US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[Serafina]

I'm just about done with this thread. Its getting ridiculous, and redundant. I've made my statement and why I feel the way I do. I've got no more to be said on the matter.

In other words, you can't justify squat, but you'll cling onto your ideology regardless.

[TheHammer]

I'm just about done with this thread. Its getting ridiculous, and redundant. I've made my statement and why I feel the way I do. I've got no more to be said on the matter.

In other words, you can't justify squat, but you'll cling onto your ideology regardless.

No, in other words I've said all I can say on the matter. No new points are being presented its simply a rehash ad nauseum from new people wanting to jump in the discussion. If you want to know how I'll respond, just go back and read previous posts I've already put in the thread.

[Chirios]

Al Qaeda isn't the same as the Mafia, or other groups. The Mafia's intention is to make money; the Ku Klux Klan's is to exterminate black people; the Crips and Bloods again to make money; Al Qaeda's purpose however is to wage war against America and it's allies.

Al Qaeda's methodology is to create short lived "cells" within the US and other countries that commit mass suicide, taking as many people with them as they can. Members of these cells enter knowing that they will not survive for much longer, and the leaders try their hardest to reduce the time it takes to form the cell, to the commencement of the attack as much as they can, because that way it's much less likely that someone will get cold feet/ go to the police.

That makes it a lot harder to deal with the group, because there is no real group, Al Qaeda doesn't exist, it's just a collection of completely independent cells bound together by a common ideology. The Mafia (and other criminal organisations) are groups; they have a much more easily defined leadership structure; they pay their members; they intend to survive. That's not to say there aren't similarities, of course there are. Both are criminal organisations, but the nature and purpose of Al Qaeda makes it very different from other criminal organisations.

[Lord MJ]

I wonder if someone is slated for a targeted killing, and the target manages to kill some (or all) of those targeting him. Is he immune legally for those deaths? After all if someone or something is a military target then any act of defense by that target (or people defending it in the case of things) are acting in a military manner not a criminal manner. And therefore their actions would be considered 'combat'.

This of course would not effect any liability for actions that precipitated the targeted killing in the first place.

[Captain Seafort]

Al Qaeda isn't the same as the Mafia, or other groups.

Of course, no bunch of crooks is identical to any other bunch of crooks.

This doesn't change the fact that they're just a bunch of crooks, and should be treated as such.

[open_sketchbook]

I think the primary difference between your everyday criminal group and Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations is that your average criminal group isn't usually geared entirely for violence, whereas terrorists are made up of, for lack of a better term, soldiers. While the Mafia might get into a shootout with cops, or even assassinate police officers, they aren't out to defeat the police. They don't run military campaigns to destroy the police force, and even at the height of their influence and violence action against the government they were never out to overthrow the system, just operate under it's nose. Criminal groups don't fight to the death if they can help it; heck, they usually don't like to fight at all.

A group like Al Qaeda actually is out to destroy governments, to kill members of the nations they oppose for the sake of killing them, and even if there is no legal way of recognizing it, they actually are waging war in a practical sense. It means that operating against them is going to be a legal and moral grey area no matter what, because it is in their best interest to hide within moral and legal grey areas in the first place; it forces your enemies to choose between idealism and sinking to your level, a win for them either way. It's almost impossible to arrest them, so you either kill them or your let them go about their business of waging war on you. It's a harsh choice, but due to simple practicality a binary one. In this particular case, while I dislike the precedent set here, I don't disagree with the action itself.

[Captain Seafort]

I think the primary difference between your everyday criminal group and Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations is that your average criminal group isn't usually geared entirely for violence, whereas terrorists are made up of, for lack of a better term, soldiers.

I object very strongly to the use of the term "soldier". A soldier is a paid professional fighting on behalf of a sovereign state. A terrorist is not.

While the Mafia might get into a shootout with cops, or even assassinate police officers, they aren't out to defeat the police. They don't run military campaigns to destroy the police force, and even at the height of their influence and violence action against the government they were never out to overthrow the system, just operate under it's nose.

Given the track record of the Mexican cartels, I beg to differ. While their main objective is to make money through running drugs, they also maintain considerable armed strength to prevent both the government and other gangs from preventing them from doing so, either through fear or simple force of arms.

Criminal groups don't fight to the death if they can help it; heck, they usually don't like to fight at all.

Ditto for terrorists, including AQ.

A group like Al Qaeda actually is out to destroy governments, to kill members of the nations they oppose for the sake of killing them, and even if there is no legal way of recognizing it, they actually are waging war in a practical sense.

No, they are not. They are committing murder, no different from any other murderer save in the number of their victims. I don't care if their motive is economic, political, or for shits and giggles.

It means that operating against them is going to be a legal and moral grey area no matter what, because it is in their best interest to hide within moral and legal grey areas in the first place; it forces your enemies to choose between idealism and sinking to your level, a win for them either way.

Why exactly need we operate in a "moral and legal grey area" simply because these crooks do?

It's almost impossible to arrest them, so you either kill them or your let them go about their business of waging war on you.

So what if it's difficult? Treat them exactly the same as any other crook - go and arrest them, with minimum reasonable force. The fact that "minimum reasonable force" can describe the equivalent of a couple of infantry divisions with armoured support doesn't alter the principle.

