US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[Thanas]

I'm not speaking from the perspective of the Supreme court and its decisions in the modern era. I'm speculating on how the "founding fathers" might see it. I don't know exactly how they would view a citizen striking at his home country from abroad, but I highly doubt they would have a problem ordering soldiers to kill that person should they encounter him, barring an immediate surrender of course.

Did you freaking read the article? It deals exactly with that and shows why the founding fathers did not do that. Really, you are making a legal argument here and you are going up against the highest authority of law in the United States. This is really quite arrogant of you, deciding you have a better grasp on legal history than people like Scalia and Stevens....

The Whiskey Rebellion showed that the founders were willing to use force to suppress insurrection. Later the Nullification Crisis of 1832 also held the threat of militay action against U.S. citizens. Granted, both before any major fighting broke out, however the Civil war later showed that citizens who took up arms against the U.S. government were subject to being killed by the army.

However, not a single person was shot that did not actively resist. And I must have missed the part where during the Whiskey Rebellion Washington decided to just hang guys without trial. Your examples do not match this situation.

Again, I'm not saying the guy should be summarily executed if he is captured. However as long as he is free and fighting against the United States, he is a legitimate target for the military. Should he surrender, then he should be tried with all the rights and privelleges afforded to him under the constitution.

What attempt to capture him was made in that situation? Because until there was one, you can pretty much forget this argument.

[Broomstick]

I'm not speaking from the perspective of the Supreme court and its decisions in the modern era. I'm speculating on how the "founding fathers" might see it. I don't know exactly how they would view a citizen striking at his home country from abroad, but I highly doubt they would have a problem ordering soldiers to kill that person should they encounter him, barring an immediate surrender of course.

When you put it that way, I'm pretty sure they'd see it as treason, which is one of the few crimes specifically mentioned in the constitution, with the specifically mentioned penalty of death. The question I think is whether they would insist such a person be tried first, or if they would condone an extrajudicial killing. My suspicion is that they would not be unanimous in making a choice on that one.

However, we are living in the 21st Century, not the 18th, and those same people who formed the US also made it a point to include mechanisms to change the government, laws, and even constitution to account for changing conditions. So perhaps we should determine the rightness or wrongness of this sort of action in a 21st Century context, which might well be what those founder guys would tell us had we the ability to ask them. Or maybe not. We can never know, so let's figure out what's right on our own since that's what we'll have to do anyway.

[Uraniun235]

When you put it that way, I'm pretty sure they'd see it as treason, which is one of the few crimes specifically mentioned in the constitution, with the specifically mentioned penalty of death.

The Constitution does not specify a punishment for treason; it leaves that for Congress to decide.

[Akhlut]

Honestly, I doubt the "founding fathers" would have the same moral dilema that seems to plague the people today. After all, they did engage in warfare themselves. If they found someone to be a blatantly and openly an enemy of their government, such as al-Awlaki, I don't think they'd have any problem whatsoever ordering him killed.

Considering that group was composed of racists and rapists and a number of them were okay with de facto theft of land from sovereign nations, I don't know how much weight I'd give to them anyway with regards to human rights in the 21st century.

And to me, the idea that we just let him continue to run around the desert because we are unable to capture him is ridiculous. He know's he's a wanted man, if he wants to stand trial he should turn himself in. If he doesn't, and he's killed, then so be it.

So, if someone is trying to evade capture, it is okay to have them assassinated? That's a train of thought that leads to enormous problems very quickly.

[Broomstick]

Considering that group was composed of racists and rapists and a number of them were okay with de facto theft of land from sovereign nations, I don't know how much weight I'd give to them anyway with regards to human rights in the 21st century.

Don't forget the smuggling bit. Let's just say they weren't the most honest and upright crew of characters - which may have been a good thing, as more honest men may have trusted too much to good men to act properly and there were would be fewer protections for citizens than there are.

Anyhow, if we're going to drag the constitution into this let's see how treason is defined:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Hmm, well, I think the actions of Anwar al-Awlaki might reasonably fit under that. Now the only problem is finding witnesses willing to testify...

