Barack Obama’s administration has authorized the assassination of the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a rare move against an American citizen.

The decision to add him to the US hit list required a National Security Council review because of his citizenship.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html

4/8/2010 12:17:45 PM

Aren't assassinations considered a crime within a certain international code?

I don't know for sure; I just thought I recalled reading that somewhere.

4/8/2010 12:25:54 PM

if he truly is what they say he is, then I don't believe that being an american citizen should give you a pass on being a fucking terrorist.

4/8/2010 12:39:05 PM

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

4/8/2010 12:41:07 PM

^ FWIW, that applies to the states, not the fed.

4/8/2010 12:51:13 PM

And it requires "Due process of law," which really is open to interpretation. And we've killed Americans abroad before who were terrorists. This isn't anything new.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 1:02:17 PM

Quote :

"if he truly is what they say he is, then I don't believe that being an american citizen should give you a pass on being a fucking terrorist. "

Bullshit. As an american citizen he should be given the right of due process as outlined in the constitution. If though....

A.) He renounces his US citizenship.
or
B.) Resists capture

then lethal force is warranted.

While logically I do support assainating this guy if he is what they say he is, I think this could turn into a slippery slope and opens "pandora's box" for further government abuse of power.

Hypothetically with this precedent the terrorist label can arbitrarily be slapped on any individual that the government wants to get rid of.

Either way what does assasinating this guy really do?? Another muslim cleric will step up to the plate to go on our turrist list and we will turn this douchebag into a fucking martyr giving all those crazies over there another reason to go Jihad.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM. Reason : a]

4/8/2010 1:11:07 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

Quote :

"I don't believe (x) should"

4/8/2010 1:14:01 PM

I could argue that Glenn Beck is a terrorist because he advocates overthrowing our government and incites violence.

Can the government legally assassinate him?

4/8/2010 1:20:15 PM

There's a huge difference between a person like Beck and Al-Awlaki. One would be violence. Just to start.

As far as targeted killings, that's been a part of our tactics for a long time. Our government (and many others) view targeted killings during war time as a right to use force for self-defense, which is a staple international customary law and US domestic law. This has been specifically authorized in the US under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

And a lot of constitutional protections are lost once you leave the sovereign territory of the US. Not all, but a good number of them. It's not like they're dropping a bomb on the terrorist in Garner, it's Yemen. And these are military enemies of the US, so they're not even covered under the ban on political assassinations.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 1:43:02 PM

yeah one of those differences is skin color

another is religion

4/8/2010 1:43:57 PM

^Seriously? Or was that just a lame attempt to troll?

4/8/2010 1:45:32 PM

We can kill anyone we want as long as we leave a little bit of crack and a shank by the body.

4/8/2010 1:49:54 PM

Quote :

"I could argue that Glenn Beck is a terrorist because he advocates overthrowing our government and incites violence. Can the government legally assassinate him?"

probably.

what does the Patriot Act have to say about this?

4/8/2010 2:01:36 PM

Quote :

"what does the Patriot Act have to say about this?"

What it has to say is that you'd better not even look at the government wrong, or you gonna get raped.

ie - you have no rights and the constitution only applies when they want it to, son.


While I hate terrorists and want them to die, I still want to see that the constitution, ALL OF IT, is upheld above all else. The constitution is something that we MUST hold sacred and abide by. When we stop doing that, we cease to be The United States of America in my opinion.

4/8/2010 2:34:53 PM

God, you've long since forfeited your right to play the constitutionality card. You only get to appeal to the Constitution when you give a shit about it all the time instead of just when it supports your position.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ^ ha, didn't even see your post. pretty much beat me to it.]

4/8/2010 3:21:20 PM

What are you referring to?

4/8/2010 3:24:08 PM

hm....if he is indeed a terrorist, i don't see why he couldn't be brought to trial and given his due process. it's easy to do the right thing when it's easy. the hard part is doing the right thing when its difficult, right obama?