[Simon_Jester]

I put the "big fear" in quotes because I don't share that sentiment. The President and his advisors must feel that targeting Al-Awliki is legally justifiable. Its not as if its some big secret that he is being targeted. As previously noted, use of deadly force has been ruled reasonable under the fourth amendment for dangerous fugitives by the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that would probably be the tact they would take.

"The President and his advisors must feel that targeting Al-Awliki is legally justifiable..."

Nonsense. They don't feel it's legal to kill him. They just feel he ought to be dead.

Who will they, or their successors, take it into their heads to kill next? Law is not about your feelings, my friend; it is about facts, determined as rigorously and thoroughly as possible.

You feel that al-Awlaki ought to be dead, and that it is thus acceptable to kill him. Well, I feel a number of people ought to be dead, or that the interests of the world would be better served by their death than by their life. If I am president of the United States, does that give me the right and the power to order those people killed? Are you willing to write me that blank check without knowing who's on my list?

Because that's the privilege- literally private law, the ability to make his own laws and remake them to suit his purposes- that you're giving Obama.

No, in other words I've said all I can say on the matter. No new points are being presented its simply a rehash ad nauseum from new people wanting to jump in the discussion. If you want to know how I'll respond, just go back and read previous posts I've already put in the thread.

So, in short, let me see if I can sum up your position.

1) There is no need to worry about the idea that the president can order American citizens killed without bothering to get any warrants or other legal authorization from the court system, and without charging those citizens with any crime, because...
2) This power will not be abused, because it is unreasonable to use this power on anyone except evil murderous terrorists, and therefore it will not be used. Therefore...
3) There is no need for a general ruling, and we can trust the president and his advisors to make decisions about whether to have American citizens killed on a case-by-case basis, all by themselves, without oversight.

There. Did I get your position right?

I think the primary difference between your everyday criminal group and Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations is that your average criminal group isn't usually geared entirely for violence, whereas terrorists are made up of, for lack of a better term, soldiers.

I object very strongly to the use of the term "soldier". A soldier is a paid professional fighting on behalf of a sovereign state. A terrorist is not.

[sighs]

Look, we need some word for terrorists that recognizes that they are individuals committed to prosecuting an extended, violent campaign against a powerful opposition. Your typical thug, even a violent one, is different- their violence is predatory and sporadic; they fight and kill because they wish to steal or to uphold some sense of personal 'honor.' They're not interested in fighting a war with the police, and wouldn't do so even if you gave them the tools to do so; they're in it for money or pride, not for victory.

Terrorists fight for much more abstract goals (independence for their people, the destruction of an old order they deem corrupt, et cetera). They are willing to take much bigger risks, because fighting and killing are part of their motives, not something incidental that they do along the way. About the only criminals who do such things for the sake of doing them are a handful of outright lunatics and serial killers... whose behavior is totally unlike that of terrorist organizations.

Their style of thinking is much more "soldier-like" than it is like the thinking of typical criminals.

This makes an important difference in their behavior, and how to overcome the threat they present.

A group like Al Qaeda actually is out to destroy governments, to kill members of the nations they oppose for the sake of killing them, and even if there is no legal way of recognizing it, they actually are waging war in a practical sense.

No, they are not. They are committing murder, no different from any other murderer save in the number of their victims. I don't care if their motive is economic, political, or for shits and giggles.

And yet where else on Earth do we find "murder gangs" who are organized to anything like the same degree, so indifferent to profit and risk avoidance, and with so much support among certain sectors of the population?

Large terrorist organizations may be criminals, but they are very strange criminals, a distinct subspecies of criminal and one that shares many of the traits of a rebellion, guerilla army, or other ideologically motivated armed faction. It is necessary to recognize this, and to some extent adopt the appropriate language and frame of reference for fighting such a large and capable opponent.

Criminals are usually weak relative to governments- the renegades and defectors from a large civilization, one whose values they still on some level respect and of whose authorities they are still somewhat afraid.

Terrorist organizations, once they get big enough, are more like rebel armies attempting a coup- in that they are trying to compete with the people they fight on a political level, in that they reject the entire notion that their enemy's law should apply to them. They are not trying to live within a sheltered and illegal niche inside a civilization; they're trying to change it, and are quite capable of expanding into army-sized movements given the opportunity.

Which does affect your tactics so much that you really do need some new vocabulary to describe them. At a certain point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind.

[Master of Ossus]

I know that I'm WAY late to the party, but let me go through the original OP to explain the US's position, because I think it's gotten short-changed.

For the record, I don't think that the US's position is crazy, here. In fact, I think it quite reasonable.

But one policy where Obama has gone further than Bush/Cheney in terms of unfettered executive authority and radical war powers is the attempt to target American citizens for assassination without a whiff of due process.

What the article goes onto describe is not an assassination because it is being directed against a military target--a "status-based" target (from the same magazine cited in the article). Due process is neither here nor there. Status-based military targets are not entitled to it.

The article continues to characterize this as an assassination, but that is wrong. All of its waxing poetic about Scalia's take on the constitution does not apply at all to people like Osama bin Laden or al-Awlaki because they are subject to military action; not law enforcement ones, and so all the SCOTUS quotes in the article are distinguishable.