But yes, you are correct, it is not the constitution that specifies the penalty for treason. On the other hand, given 18th Century ideas about proper means of execution I'm not sure I'd want someone from that era getting too specific about it. I think there were still examples of people being hung, drawn, and quartered into the 1830's or so, which even most death penalty proponents these days would find horrific and unacceptable.

[TheHammer]

I'm not speaking from the perspective of the Supreme court and its decisions in the modern era. I'm speculating on how the "founding fathers" might see it. I don't know exactly how they would view a citizen striking at his home country from abroad, but I highly doubt they would have a problem ordering soldiers to kill that person should they encounter him, barring an immediate surrender of course.

Did you freaking read the article? It deals exactly with that and shows why the founding fathers did not do that. Really, you are making a legal argument here and you are going up against the highest authority of law in the United States. This is really quite arrogant of you, deciding you have a better grasp on legal history than people like Scalia and Stevens....

The cirucmstances were totally different. The Scalia quote pertained to a person already in custody - not one still actively fighting against U.S. authorities. I've already acknowledged that should al-Awlaki surrender, or be captured he should be afforded full constitutional protections. However, he's too busy calling for Muslims around the world to kill Americans.

The Whiskey Rebellion showed that the founders were willing to use force to suppress insurrection. Later the Nullification Crisis of 1832 also held the threat of militay action against U.S. citizens. Granted, both before any major fighting broke out, however the Civil war later showed that citizens who took up arms against the U.S. government were subject to being killed by the army.

However, not a single person was shot that did not actively resist. And I must have missed the part where during the Whiskey Rebellion Washington decided to just hang guys without trial. Your examples do not match this situation.

The point was that insurrection against the government was responded to by force. Unless you are seriously going to argue that al-Awlaki's actions do not constitute "active resistance", I think they very much apply.

As far as your quip about "hanging without trial", in order to "hang" someone you have to have them in your custody. And, as I said earlier should al-Awlaki be taken into custody he should be given a trial for his crimes. Right now however, he is a free and active threat and should be dealt with accordinly.

Again, I'm not saying the guy should be summarily executed if he is captured. However as long as he is free and fighting against the United States, he is a legitimate target for the military. Should he surrender, then he should be tried with all the rights and privelleges afforded to him under the constitution.

What attempt to capture him was made in that situation? Because until there was one, you can pretty much forget this argument.

I'm going to assume that capture wasn't a realistic option at that point. If that were possible, I think they would have tried because he potentially has lots of intel we'd find useful. In Lieu of that, denying Al Qaeda one of its leaders and chief propogandists is a good second option.

[TheHammer]

Honestly, I doubt the "founding fathers" would have the same moral dilema that seems to plague the people today. After all, they did engage in warfare themselves. If they found someone to be a blatantly and openly an enemy of their government, such as al-Awlaki, I don't think they'd have any problem whatsoever ordering him killed.

Considering that group was composed of racists and rapists and a number of them were okay with de facto theft of land from sovereign nations, I don't know how much weight I'd give to them anyway with regards to human rights in the 21st century.

The only reason I bring it up is because of the attempt to use lack of specific language in the constitution as a loophole (such as "provides no exception for war"). My argument is that the reason certain language doesn't exist is because the idea of affording such protections to someone actively fighting against the nation probably seemed ludicrous.

And to me, the idea that we just let him continue to run around the desert because we are unable to capture him is ridiculous. He know's he's a wanted man, if he wants to stand trial he should turn himself in. If he doesn't, and he's killed, then so be it.

So, if someone is trying to evade capture, it is okay to have them assassinated? That's a train of thought that leads to enormous problems very quickly.

He's not only trying to evade capture, he's actively working as a leader in a terrorist organization who is responsible for attacks against the U.S. citizens. To draw from domestic law, deadly force against dangerous fugitives is considered justified when there is significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. And I'd say you could credibly argue that al-Awlaki poses such a threat.

[Serafina]

He's not only trying to evade capture, he's actively working as a leader in a terrorist organization who is responsible for attacks against the U.S. citizens. To draw from domestic law, deadly force against dangerous fugitives is considered justified when there is significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. And I'd say you could credibly argue that al-Awlaki poses such a threat.