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 4:04:47 PM

If we can enact the recent healthcare bill, or have social security, or ban states from outlawing abortion, then there's no reason we can't have the PATRIOT Act or assassinate citizens.

Be careful what you wish for with your goddamn living document.

4/8/2010 4:17:45 PM

Quote :

"i don't see why he couldn't be brought to trial and given his due process"

The actual order is "capture or kill." But do you really think they're going to be able to capture him? There's no guarantee either will happen... If they do by some great chance succeed in capturing, where do we hold him? Obama promised GTMO is going to close, but we could temporarily put him there, cause no one knows when it will actually close.

But what then? Do we try him in federal courts? Or Military Tribunal? What about the security risk of having him in the US at all? I mean, these are all questions Obama is trying to figure out with Khali Shaikh Muhammad and his trial. He hasn't even figured it out for a non US citizen, it's even more complicated in this situation, he really does have all those constitutional rights, unlike the other terrorists who don't get all the constitutional rights until they enter the US.

I mean, I'm all for giving the guy due process once we've got him captured, but sometimes it's just not feasible to look at that as the only option. And just because US citizens have constitutional rights doesn't mean they follow you wherever you go.

4/8/2010 4:20:17 PM

ITT theduke866 equates a bill that prevents children from being denied healthcare coverage with another bill that allows indefinite incarceration and torture of american citizens.

4/8/2010 4:23:19 PM

^all good points (mostly the one about whether your rights follow you - i'm not sure if they do/should). i think someone above said it best, "if he cannot be captured or resists, and lethal force is needed, the so be it." but they should still try. as it stands, i am just not comfortable with the idea of ordering the execution of a US citizen. but we are certainly venturing into uncharted territories.



**the "ITT" bullshit has got to stop. seriously, it renders all opinions moot in my opinion.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 4:27:09 PM

Quote :

"could argue that Glenn Beck is a terrorist because he advocates overthrowing our government and incites violence."

Glenn Beck is a Freedom Fighter get it right.

4/8/2010 4:39:13 PM

^^^

1. That's more than enough stupid, intentionally disingenuous trolling from you. Either at least attempt to be a solid point, or sit on the sidelines and watch those who do.

2. What you're saying is irrelevant. My post isn't about "equating" anything. I could say, "If we can have TARP and the stimulus bill, we can go to war with any country we please without Congress declaring war." My point remains the same.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM. Reason : oh come the fuck on...Glenn Beck is a douche, but he's not a terrorist]

4/8/2010 4:42:14 PM

^^^Legally speaking--most rights follow you, but not all. For instance, the 5th Amendment doesn't follow you. If you live in Italy, and Italy has no problem with it, then the FBI can do a warrantless search on your house all they want. Extrajudicial kidnapping isn't unconstitutional. Targeted killing is one of those things that's in a grey area. There's actually a talk on this at my law school next week. Should be interesting.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 4:44:23 PM

I suppose you could spin it that he's taken up arms against the United States. The problem of course is that the regulations are written so that you lose citizenship when you serve in or aid the armed forces of a nation that is at war with the United States. It's a bit fuzzier when you're aligned with a non-state actor. Does alignment with a group which has a wing that conducts violent activities count as sufficient to strip a person of their citizenship?

4/8/2010 5:01:43 PM

^Maybe--at the very least it's "Material Support of Terrorism" and a violation of 18 USC 2339(B) and gets you charged with treason or conspiracy and up to 15 years in prison. You don't even have to intend to support a terrorist organization, it can be as simple as writing a check for a hospital.

That being said, it'd be very difficult for support of terrorism to strip you of citizenship without taking extra step and becoming an enemy combatant. But you bring up a good point, depending on his level of involvement, he may have forfeited his citizenship at any rate.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM. Reason : The only reason I know the code is we covered this in National Security Law last night.]

4/8/2010 5:07:31 PM

If the actual order is "capture or kill" how is this being equated with assassination?

Criminals are killed all the time in the process of attempting to capture them. This seems like business as usual, doesn't it?

4/8/2010 5:22:20 PM