The article goes on to suggest that the killing of bin Laden himself might have been unlawful, even though this is total bullshit.

There are certain civil liberties debates where, even though I hold strong opinions, I can at least understand the reasoning and impulses of those who disagree; the killing of bin Laden was one such instance. But the notion that the President has the power to order American citizens assassinated without an iota of due process -- far from any battlefield, not during combat -- is an idea so utterly foreign to me, so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, that it's hard to convey in words or treat with civility.

Too bad this is totally wrong: status-based targets are not entitled to due process. No body of law grants them such, because international law recognizes that nations exercising the right of self-defense should not be required to do such things.

How do you even engage someone in rational discussion who is willing to assume that their fellow citizen is guilty of being a Terrorist without seeing evidence for it, without having that evidence tested, without giving that citizen a chance to defend himself -- all because the President declares it to be so? "I know Awlaki, my fellow citizen, is a Terrorist and he deserves to die. Why? Because the President decreed that, and that's good enough for me. Trials are so pre-9/11." If someone is willing to dutifully click their heels and spout definitively authoritarian anthems like that, imagine how impervious to reason they are on these issues.

Don't ask me. Ask Congress.

Not even Antonin Scalia was willing to approve of George Bush's mere attempt to detain (let alone kill) an American citizen accused of Terrorism without a trial. In a dissenting opinion joined by the court's most liberal member, John Paul Stevens, Scalia explained that not even the War on Terror allows the due process clause to be ignored when the President acts against those he claims have joined the Enemy -- and this was for a citizen found on an actual active battlefield in a war zone (Afghanistan)

And what of the other SEVEN JUSTICES? Note that this is a dissent--Scalia and Stevens each disagreed with the outcome of the case, as found by the majority, and so their opinions are not law.

The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive. Blackstone stated this principle clearly: "Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. … To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom." . . . .

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.

There simply is no more basic liberty than the right to be free from Presidential executions without being charged with -- and then convicted of -- a crime: whether it be treason, Terrorism, or anything else. How can someone who objected to Bush's attempt to eavesdrop on or detain citizens without judicial oversight cheer for Obama's attempt to kill them without judicial oversight? Can someone please reconcile those positions?

Substantively, there is simply no comparison between the Padilla case and al-Awlaki's. Padilla had already been detained. If he had been an enemy combatant to begin with, he would have evidently completed his act of surrender. What happens next is entirely distinct from what happens before the enemy surrenders.

Yesterday's attempt to exterminate an American citizen who has long been on his hit list -- far from any battlefield, not during combat, and without even a pretense of due process -- is likely to be but a first step in that direction.

Under both international law and domestic law, both the killing of al-Awlaki and bin Ladin were fully legal. Military forces, exercising the internationally recognized right of self-defense, may attack targets without warning, do not have to invite surrender or otherwise pause in their attack to give an opportunity to their targets to surrender (even if the target is attempting to surrender), and do not have to wait for an opportunity to give due process.

It matters not one lick whether the target is a citizen of the country that is exercising its lawful use of self-defense against the target. It is irrelevant that the target is not actively resisting them, is unarmed, etc. Unless and until they have surrendered, they're fair game and the use of deadly force is an entirely reasonable and fully lawful option.

Neither al-Awlaki nor bin Laden have surrendered. The second is dead, and the first is going to die for that reason. Both will have been entirely legal kills.

[Master of Ossus]

I wonder if someone is slated for a targeted killing, and the target manages to kill some (or all) of those targeting him. Is he immune legally for those deaths? After all if someone or something is a military target then any act of defense by that target (or people defending it in the case of things) are acting in a military manner not a criminal manner. And therefore their actions would be considered 'combat'.

This of course would not effect any liability for actions that precipitated the targeted killing in the first place.

This is self-evident. In both a military and a criminal context, one is privileged to use self-defense against people threatening him with deadly force.

[Lord MJ]

I wonder if someone is slated for a targeted killing, and the target manages to kill some (or all) of those targeting him. Is he immune legally for those deaths? After all if someone or something is a military target then any act of defense by that target (or people defending it in the case of things) are acting in a military manner not a criminal manner. And therefore their actions would be considered 'combat'.

This of course would not effect any liability for actions that precipitated the targeted killing in the first place.

This is self-evident. In both a military and a criminal context, one is privileged to use self-defense against people threatening him with deadly force.

I'm not so sure supposed a target of a government ordered targeted killing kills several of his attackers and at some later time ends up being captured. I have a serious doubt that our legal system would recognize the deaths of his attackers as self defense, rather they would be considered murders and he would be charged accordingly. Not that it matters though, if someone is guilty of something that earns them a targeted killing attempt then they would be facing the death penalty anyway if they were ever tried.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm not so sure supposed a target of a government ordered targeted killing kills several of his attackers and at some later time ends up being captured. I have a serious doubt that our legal system would recognize the deaths of his attackers as self defense, rather they would be considered murders and he would be charged accordingly. Not that it matters though, if someone is guilty of something that earns them a targeted killing attempt then they would be facing the death penalty anyway if they were ever tried.

I suppose it was a bit of a summary dismissal. The precise circumstances, and the particular state laws, do affect the scope of the privilege. However, military combatants are entitled to surrender and cannot be prosecuted for killing armed forces of another nation during battle--there is an absolute privilege, in this circumstance.