How does that in ANY WAY differ from any member of any criminal gang, or even criminals working on their own?

A common criminal with a record of violence is clearly a potential threat to the life of other US-citizens. According to your logic, that justifies assassinating him instead of trying to apprehend him.
A member of a criminal organization is clearly planning to inflict further harm upon the United States. According to your logic, that justifies assassinating him instead of trying to apprehend him.
Practically no criminal is a fugitive. According to your logic, if there is a chance of him doing anything bad ever again, that justifies assassinating him instead of trying to apprehend him.

You see the logic here? Your own definition is incapable of differentiating between this case and any other criminal case. According to your own argument, any violent person should be shot on sight unless that person immediately goes to a police station to be put into custody.
Domestic terrorists have been tried like any other criminal in the USA. I fail to see why this can not be done with foreign terrorists as well (and in this case, he is not even foreign!). You might have to resort to specialists forces to apprehend him (the military instead of SWAT-teams in this case), but that does not contain any justification to ignore the very basics of law.

[Thanas]

The cirucmstances were totally different. The Scalia quote pertained to a person already in custody - not one still actively fighting against U.S. authorities. I've already acknowledged that should al-Awlaki surrender, or be captured he should be afforded full constitutional protections. However, he's too busy calling for Muslims around the world to kill Americans.

So evading arrest and continuing with a criminal activity = now license to be shot on sight by the order of the President? Really now? That is a huuge stretch.

The point was that insurrection against the government was responded to by force. Unless you are seriously going to argue that al-Awlaki's actions do not constitute "active resistance", I think they very much apply.

Ah, so if I for example take over a ghetto neighbourhood and surround myself with armed thugs while continuing to order hits and sell drugs, that automatically makes me a valid target for the US Air Force to come and flatten my neighbourhood?

Because that is the situation you are arguing about here. No, actually it is even worse. A criminal may have an arrest warrant issued by a judge. Which judge has signed off on this assassination order?

[TheHammer]

He's not only trying to evade capture, he's actively working as a leader in a terrorist organization who is responsible for attacks against the U.S. citizens. To draw from domestic law, deadly force against dangerous fugitives is considered justified when there is significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. And I'd say you could credibly argue that al-Awlaki poses such a threat.

How does that in ANY WAY differ from any member of any criminal gang, or even criminals working on their own?

First of all, there is a massive difference in scope from your average gang banger and leader of a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda. Second, al-Awlaki is actively engaged in terrorist activities. For that reason, he represents a significant threat. Third, his ability to be captured is not the same as your "common criminal" given that he's hiding in remote areas.

A common criminal with a record of violence is clearly a potential threat to the life of other US-citizens. According to your logic, that justifies assassinating him instead of trying to apprehend him.

It depends on the level of violence. In this case, that level is extremely high.

A member of a criminal organization is clearly planning to inflict further harm upon the United States. According to your logic, that justifies assassinating him instead of trying to apprehend him.

In this case that is almost certainly true. So, yes I think that justifies killing him if you are unable to capture him and if he is unwilling to surrender. Same as you would an enemy soldier operating under the same circumstances.

Practically no criminal is a fugitive. According to your logic, if there is a chance of him doing anything bad ever again, that justifies assassinating him instead of trying to apprehend him.

Don't drag me down your slippery slope. In this particular case, it is HIGHLY LIKELY he is going to be doing bad things as long as he is living and free. I refuse to apply a one size fits all mentality to this situation.

You see the logic here? Your own definition is incapable of differentiating between this case and any other criminal case. According to your own argument, any violent person should be shot on sight unless that person immediately goes to a police station to be put into custody.

I already cited precedent on the matter, as per the SCOTUS rulling in Tennessee v. Garner.

"when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others"

My question to you is, do you feel that al-Awlaki poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to others?

Domestic terrorists have been tried like any other criminal in the USA. I fail to see why this can not be done with foreign terrorists as well (and in this case, he is not even foreign!). You might have to resort to specialists forces to apprehend him (the military instead of SWAT-teams in this case), but that does not contain any justification to ignore the very basics of law.

