US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[PeZook]

The entire problem with this policy is lack of due process ; There is such a thing as a trial in absentia. Not an ideal way to satisfy due process, but better than "Oh yeah kill this guy if you get the chance, here's my signature".

Why? Because a trial in absentia at least tries to ascertain guilt, and presumably in a country like the US it will make at least a token effort to examine the evidence. If the President can just sign off on a kill order, it elliminates any precautions against murdering an innocent man. If you are going to assassinate your own citizens, at least try to make sure they are guilty. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a farce and your President gets even more discretionary powers to add to his already impressive collection.

Besides, the US had already engaged in kidnapping of foreign citizens they accused of terrorism, yet when it comes to abducting ACTUAL TERRORISTS, it suddenly becomes unfeasible to do so, which I find extremely hilarious. I guess that's because German police won't just summarily execute your diplomats CIA snatch team while they can actually get killed when going after al-Awlaki, so fuck this let's just ignore all pretenses and murder him, yeah.

Even the fucking partisans fighting in WWII had underground courts hand out death warrants, rather than administratively deciding "Oh let's knock this one off, he's been pretty bad.", and they had to work in deep conspiracy under occupation by enemy forces.

[Terralthra]

Trials in absentia are just as unconstitutional as anything else discussed here. It violates due process, the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments.

[PeZook]

Trials in absentia are just as unconstitutional as anything else discussed here. It violates due process, the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments.

It's still way better than outright murder, even if illegal it at least maintains some of the precautions against problems with administratively issued death sentences. The fact the US doesn't even bother to go through that pretense is very telling.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

I agree. That is important, and valid warrants should be issued for his arrest and if they don't exist then issuing even just a capture order is wrong.

[Zinegata]

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.

First of all, again, it's pretty outright misdirection to claim that the guy is just practicing 1st Amendment. He did call for a jihad against America. He did call for the murder of US citizens. This is almost exactly the same type of shit Osama Bin Laden did and it's one of the justifications for killing Osama.

Secondly, I cannot "renounce" his citizenship for him. Neither can the US government. But can he still be considered a US citizen given that he clearly doesn't even want the US to exist anymore? Was Benedict Arnold's citizenship stripped from him? What's the precedents? Others have at least attempted to answer this question while you instead engaged in stupid strawman.

That's the question. I'm not saying the US should strip him of his citizenship. I am asking whether or not his actions are sufficient cause to say that "He is not in any way or form an actual citizen of the United States."

So really, stop fucking lying.

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.

So scream at the top of your lungs in the Osama thread. That was pretty much an extra-judicial killing too. No trial. No jury.

Because I'm not pointing out that the rights should be stripped. I'm pointing out that since this guy has issued a DoW on the US too - just like Osama - and is hiding in a foreign country - just like Osama - why should you even bother continue pretending the guy is a US citizen?

Because his daddy insists it's all a CIA trick? And yet he won't just give himself up to both US and Yemeni authorities?

The closest answer I've gotten is that "there shouldn't be no due process in ANY case." Which isn't a bad answer and I'm not questioning.

I'm really tired of the troglodyte faction who consistently mislabels anyone who comes within an inch of not following their precious "laws" and "due process" and yet when it's a popular extra-judicial killing, they're suddenly silent.

[PeZook]

That's the question. I'm not saying the US should strip him of his citizenship. I am asking whether or not his actions are sufficient cause to say that "He is not in any way or form an actual citizen of the United States."

So...you're not saying he should be stripped of his citizenship, but you're saying he should not be considered a citizen by the US government?

In other words...that he should be stripped of his citizenship!

Because I'm not pointing out that the rights should be stripped. I'm pointing out that since this guy has issued a DoW on the US too - just like Osama - and is hiding in a foreign country - just like Osama - why should you even bother continue pretending the guy is a US citizen?

Because in a civilized nation with rule of law you don't get (well, you SHOULDN'T get) to make this sort of decision as an administrative order. You are essentially saying that the guy should be stripped of all rights based on nothing more than the President saying so.

Is there any reason why you don't like the idea of a court making this decision based on evidence and law?