In terms of criminal statutes, here are the requirements for self-defense:

A person is justified in using force upon another person if he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by the other on the present occasion. [MPC § 3.04(1)] In a departure from common law principles but in accord with the modern trend, a person may not use force to resist an arrest that he knows is being made by a police officer, even if the arrest is unlawful (e.g., without probable cause). [MPC § 3.04(2)(a)(i)] However, this rule does not prohibit use of force by an arrestee who believes that the officer intends to use excessive force in effectuating the arrest.

So I concede that you are quite correct under the Model Penal Code if not under state law, except if the officer intends to use excessive force--which in this case would be impossible because use of deadly force was already authorized.

[Zinegata]

@Zinnegata

My question is where is the specific evidence linking Anwar to specific terrorists attacks with name, date, place and so on.

No, you were saying that Anwar was some innocent Muslim scholar whose only crime is disliking US foreign policy.

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 ?

So really, fuck your lies. You weren't talking about "evidence linking Anwar to specific terrorists." You were presenting him as somebody whose only crime was "disliking US foreign policy".

Which is again, wrong. The wikipedia article had iron-clad evidence he had called for Jihad against the US, including the killing of US citizens. Not just once too.

And it also already details the numerous times Anwar was caught meeting with people who are known terrorists.

So again, stop with the stupidity of trying to pretend this guy is some kind of misunderstood activist. He's calling for Jihad against America. He ran away to Yemen rather than face the US authorities. If his crimes are really that minor and he has nothing to hide - why is he running?

That Anwar's a bad guy in one way or another isn't up for debate. At the minimum, he really is a Jihadist propagandist. At worse, he really is a Bin Laden wannabe.

[Bakustra]

First of all, the only time that it presents him as calling for the murder of Americans directly is after he was targeted for killing. Second of all, all it presents is that he met with and advised various terrorists, supported what they did, and may have inspired others. You are aware that these are not really proof of him being a terrorist or being at war with the US, right? Inspiration alone isn't enough to convict people or mark them as military leaders- when copycat criminals are caught, the original criminal isn't charged with conspiracy for their crimes. Now, there could be sufficient evidence to say that, yes, he was a terrorist and actively participating in attacks against the US before the US starting shooting missiles at him. But that speaks to the advantages of a trial- it requires the US to present its evidence rather than saying "we have evidence, so we're gonna kill him, but you'll certainly never see any of it except maybe on wikileaks in a few years", which is the current modus operandi.

Similarly, saying that he's a military target requires granting an uncomfortable level of independence to the CIA and FBI, such that they can order the killings of people without ever presenting the evidence for their military involvement (and that speaks to the problem of treating counterterrorism as primarily military in nature) in such a way that it can be independently evaluated. We just have a closed system of the alphabet-soup agencies and the executive, able to kill whoever they want as long as they can rally public support against them and cross their fingers when telling people how they've got all sorts of evidence. And Congress handed that authority right to them.

What's pretty odd is that you're seriously using "the innocent have nothing to fear" when he has committed a variety of crimes not linked to his supposed masterminding of terrorism, which could have been used to silence him, and which the FBI admitted to planning to use to arrest him because of their suspicion of his involvement in terrorist activities. The Mann Act, however, only has a maximum sentencing level of ten years. It seems like the FBI was trying for an Al Capone without Capone's notoriety and without the parole that Capone received. Well, I'll turn this back on you. If the US really has such amazing evidence, why don't they show it? What do they have to hide?

[Simon_Jester]

Under both international law and domestic law, both the killing of al-Awlaki and bin Ladin were fully legal. Military forces, exercising the internationally recognized right of self-defense, may attack targets without warning, do not have to invite surrender or otherwise pause in their attack to give an opportunity to their targets to surrender (even if the target is attempting to surrender), and do not have to wait for an opportunity to give due process...

Neither al-Awlaki nor bin Laden have surrendered. The second is dead, and the first is going to die for that reason. Both will have been entirely legal kills.

What concerns me is... who decided that al-Awlaki is a target for the military, to be killed without warning? What security do we have that this decision-making process will not be applied arbitrarily to innocent American citizens, or even to domestic political opponents of the US government?

The logic in identifying bin Laden as a military target is made simpler by the fact that he is not an American citizen, and by the fact that the states where he could claim citizenship or residency had formally declared him persona non grata.

But in the case of al-Awlaki, under the existing understanding of constitutional law, al-Awlaki was born with Fourth Amendment rights: a right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. And yet somehow he was chosen as a Man Who Should Die by the US government, without any process of judicial review or oversight. What process was involved here? Was it a "due" process, one which makes allowances for protection of the innocent and for things like freedom of speech?

The process by which al-Awlaki has been placed under a de facto death sentence is secret, having been made entirely behind closed doors as an internal executive branch decision. Who is responsible for this power of life and death over American citizens? How are we to be sure that this sort of thing won't be applied, in future, to anyone the president of the United States, or his subordinates, would like to see dead?

There really should be some security here beyond "the innocent have nothing to fear; don't become an enemy of the state and you won't be killed."

[K. A. Pital]

The wikipedia article had iron-clad evidence he had called for Jihad against the US, including the killing of US citizens.