Domestic terrorists are tried if they are captured. The same thing should happen with al-Awlaki, or any terrorist should they surrender to authorities, or be captured. Again, I'm sure the U.S. would love to take him alive to see what sort of intel they can gather. But as long as they are in active defiance, continuing to plot further terrorist attacks, they are legitimate targets.

[kaeneth]

I think it is a tough situation (sending people into Yemen to capture a US Citizen who is also a terrorist). Assassination of a US National on Foreign soil, if there had been something resembling due process, is acceptable. There needs to be a realistic limit on how far a government needs to go to police their own citizens or defend itself against aggression.

What I mean is:
Even if it leaks out...it isn't like he doesn't already know the US is gunning for him, considering his activities.

So:
A trial with at least some opportunity for the defendant to arrange for a lawyer.
It doesn't need to be open to the public BUT it needs a jury (You can just use federal employees, randomly selected, with the appropriate security clearances for all I care as long as there is at least a muslim. Considering muslims represent less than 10% of the population, you can't really expect them to find more than 1. Unanimous verdict, since it is a death sentence on conviction. That way, if it is just trumped up bullshit, one could theoretically argue that most of the jury is racist or whatever....but I doubt the muslim on the jury will vote guilty for that reason).
The person to be found guilty of Treason.
Assassination takes place.


I mean, is that really too much for us to expect for a US citizen? To have their constitutional rights protected as best as is realistically feasible?

[TheHammer]

The cirucmstances were totally different. The Scalia quote pertained to a person already in custody - not one still actively fighting against U.S. authorities. I've already acknowledged that should al-Awlaki surrender, or be captured he should be afforded full constitutional protections. However, he's too busy calling for Muslims around the world to kill Americans.

So evading arrest and continuing with a criminal activity = now license to be shot on sight by the order of the President? Really now? That is a huuge stretch.

I'm saying if you are actively leading a terrorist organization, promoting the killing of innocent civilians, while evading arrest in a foreign nation, your death on the orders of the President is justified. And if you are willing to surrender and face trial for your crimes, you should be afforded all due rights and privelleges.

The point was that insurrection against the government was responded to by force. Unless you are seriously going to argue that al-Awlaki's actions do not constitute "active resistance", I think they very much apply.

Ah, so if I for example take over a ghetto neighbourhood and surround myself with armed thugs while continuing to order hits and sell drugs, that automatically makes me a valid target for the US Air Force to come and flatten my neighbourhood?

The difference is in the ability to arrest these individuals.

In the example you cite, your neighborhood almost certainly would be surrounded and you'd be given the choice to surrender or fight it out. If you chose to fight it out, you'd certainly be on the recieving end of deadly force. If you managed to escape in a car, then the use of firepower to disable or destroy that car would be justified.

If we were able to corner al-Awlaki in the same way, he'd be given the same choice. Can you think of a good reason why we wouldn't want to capture someone like al-Awlaki if we could? As noted, he could be invaluable for the intel. However, for reasons cited that's not likely to happen.

Because that is the situation you are arguing about here. No, actually it is even worse. A criminal may have an arrest warrant issued by a judge. Which judge has signed off on this assassination order?

What judge ever signs off on the killing of an enemy on the battlefield? You are trying to equate this to a criminal proceeding when it doesn't really apply. This person is on foreign soil, actively plotting attacks on the U.S., in areas that are tough for us to reach in such a manner as to effect his capture. That limits our options in many respects. However, that doesn't change the fact that he is a legitimate target.

[Broomstick]

I would like to point out that the extra-judicial killing of US citizens is not unprecedented. For example, Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down in an ambush without any form of warning or request to surrender given. (Every member of the 6 man posse had a fully automatic gun, shotgun, and pistol, and reputedly they emptied all of them at the two people in the car. The undertaker that prepared the bodies for burial had trouble with the embalming because the two were so full of holes the embalming fluid kept leaking out Yes, that could be called an execution. Or overkill.) I should also point out this was after many prior attempts at capture, at least 14 murders by the pair, and their demonstrated willingness to shoot their way out of just about anything (some of those 14 were police officers attempting to arrest them).