[Zinegata]

So...you're not saying he should be stripped of his citizenship, but you're saying he should not be considered a citizen by the US government?

In other words...that he should be stripped of his citizenship!

Nope, again, there's a difference between renouncing your citizenship and stripping someone of their citizenship.

Stripping someone of citizenship, as I already said, actually cannot be done by anyone as far as I know.

However... let's say Jon Doe goes on You Tube and says "I renounce my American citizenship" and moves to Canada. Even if he does not file the paperwork, does that in effect stop him from being a US citizen?

And has Al-Alwaki - because of the statements he has made - done something that would count as renouncing citizenship?

The closest answer I've gotten is that "No, that's handled under treason", while others were more focused on trying to cover up the fact that Al-Alwaki isn't just some "wise scholar" who disagrees with US policy, but somebody who has called for jihad against the US. And not just once. Repeatedly.

Because in a civilized nation with rule of law you don't get (well, you SHOULDN'T get) to make this sort of decision as an administrative order. You are essentially saying that the guy should be stripped of all rights based on nothing more than the President saying so.

Is there any reason why you don't like the idea of a court making this decision based on evidence and law?

No, I said it's actually okay. But if you're gonna be pissed off about this, then you should also be pissed off about Bin Laden as that was largely extra-judicial too and you shouldn't complain about some imaginary trogolodyte squad.

[PeZook]

Nope, again, there's a difference between renouncing your citizenship and stripping someone of their citizenship.

Stripping someone of citizenship, as I already said, actually cannot be done by anyone as far as I know.

Since al-Alwaki didn't outright state he renounces his citizenship, you would need to have an official court decision saying if his statements count. Hence if a court decided that yes it counts, then it's in effect stripping him of citizenship. What's the damn problem?

The key here is that you should take some effort to establish his status according to your own laws.

No, I said it's actually okay.

Ah. Very good, then.

But if you're gonna be pissed off about this, then you should also be pissed off about Bin Laden as that was largely extra-judicial too and you shouldn't complain about some imaginary trogolodyte squad.

Yeah, so? If I am not clearly and publically outraged at every single case of extrajudicial killing I don't get to criticize it, or what?

[Sarevok]

I have checked wikipedia article on him Zinnegeta and the evidence against him amounts to "he said she said" type. Anwar-Al-Alawki is a conservative. Nothing he says would be out of place if he were a republican / american conservative. He was quite an active blogger and youtube user and I could easily see his polar opposite fitting right into HPCA forums arguing about rise of islamo-facism...

I don't get the double standard at all, you got millions of Anwar-Al-Alawkis in every community in every country. He is not a threat to anyone. If he were involved in bomb making, plotting terrorist attacks or funding insurgents I could see why going after him would be justified. But he has not done any of that !

Is being an angry muslim blogger all that takes to get killed these days ?

[Zinegata]

PeZook->

I was responding to Edi's pointless outrage over non-existent troglodytes being pretty pointless. Not your stand that "all extra judicial killings are bad"

Saverok->

Again, please stop lying.

I already quoted the most relevant passages. There is no "he said she said" about it. He released videos encouraging jihad against the US, and murders against US citizens. That's not merely being an "angry Muslim blogger".

At the very minimum, that is directly inciting violence, which IS a crime. First Amendment doesn't protect people who cry "Fire!" in a crowded cinema after all. At worst, it's an Osama Bin Laden type of DoW on America. Which if you noticed he was recently shot to death for.

If you want to disprove that he said this, then prove that the videos are fabrications. Not that it was "he said she said", because there are actual fucking videos of him saying this.

And really, what you're doing is called "more bullshit", wherein you absolutely failed to actually quote anything from the actual article, and then attempted to present your opinion as fact. And your opinions boils down to "WAAAAH I hate REPUBLICANS AND THINK THEY ARE ON A CRUSADE TO DESTROY AMERICA. THEY'RE THE REAL TERRORISTS".

[Thanas]

I was going to reply to The Hammer more, but Edi, Pezook, Simon and Kamakazie have already made those arguments.