Calling for the death of Americans automatically earns one a death sentence? I thought you need, uh, kill someone to get a death sentence. Not just call for someone's death.

[Shroom Man 777]

So hypocritical putrid conservative Americans who talk about nuking XYZ or called for hanging liberals or white phosphorusing protesters or bayoneting students or killing journos and other reprehensible hypnotic platypus cuckolding allegations will also be treated equally, right?

[Master of Ossus]

First of all, the only time that it presents him as calling for the murder of Americans directly is after he was targeted for killing.

Concession accepted. This makes him a military target, who has not yet surrendered.

Second of all, all it presents is that he met with and advised various terrorists, supported what they did, and may have inspired others. You are aware that these are not really proof of him being a terrorist or being at war with the US, right?

AND? Do you have any idea what the relevant legal standards are?

Inspiration alone isn't enough to convict people or mark them as military leaders- when copycat criminals are caught, the original criminal isn't charged with conspiracy for their crimes.

He's not a criminal. He's a designated individual under the Authorization for Use of Force Against Terrorists.

Even if he WERE a criminal, while you are correct that merely inspiring another to commit a crime, al-Awlaki's involvement goes much deeper. Depending on the exact criminal statutes that are used in the relevant jurisdiction, it's easy to see him convicted for inciting (or, in the more modern formulation, encouraging) the commission of crimes or having been an accessory to crimes.

Now, there could be sufficient evidence to say that, yes, he was a terrorist and actively participating in attacks against the US before the US starting shooting missiles at him. But that speaks to the advantages of a trial- it requires the US to present its evidence rather than saying "we have evidence, so we're gonna kill him, but you'll certainly never see any of it except maybe on wikileaks in a few years", which is the current modus operandi.

Similarly, saying that he's a military target requires granting an uncomfortable level of independence to the CIA and FBI, such that they can order the killings of people without ever presenting the evidence for their military involvement

The FBI is not involved in these actions. As for the CIA, they cannot "order the killings of people without ever presenting the evidence of their military involvement." The people involved have to be military targets, as defined by international law. Further, the President has to approve of such people, with Congress' blessing. How is this an "uncomfortable level of independence?" If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like the Executive Branch is directed by the President with the approval of Congress.

And guess what? The President is the Commander in Chief of the country's armed forces. He is fully qualified to make the determination as to when to employ military force against enemies of the country. That is one of the central powers of the Presidency. Part and parcel to that is the ability to determine who is a military enemy of the United States.

(and that speaks to the problem of treating counterterrorism as primarily military in nature) in such a way that it can be independently evaluated. We just have a closed system of the alphabet-soup agencies and the executive, able to kill whoever they want as long as they can rally public support against them and cross their fingers when telling people how they've got all sorts of evidence. And Congress handed that authority right to them.

1. That is within Congress' power to do.
2. It is within the President's power to use the nation's military forces.
3. THIS IS A GOD DAMNED WAR. What the fuck do you think we did with Nazis or Vietcong or North Koreans or Iraqis? Read them their Miranda rights before shooting at them? Enemy combatants do not have due process rights.

What's pretty odd is that you're seriously using "the innocent have nothing to fear" when he has committed a variety of crimes not linked to his supposed masterminding of terrorism, which could have been used to silence him,

How?

and which the FBI admitted to planning to use to arrest him because of their suspicion of his involvement in terrorist activities. The Mann Act, however, only has a maximum sentencing level of ten years. It seems like the FBI was trying for an Al Capone without Capone's notoriety and without the parole that Capone received. Well, I'll turn this back on you. If the US really has such amazing evidence, why don't they show it? What do they have to hide?

They don't show it because they're under no obligation to show it. He's an enemy combatant. He's not entitled to due process. He's not entitled to a trial. If he surrenders himself, then he can have a trial and all the evidence that you want, but right now he hasn't surrendered, so it's irrelevant.

[Master of Ossus]

What concerns me is... who decided that al-Awlaki is a target for the military, to be killed without warning?

The President, with the knowledge and consent of Congress.

What security do we have that this decision-making process will not be applied arbitrarily to innocent American citizens, or even to domestic political opponents of the US government?

The political process.

The logic in identifying bin Laden as a military target is made simpler by the fact that he is not an American citizen, and by the fact that the states where he could claim citizenship or residency had formally declared him persona non grata.

HOW? How does that make it simpler? Citizenship has nothing at all to do with the determination that al-Awlaki is a military target.

But in the case of al-Awlaki, under the existing understanding of constitutional law, al-Awlaki was born with Fourth Amendment rights: a right not to be deprived of life without due process of law. And yet somehow he was chosen as a Man Who Should Die by the US government, without any process of judicial review or oversight. What process was involved here? Was it a "due" process, one which makes allowances for protection of the innocent and for things like freedom of speech?

NO. He's not entitled to due process. I've made this point repeatedly. Absolutely no SCOTUS case, or any other source of law, stands for the proposition that enemy combatants are so entitled. With good reason: it makes NO SENSE during an armed conflict to extend this right to the enemy. In fact, in a great many circumstances, individual soldiers on the ground, subject to the rigors and confusion of battle, are tasked to decide whether or not the people around them are enemy combatants. What process do they get? THIS IS PART OF THE EXERCISE OF MILITARY FORCE. There's really no getting around it. You cannot deny members of the Executive Branch the prerogative to determine who is hostile and who is not during an armed conflict. It is part and parcel of having a military.