So, those of you saying that the US should treat someone like al-Awlaki as a criminal well, there is precedent (for better or worse) of sending people to eliminate particularly hard to capture, particularly dangerous criminals rather than attempt to bring them in alive. There really aren't that many confirmed instances of such activities, so one could argue they're an aberration that shouldn't be repeated. On the other hand, it's reserved for exceptional criminals. Is al-Awlaki such a criminal? And if he is, would that or wouldn't that justify killing him rather than capturing him?

I guess a logical question would be where the line is drawn, or how does one determine when such an exception is justified - so those of you who feel the US is justified in simply killing al-Awlaki rather than attempting to bring him to trial might want to explain how and when such extreme measures are justified.

[Samuel]

Also the case of John Dilinger is similar. The saw him, he ran and then they gunned him down.

[Simon_Jester]

One key issue- what were the legal warrants out for Dillinger's arrest? And Bonnie and Clyde?

Compare that to al-Awlaki: how much actual legal evidence is there against him, has he been charged with a crime? Is there a warrant for his arrest, and has this been put to the Yemeni government for extradition? What do they have to say about all this?

Or has al-Awlaki been marked for death purely on the strength of the administration's say-so? Because it really isn't their place to make that decision about American citizens

[Broomstick]

One key issue- what were the legal warrants out for Dillinger's arrest? And Bonnie and Clyde?

There were arrest warrants out for all of the above, but no one had been able to arrest them.

Dillinger was notorious, but Bonnie and Clyde were actually far more ruthless, having killed about many, many more people if I recall correctly.

At least Bonnie and Clyde were taken down in a relatively remote area. Dillinger was gunned down in front of the Biograph theater, as the crowd left the most recent movie showing. He actually ran instead of trying to confront the police, and was shot several times in the back. Several bystanders were injured from flying debris.

I don't know if there's even an arrest warrant out for al-Awlaki. He has been tied to various terrorist activities and individuals, but those links have never been proven in a court of law.

[Simon_Jester]

That is, I think, important. While Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde's killings were not formal executions, they were not extrajudicial: they were killed in the context of an arrest attempt that failed (Dillinger), or in the context of repeated attempts to serve a warrant for their arrest which had failed (Bonnie and Clyde). Courts of law had reviewed their cases and issued formal documents which justified the use of force to detain them- or to stop them from escaping.

I'm not at all clear on whether the courts have even touched al-Awlaki's case.

[Broomstick]

Ah... no. The day Bonnie and Clyde died no one was attempting to arrest them. Those six men went there with the sole and express purpose of killing those two. Then never even got near to the car until the shooting was done, they made zero attempt to speak with them. As soon as they were sure who it was six automatic rifles opened fire.

It was even more of an execution than the bin Laden raid, where if bin Laden had given up (presumably, hands in the air screaming "I surrender", or something equally obvious) they would have taken him alive. The six who killed Bonnie and Clyde where there for just one thing - to kill them. They had neither intention nor desire to take them alive.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah... no. The day Bonnie and Clyde died no one was attempting to arrest them. Those six men went there with the sole and express purpose of killing those two. Then never even got near to the car until the shooting was done, they made zero attempt to speak with them. As soon as they were sure who it was six automatic rifles opened fire.

In the context of, I said. The police had already tried, and failed, to arrest them, repeatedly, because of their habit of shooting police. This gave everyone involved good reason to believe that they could not be taken alive.

Moreover, Bonnie and Clyde were wanted for well defined crimes, and had been the subject of warrants from various courts of law.

That's why I don't call it "extrajudicial" in the same sense that the attempt on al-Awlaki's life is: because so far as I know, al-Awlaki is not charged with any crime, and there is no warrant out for his arrest.

[Zinegata]

Is the guy still a US citizen at all? In terms of official paperwork, he's a citizen. But in practical terms, can he still be counted as one?

In fact, note that I haven't actually seen any media outlet refer to him as an American citizen. Just that he was American-born.

That's a pretty large legal distinction. You can, after all, renounce citizenship. And even if he hasn't actually filed the requisite paperwork, declaring jihad against America pretty much sounds like renouncing citizenship to me. Especially since he's hiding in foreign soil.