So I'll just restrict myself to one point only:
That the concept of preaching propaganda against the US (proven) and the concept of taking up arms and leading terrorist attacks (not proven) makes you a valid recipient of a kill order. This to me ignores both the definitions of the founding fathers as well as precedent. As Judge Scalia wrote:

Subjects accused of levying war against the King were routinely prosecuted for treason. . . . The Founders inherited the understanding that a citizen's levying war against the Government was to be punished criminally. The Constitution provides: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"; and establishes a heightened proof requirement (two witnesses) in order to "convic[t]" of that offense. Art. III, §3, cl. 1.

Note that this does not mean he cannot be killed if, say, he is firing a weapon at US troops in combat. But this was not combat. This was an attempt to kill someone when he was neither engaged in fighting nor shooting back.

Everything else requires a court of law.

[Serafina]

I already quoted the most relevant passages. There is no "he said she said" about it. He released videos encouraging jihad against the US, and murders against US citizens. That's not merely being an "angry Muslim blogger".

I agree that this can be constructed to be a crime. As such, that makes him a criminal who has to be convicted by a court of law!
There are plenty of people inciting all sorts of violence against other people, based on race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation and other factors. If "his speech incites violence" is a reason to assassinate someone without a trial, then you could start by killing a good portion of US-republicans who incite violence against Muslims. Or against Democracts or illegal immigrants or homosexuals.
Or perhaps muslim countries should do so, since those republicans incite violence against their populace. Would that be okay?

Again, your logic can be used to justify killing all sorts of other criminals - now even for crimes that may not even warrant jail-time!

[Zinegata]

<Pezook> Is there any reason why you don't like the idea of a court making this decision based on evidence and law?

<Zinegata> No, I said it's actually okay.

[Thanas]

Much more information about the background on the legal principles here and the hypocrisy of the democrats. Link.

[Broomstick]

Trials in absentia are just as unconstitutional as anything else discussed here. It violates due process, the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments.

It's still way better than outright murder, even if illegal it at least maintains some of the precautions against problems with administratively issued death sentences. The fact the US doesn't even bother to go through that pretense is very telling.

It's not just illegal in the US, it's unconstitutional. There is NO mechanism for trial in absentia in the US, it simply does not and can not exist under the US government. It's not that the US doesn't "bother", it can't. Well, alright, I suppose it could since, really, all sorts of unconstitutional things can and have happened, but because of the way the US judicial system is structured it just isn't going to happen.

Again, if such trials could occur they would have been performed for the likes Bonnie and Clyde, but nothing more than an arrest warrant could ever be issued.

As for stripping Al-Alawki of citizenship - so far as I know, the only way for someone born a US citizen to lose that citizenship is to renounce it formally. I don't think there's any mechanism to strip that citizenship from someone who has it by birth. Naturalized citizens have been stripped of US citizenship, but that was usually someone who obtained that citizenship under false pretenses, such as a Nazi war criminal who entered under false identity to obtain that citizenship, so fraud was involved. There's no fraud with Al-Alawki. Now, I've heard the occasional statement in media he has renounced his US citizenship (he was dual US and Yemeni by birth as I understand it) but I have no idea how reliable that information is.

[PeZook]

It's not just illegal in the US, it's unconstitutional. There is NO mechanism for trial in absentia in the US, it simply does not and can not exist under the US government. It's not that the US doesn't "bother", it can't. Well, alright, I suppose it could since, really, all sorts of unconstitutional things can and have happened, but because of the way the US judicial system is structured it just isn't going to happen.

And administratively deciding to assassinate a US citizen is constitutional?

Out of the two, I would prefer a trial in absentia for the reasons stated before - it's not really any more legal, but definitely more moral. If you don't have a framework for that, maybe your President should use his prerogatives and prove he cares about justice by proposing a proper bill/amendment?

Right now what he's doing doesn't even have the pretense of justice

[TheHammer]

I have checked wikipedia article on him Zinnegeta and the evidence against him amounts to "he said she said" type. Anwar-Al-Alawki is a conservative. Nothing he says would be out of place if he were a republican / american conservative. He was quite an active blogger and youtube user and I could easily see his polar opposite fitting right into HPCA forums arguing about rise of islamo-facism...