The process by which al-Awlaki has been placed under a de facto death sentence is secret, having been made entirely behind closed doors as an internal executive branch decision.

He has not been placed under a de facto death sentence. If he surrenders, he cannot be killed by the Executive without a judicial action. But he hasn't surrendered. That's the whole god damned point.

Who is responsible for this power of life and death over American citizens? How are we to be sure that this sort of thing won't be applied, in future, to anyone the president of the United States, or his subordinates, would like to see dead?

Again, al-Awlaki's citizenship has absolutely no relation with his designation as an enemy combatant. None.

There really should be some security here beyond "the innocent have nothing to fear; don't become an enemy of the state and you won't be killed."

No, there shouldn't be. You cannot have a military that bars its members from employing force on their own volition. The most you can do is define the scope of their authority to implement force. What you propose is totally antithetical to the concept of an effective military. It makes ZERO sense to obligate the military to seek judicial approval for the application of force in the field.

Moreover, your criticism obviously devolves to "the Constitution does not provide sufficient checks and balances; I think there should be more." That is NOT a legal argument--it is the exact opposite of one. You have consistently attempted to frame your claims in the context of legal doctrine, but you have consistently misstated the law in your efforts to do so.

[K. A. Pital]

This makes him a military target, who has not yet surrendered.

Ann Coulter is a military target.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war.

I believe you won't have any objections to her being assassinated by a drone? Well, failing that, because poor nations don't have drones, assassinated by assassin. Oh my.

[Master of Ossus]

This makes him a military target, who has not yet surrendered.

Ann Coulter is a military target.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war.

I believe you won't have any objections to her being assassinated by a drone? Well, failing that, because poor nations don't have drones, assassinated by assassin. Oh my.

Because that has SO much to do with what I was pointing out, there.

You can define military targets almost any way you want, but al-Awlaki evidently fits within the group of people who are designated by the AUMT. You cannot argue otherwise. Moreover, even if Coulter were an enemy target of another country, that country still would not have the legal right to assassinate her by drone. Only utterly dishonest people could ignore this distinction, because the US is neither unwilling nor unable to prosecute people within its borders.

If you had had even the slightest desire of having an actual conversation about this, rather than trying to score some idiotic rhetorical points with an utterly pointless deflection of the central arguments you would have instantly recognized that these situations are not remotely analogous.

In conclusion, go fuck yourself you trolling piece of dishonest shit.

[K. A. Pital]

Because that has SO much to do with what I was pointing out, there.

It does. Do you admit that Americans who openly call for the deaths of citizens of other nations are legitimate military targets?

You can define military targets almost any way you want, but al-Awlaki evidently fits within the group of people who are designated by the AUMT. You cannot argue otherwise. Moreover, even if Coulter were an enemy target of another country, that country still would not have the legal right to assassinate her by drone. Only utterly dishonest people could ignore this distinction, because the US is neither unwilling nor unable to prosecute people within its borders.

No, the US is unwilling and unable to prosecute people within its borders (nobody prosecuted Coulter for her calls, actually). Luis Posada Carilles is a good example of why the US legal system should not be trusted with justice by any foreign nation at any time.

Besides, why is Yemen unwilling and unable to prosecute...? I thought they actually caught Al-Awlaki (at one time). Maybe the US should let Yemen handle it?

*laughs* Yeah, I'm a trolling dickhead, but you are an idiot with a belief that a corrupt and selectively acting justice system of the US somehow guarantees US citizens immunity from becoming military targets. It does not. Any US citizen who calls for deaths of others is a military target. You agree or not?

[Master of Ossus]

It does. Do you admit that Americans who openly call for the deaths of citizens of other nations are legitimate military targets?

No. Being a military target involves more than saying something. It involves an actual attack or, at minimum, a realistic threat of attack. YOU ARE SIMPLY TROLLING.

No, the US is unwilling and unable to prosecute people within its borders (nobody prosecuted Coulter for her calls, actually). Luis Posada Carilles is a good example of why the US legal system should not be trusted with justice by any foreign nation at any time.

Again, this amounts to nothing more than an intentional thread hijack.

Besides, why is Yemen unwilling and unable to prosecute...?

No. In fact, they've admitted as such in the past. They've repeatedly brought in American military advisors and forces to help their armed forces combat Islamic terrorists within their borders.

I thought they actually caught Al-Awlaki. Maybe the US should let Yemen handle it?

Evidence?

And, again, Yemen is unable to prosecute such individuals.

*laughs* Yeah, I'm a trolling dickhead, but you are an idiot with a belief that a corrupt and selectively acting justice system of the US somehow guarantees US citizens immunity from becoming military targets. It does not. Any US citizen who calls for deaths of others is a military target. You agree or not?

No. There must be some level of realistic threat. Again, this is an intentional effort to hijack an otherwise productive discussion.

Moreover, this is not the "corrupt and selectively acting justice system of the US." I have accurately described international law and explained how it relates to the United States' actions and how the US' actions are justified under domestic and international law. Against this you have... trolling. The scenario you have presented as somehow demonstrating the corruptness of the US justice system does absolutely nothing of the sort, and you knew it going in.