[Sarevok]

How can we be sure what the US media is saying about him true ? I am just an inter forum poster and not an investigator. But I could not find anything incriminating stated by Anwar. He seems like your typical highly educated islamic scholar. They tend to have strong personal opinions about how US is acting. But how does disliking US foreign policy justify killing a man ?

[Simon_Jester]

That's a pretty large legal distinction. You can, after all, renounce citizenship. And even if he hasn't actually filed the requisite paperwork, declaring jihad against America pretty much sounds like renouncing citizenship to me. Especially since he's hiding in foreign soil.

Nope.

Living on foreign soil doesn't make you a non-citizen. Nor does saying bad things about America. If there's evidence he's actually organizing terrorist attacks against the US or something, then maybe you could make the case... but if there was evidence of that it would belong in a court.

[Zinegata]

Disliking US foreign policy is quite a bit different from issuing a jihad against America, including the murder of its citizens "without hesitation" :p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

In March 2010, al‑Awlaki said in a videotape that jihad against America was binding upon every able Muslim...

...In a video posted to the internet in November 2010, al-Awlaki called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans “without hesitation”, and overthrow Arab leaders

In short, Al-Awlaki isn't somebody with a mere policy disagreement with the US government. These aren't Michale Moore "I hate America for XYZ" sort of free speech. His statements are in fact already on a similar level as Bin Laden's DoW on the US.

And no evidence? WTF? Didn't some people here even bother to at least check Wikipedia at the very minimum?

These facts - plus the fact that he's hiding in a foreign country instead of manning up to the charges as any responsible citizen should and STILL continues to issue statements declaring war on the US and encourage the murder of US citizens - really seems to make clear that this person has by defacto renounced his citizenship, and it would be pretty close to asinine to treat him as one just because he didn't actually fill out the requisite forms.

[Edi]

Disliking US foreign policy is quite a bit different from issuing a jihad against America, including the murder of its citizens "without hesitation" :p.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

In March 2010, al‑Awlaki said in a videotape that jihad against America was binding upon every able Muslim...

...In a video posted to the internet in November 2010, al-Awlaki called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans “without hesitation”, and overthrow Arab leaders

In short, Al-Awlaki isn't somebody with a mere policy disagreement with the US government. These aren't Michale Moore "I hate America for XYZ" sort of free speech. His statements are in fact already on a similar level as Bin Laden's DoW on the US.

And no evidence? WTF? Didn't some people here even bother to at least check Wikipedia at the very minimum?

These facts - plus the fact that he's hiding in a foreign country instead of manning up to the charges as any responsible citizen should and STILL continues to issue statements declaring war on the US and encourage the murder of US citizens - really seems to make clear that this person has by defacto renounced his citizenship, and it would be pretty close to asinine to treat him as one just because he didn't actually fill out the requisite forms.

Then go through the forms and strip him of his citizenship if it's so goddamn obvious. If this guy were on US soil and preaching these same things, he could simply go "1st amendment" and he would have a legal argument as far as free speech was concerned. If anyone acted on those words at his behest, then he would be party to instigation of whatever crimes resulted. If that's not possible, then here's a novel idea: Treat him like he was a common criminal, grant him the fucking due process and capture him, wait for him to be captured and then deal with him through the courts. This concept is NOT difficult.

I'm really tired of the troglodyte faction simply stating their preference for stripping [insert bad guy] of all rights without any judicial oversight or review or even pretense to due process. If I had my way, anyone advocating that sort of shit should have the same happen to them so they could learn firsthand why it's a bad idea.

[Simon_Jester]

It disturbs me more to see nations do this to their own citizens, as well- it's much easier to draw a bright line between "assassinate foreign leader of organization attacking my country" and "assassinate private citizen of my country" than to draw lines within the category of "assassinate private citizen of my country."

Looking at al-Awlaki, I think anyone will have to ask: Just how radical, how anti-American, does a man have to be to get the administration to try and write a death warrant for him? How much actual effect does he need to have- is it enough that he says such things, with all the consequences for freedom of speech that that implies, or does there need to be evidence that he incited attacks? If we're going to define "gives speeches" as an activity that can constitute waging war against the US, which speeches are acts of war and which are just, well... speech?