I don't get the double standard at all, you got millions of Anwar-Al-Alawkis in every community in every country. He is not a threat to anyone. If he were involved in bomb making, plotting terrorist attacks or funding insurgents I could see why going after him would be justified. But he has not done any of that !

Is being an angry muslim blogger all that takes to get killed these days ?

The question you have to ask yourself, is why single this guy out if he's just like "millions of others" in every community. Clearly he is more than an "angry muslim blogger" exercising 1st amendment rights. Just as Hitler was more than an angry Jew hating German author. He is an acknowledged member of Al Qaeda. In addition to being involved in the planning stages, he's the chief guy doing the recruiting and the brain washing for Al Qaeda. Dig a little further into it and you'll find he has been described as the primary influence for many terrorists to take up arms and fight (the wikipedia article on him sums them up neatly). Its not the guys making the bombs, or even the guys holding the AK47s that are the true threat. Those people can be dealt with. Its the guy who is bringing in more people to make more bombs and hold AK47s and convincing them that doing so assures their spot in paradise.

Now, don't get me wrong, if we can capture him when we have the opportunity, then we should. At that point he absolutely should face trial in a criminal court. Try the fuck out of him. See if he'll take a plea deal and give up all of his cohorts. However, if he can much more readily be killed and thus his role and importance in Al Qaeda severed, then that is what should be done.

Some have asked what Yemen thinks of all this. Well, according to wiki (and other sources) In November 2010, Yemen began trying al-Awlaki in absentia with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".. Given that we are trying to kill him in Yemen, and he has dual Yemeni and American citizenship, then that would make his death nice and legal does it not?

[Broomstick]

It's not just illegal in the US, it's unconstitutional. There is NO mechanism for trial in absentia in the US, it simply does not and can not exist under the US government. It's not that the US doesn't "bother", it can't. Well, alright, I suppose it could since, really, all sorts of unconstitutional things can and have happened, but because of the way the US judicial system is structured it just isn't going to happen.

And administratively deciding to assassinate a US citizen is constitutional?

No, but oddly enough, since the department of defense is set up to do cost/benefit analysis on different methods of dealing with an enemy, it might arguably be a morally better way to handle it, in that the review might be more dispassionate, more based on facts, and more likely to explore alternatives, than if it was sent to a blatantly illegal court. As I've mentioned, sheer cost of such operations will limit how often such extra-judicial killings are done. Compared to some of the clusterfucks other arms of government have created when attempting to "bring someone to justice" (Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE in Philadelphia, etc.) use of the military may actually result in less collateral damage in these circumstances.

I would be the first to agree that this is NOT ideal in any way, shape, or form, but it may well represent the lesser of two evils. If you're going to have such an extra-judicial killing perhaps it is better to put in the hands of people who are least likely to cause further damage.

Out of the two, I would prefer a trial in absentia for the reasons stated before - it's not really any more legal, but definitely more moral. If you don't have a framework for that, maybe your President should use his prerogatives and prove he cares about justice by proposing a proper bill/amendment?

It would require amending the constitution, a process deliberately made somewhat difficult and awkward to discourage casual amending. 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it. The process can take years. As it would affect so many other amendments it would be highly controversial to say the least. Impossible? No, but highly unlikely.

Right now what he's doing doesn't even have the pretense of justice

In the US, neither would a trial in absentia.

There are really no good answers for the problem such people cause, not right at the moment. I expect eventually something will be figured out, but it will take awhile.

[Broomstick]

Some have asked what Yemen thinks of all this. Well, according to wiki (and other sources) In November 2010, Yemen began trying al-Awlaki in absentia with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".. Given that we are trying to kill him in Yemen, and he has dual Yemeni and American citizenship, then that would make his death nice and legal does it not?

Sounds like it might be a legal basis for Yemen to kill him, it still wouldn't be a legal basis for the US to do so... although perhaps there is a means for the US to lend expertise and equipment to assist our Yemen allies...?

So, question: If Yemen tries him according to the Yemen legal system, he is found guilty, and sentenced to execution would it then be alright for the US to send Predator drones after him if it is the Yemen government requesting US aid in apprehending a fugitive?