But congratulations, you have proven once again that some Europeans absolutely do not care about international law, just so long as they can bend and twist facts to their absolute maximum in an intentional effort to cast the US in the most negative light possible.

[K. A. Pital]

No. Being a military target involves more than saying something. It involves an actual attack or, at minimum, a realistic threat of attack. YOU ARE SIMPLY TROLLING.

Has Awlaki carried out an actual attack that killed U.S. citizens?

Again, trolling.

Trolling? The US is unable and unwilling to prosecute when it suits their national interest. Therefore, no nation may rely on the US to prosecute such people or for justice to be served at all. End of story, all Americans who call for the deaths of others and are not prosecuted are legitimate military targets. The fact that they never carried out attacks personally does not matter; as far as we know, Awlaki did not personally take part in any attacks.

Evidence?

On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was one of a group of five people arrested on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.[13][80] Al-Awlaki blamed the U.S. for pressuring Yemeni authorities to arrest him. He was interviewed around September 2007 by two FBI agents with regard to the 9/11 attacks and other subjects, and John Negroponte, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, told Yemeni officials he did not object to al-Awlaki's detention.[46] His name was on a list of 100 prisoners whose release was sought by al-Qaeda-linked militants in Yemen.[60] After 18 months in a Yemeni prison, he was released on December 12, 2007, following the intercession of his tribe, an indication by the U.S. that it did not insist on his incarceration, and—according to a Yemeni security official—because he said he repented.[46][47][60][80][103] He reportedly moved to his family home in Saeed, a tiny hamlet in the rugged Shabwa mountains.

So what happened? Either the charges were false, the US couldn't insist on his extradiction (and as it seems it never tried), or Awlaki really was involved in a kidnapping plot. If he was, that's clear as day the US should have extradicted him or pressured Yemen into keeping him behind bars, if there was solid evidence of his involvement. If there was none, what evidence there is that's enough to kill him without trial?

Trolling is against board policy. Moreover, this is not the "corrupt and selectively acting justice system of the US." I have accurately described international law and explained how it relates to the United States' actions and how the US' actions are justified under domestic and international law. Against this you have... trolling.

No. You said that attacking American citizens is not justified because the US can and is willing to prosecute them. However, neither Coulter nor other, more clear cases like Luis Posada Carilles who actively carried out terror attacks, are in jail or served a summary death sentence for their activities. Clearly the US justice system is a failure and other nations should reserve the right to kill off militant American citizens or foreign citizens who are militant, but hide in America.

If this is so, and this is what one nation can do, then all other nations can do the same and it is perfectly legal (a position I have nothing against, it is quite strong when you look for a legal basis). I just want you to follow it to a logical conclusion.

There must be some level of realistic threat.

Who determines the "level" and "realism" of the threat? The same person who makes the decision to kill? In this case hypothetically: Saddam Hussein's government determines that Coulter is a threat and assassinates her. Is it legal?

[Bakustra]

First of all, the only time that it presents him as calling for the murder of Americans directly is after he was targeted for killing.

Concession accepted. This makes him a military target, who has not yet surrendered.

Oh, look, a lie right off the bat. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy- if he isn't already a military target, then he becomes one by trying to fight back against a country targeting him for death.

Second of all, all it presents is that he met with and advised various terrorists, supported what they did, and may have inspired others. You are aware that these are not really proof of him being a terrorist or being at war with the US, right?

AND? Do you have any idea what the relevant legal standards are?

So the relevant legal standards are that meeting with terrorists is proof that you yourself are one? Or that supporting the actions of an individual means that you are complicit in that individual's actions? So, I guess Father Charles Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were Nazi combatants against the US, who ought to have been killed in their beds by the OSS, but Roosevelt was just too much of a wimp to go beyond censoring Coughlin's radio and newspaper communications. Hell, this makes Pius XII a Nazi combatant too! Oh, but you're just going to ignore the implications of your response, that these are completely reasonable standards of evidence.

Inspiration alone isn't enough to convict people or mark them as military leaders- when copycat criminals are caught, the original criminal isn't charged with conspiracy for their crimes.

He's not a criminal. He's a designated individual under the Authorization for Use of Force Against Terrorists.

Even if he WERE a criminal, while you are correct that merely inspiring another to commit a crime, al-Awlaki's involvement goes much deeper. Depending on the exact criminal statutes that are used in the relevant jurisdiction, it's easy to see him convicted for inciting (or, in the more modern formulation, encouraging) the commission of crimes or having been an accessory to crimes.

It was an analogy, you idiot. Mao Zedong was not considered a fighter for the NVA, despite inspiring North Vietnamese strategy, if you absolutely demand that this be treated one-hundred-percent as military.

So what is the proof that has been presented to show that he incited or served as an accessory to crimes? Oh, there's no proof, because proof requires a trial. There's only supposition that this is the case.

Now, there could be sufficient evidence to say that, yes, he was a terrorist and actively participating in attacks against the US before the US starting shooting missiles at him. But that speaks to the advantages of a trial- it requires the US to present its evidence rather than saying "we have evidence, so we're gonna kill him, but you'll certainly never see any of it except maybe on wikileaks in a few years", which is the current modus operandi.

