011/...erican-traitor/

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Here is a thought to think about. From -A Man For All Seasons-

ruveyn

[Arnold 0]

Of course we could decide to put every enemy combatant on trial before opening fire on him. After all, he may be an innocent draftee.

That would make more sense than doing the same for a man (citizen or not) who has openly declared war on us. To my mind, once hostilities are declared, let alone carried out, the right of self defence applies.

It's not as if a case for doubt exists here, as in some criminal case. This is war and civilian trials are not appropriate. The law that stands here is the law of self defence, and all that needs to be proved is that the target is an attacker. Make a preemptive strike if you have to, and don't endanger your soldiers for some supposed rights of the enemy target.

[Steerpike 0]

He would be classed as an enemy combatant in these circumstances, therefore eligible for smiting. Al-Awaki was in a foreign country of his own volition and voluntarily joined a militant group. He was not on US soil and was not under the jurisdiction of the US government.

As argument, the Russian constitution does not apply, here, so why should the United States Constitution apply to people, there? Being a Russian citizen in the US does not mean you carry the "protections" of the Russian constitution around with you, wherever you go, just as living in Russia does not leave an American covered by our own Constitution. The law you are (or are not) protected by is the law of whatever land you are in. In Al-Awaki's case the law of warfare was applied to him. Good riddance.

[Paul's Here 0]

He would be classed as an enemy combatant in these circumstances, therefore eligible for smiting. Al-Awaki was in a foreign country of his own volition and voluntarily joined a militant group. He was not on US soil and was not under the jurisdiction of the US government.

As argument, the Russian constitution does not apply, here, so why should the United States Constitution apply to people, there? Being a Russian citizen in the US does not mean you carry the "protections" of the Russian constitution around with you, wherever you go, just as living in Russia does not leave an American covered by our own Constitution. The law you are (or are not) protected by is the law of whatever land you are in. In Al-Awaki's case the law of warfare was applied to him. Good riddance.

But that is not the application here. We are not talking about the American government arresting a Russian who violated the law while in America. We are talking about the Russian government assassinating a Russian citizen here in America. I am not objecting as such to doing such at thing, only that appropriate, objective, and legal procedures and processes be followed. I would not want the President deciding on his own that I am a threat while I visit a foreign country and then send assassins after me.

[JohnRgt 0]

Wasn't this guy on the most wanted/terrorist list? If the standard of proof for making such lists were high enough . . .

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Congress has long since granted the President the power of Marque and Reprisal. In matters of war, as long as Congress funds it, the President can do what he will.

ruveyn

[Steerpike 0]

Picking nits when the point is the constitution of one Country does not apply in another country...our Constitution does not apply to enemy combatants, period. The Constitution is not a suicide pact whereby we must extend all its protections to enemy combatants all over the world. Many are trying to make this seem like some sinister first step towards gunning down someone in Main Street, USA. There are clearly defined rules of land warfare and this chap met the criteria. Al-Awaki was fighting a war, he believed it and so did we. As I said good riddance.