[Sarevok]

@Zinnegata

My question is where is the specific evidence linking Anwar to specific terrorists attacks with name, date, place and so on. Last I checked the worst hate speech gets you is jail time not summary execution by your countries armed forces and without a trial to defend yourself. Seriously think this over, you are supporting the death of a man. How many people has he ordered killed or killed himself ?

[Sarevok]

Edit:

I forgot to post this NY Times article. Reading Anwar's background he has led a checkered life. He has indeed been associating with Jihadi people lately. But there is nothing said that he is directly involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist activities. At worst he is a propagandist for islamist groups. The question does that entitle him to same fate as Bin Laden ?

[TheHammer]

Edit:

I forgot to post this NY Times article. Reading Anwar's background he has led a checkered life. He has indeed been associating with Jihadi people lately. But there is nothing said that he is directly involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist activities. At worst he is a propagandist for islamist groups. The question does that entitle him to same fate as Bin Laden ?

Isn't he essentially doing exactly what Bin Laden did? A leader of Al Qaeda encouraging global Jihad, helping to plan and promote attacks, promising paradise to those that carry it out. The only thing separating the two, is that to this point Anwar doesn't have a 9/11 event associated with his name. Like I said before, you don't need to be the guy holding the Ak47, or building the Bomb...

[Serafina]

Edit:

I forgot to post this NY Times article. Reading Anwar's background he has led a checkered life. He has indeed been associating with Jihadi people lately. But there is nothing said that he is directly involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist activities. At worst he is a propagandist for islamist groups. The question does that entitle him to same fate as Bin Laden ?

Isn't he essentially doing exactly what Bin Laden did? A leader of Al Qaeda encouraging global Jihad, helping to plan and promote attacks, promising paradise to those that carry it out. The only thing separating the two, is that to this point Anwar doesn't have a 9/11 event associated with his name. Like I said before, you don't need to be the guy holding the Ak47, or building the Bomb...

Do you have ANY evidence that he
-planned or helped planning any terrorist activities
-supplied the means (material or training) for any terrorist activities
-ordered anyone under his command to commit terrorist activities
Well, do you?
If you do, then you have a crime you can charge him with. If he is convicted, then he is a criminal and you can put him into jail.
If you don't, then he is in no way comparable to OBL (who didn't actively personally attack the USA either)

And just in case you are confused - just saying "kill all filthy americans" does NOT constitute a terrorist act.

[Shroom Man 777]

Does this mean Arab nations have the right to behead Ann Coulter? Isn't she doing exactly what George W. Bush did? A leader of the American propaganda machine encouraging global crusade, helping promote war, promising freedom to those that carry out? The only thing separating the two, is that to this point Coulter doesn't have invasions associated with her name. Like I said before, you don't need to be the guy holding the M4 or riding the Humvee...

[TheHammer]

Do you have ANY evidence that he
-planned or helped planning any terrorist activities
-supplied the means (material or training) for any terrorist activities
-ordered anyone under his command to commit terrorist activities
Well, do you?
If you do, then you have a crime you can charge him with. If he is convicted, then he is a criminal and you can put him into jail.
If you don't, then he is in no way comparable to OBL (who didn't actively personally attack the USA either)

And just in case you are confused - just saying does NOT constitute a terrorist act.

Actually, saying "kill all filthy americans" is good enough for me, but probably not for you.

I've already noted how he's functioned as a recruiter and propogandist for Al Qaeda. The CIA and British intelligence among others believe he is behind numerous attacks, such as the Fort Hood shooting, underwear bomber among several others. He's been recognized as a member of Al Qaeda and supporter of terrorism by the United Nations. He's also been convicted in absentia by a Yemeni court and has had a Yemeni judge order his capture dead or alive.

He uses his charisma to influence others to take up the cause and "attack America" just as Bin Laden did. Preaching his message of hate and intolerance, he is Bin Laden in spirit, if not actual accomplishment - yet. Of course, since he has been linked as the "spiritual guide" aka brain washer for several 9/11 hijackers, then maybe he should be given credit for that too.

I don't need to rehash the rest of my statements.