Similarly, saying that he's a military target requires granting an uncomfortable level of independence to the CIA and FBI, such that they can order the killings of people without ever presenting the evidence for their military involvement

The FBI is not involved in these actions. As for the CIA, they cannot "order the killings of people without ever presenting the evidence of their military involvement." The people involved have to be military targets, as defined by international law. Further, the President has to approve of such people, with Congress' blessing. How is this an "uncomfortable level of independence?" If I didn't know better, I'd say it's almost like the Executive Branch is directed by the President with the approval of Congress.

And guess what? The President is the Commander in Chief of the country's armed forces. He is fully qualified to make the determination as to when to employ military force against enemies of the country. That is one of the central powers of the Presidency. Part and parcel to that is the ability to determine who is a military enemy of the United States.

So where is the evidence that has been shown to determine that, by international law, he is a military target? That's the problem with your boneheaded desire to make this purely military; terrorism is so sticky that it must be handled at least partly as a crime in order to sort out who is a military target in the first place! The US is asserting that he is a military target, without providing evidence publicly that this is the case. You do realize that I could, if in the right position, similarly assert you as a military target by taking your postings on racial profiling to conclude that you actively encourage the mistreatment of and discrimination against Arabs and Persians as my sole evidence and declaring you to obviously be a threat to Arabs and Persians worldwide? There's nothing there to explain how al-Awlaki was a military target before the US started trying to kill him as of yet. Instead there is simply the assertion that he was, because...

(and that speaks to the problem of treating counterterrorism as primarily military in nature) in such a way that it can be independently evaluated. We just have a closed system of the alphabet-soup agencies and the executive, able to kill whoever they want as long as they can rally public support against them and cross their fingers when telling people how they've got all sorts of evidence. And Congress handed that authority right to them.

1. That is within Congress' power to do.
2. It is within the President's power to use the nation's military forces.
3. THIS IS A GOD DAMNED WAR. What the fuck do you think we did with Nazis or Vietcong or North Koreans or Iraqis? Read them their Miranda rights before shooting at them? Enemy combatants do not have due process rights.

You are aware that Nazi saboteurs in the US got trials, you troglodyte? It is possible, when nations are led by people somewhat committed to ideals rather than to petty vengeance and a thirst for blood, pain, and death, to do more than killkillkill. I realize that your brain may have difficulty fitting something so complex it at once. But there is still the question of whether treating this as a war on an ideal (or a war on an organization of undetermined size or reach, if you're pretending that the War on Terror is really the war on al-Qaeda exclusively) is a smart decision or the best one. I mean, it's a question you have resolved firmly in the way that, unsurprisingly, offers the most death, but not everybody has made up their minds that it is clearly best prosecuted as a war rather than a policing effort.

My point is that there is no way for anybody to check on this who is not committed to the system. The CIA produces intelligence which is fed to the president which is used to determine who to kill- with no ability for anybody else to interrupt this from outside. In other words, this is oligarchal, much like the majority of our national defense. Do you realize that removing the effective ability of Americans to influence foreign policy meaningfully means conceding any sort of democracy in that area? If Americans are totally divorced from foreign policy, then it becomes dependent on bureaucrats, producing a grotesque, undemocratic oligarchy that has what checks upon it? Explain how exactly this method can be independently examined.

What's pretty odd is that you're seriously using "the innocent have nothing to fear" when he has committed a variety of crimes not linked to his supposed masterminding of terrorism, which could have been used to silence him,

How?

By putting him in prison and hoping he gets shived before he comes up for parole, or discreetly encouraging inmate hostility against him to increase the chances of that, and/or by the simple method of not being able to publish while imprisoned.

and which the FBI admitted to planning to use to arrest him because of their suspicion of his involvement in terrorist activities. The Mann Act, however, only has a maximum sentencing level of ten years. It seems like the FBI was trying for an Al Capone without Capone's notoriety and without the parole that Capone received. Well, I'll turn this back on you. If the US really has such amazing evidence, why don't they show it? What do they have to hide?

They don't show it because they're under no obligation to show it. He's an enemy combatant. He's not entitled to due process. He's not entitled to a trial. If he surrenders himself, then he can have a trial and all the evidence that you want, but right now he hasn't surrendered, so it's irrelevant.

Why should he surrender? The US declared him an enemy and tried to kill him. The US tortures people that it takes into custody. Explain why he should surrender himself if innocent, and why he should have faith in an American justice system that a significant proportion of is willing to abrogate its own basic principles to fight the crime he is accused for. Go right ahead.

It does. Do you admit that Americans who openly call for the deaths of citizens of other nations are legitimate military targets?

No. Being a military target involves more than saying something. It involves an actual attack or, at minimum, a realistic threat of attack. YOU ARE SIMPLY TROLLING.

So where is this for al-Awlaki? If calling for the death of Americans makes him a military target as you suggested in your smarmy reply to me, then Coulter and a number of other people are similarly military targets of the Iranian government, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a military target of every government that has a vested interest in protecting the religious freedom of its citizens. If it doesn't, then what is the criterion? It is completely secret and concealed. Why should I trust the US government on this, then? A blind faith in a government that has been willing to abrogate its supposed foundations? Efforts to lull the proles into a state of blind faith in their "betters" who make the real decisions? What toxic beliefs do you wish to present here?