5 ms·

“But in the case of a targeted killing, senior executive branch officials explicitly designate one U.S. citizen as a target and attempt to kill him specifically

“But in the case of a targeted killing, senior executive branch officials explicitly designate one U.S. citizen as a target and attempt to kill him specifically outside of a standard battle. The result is that the U.S. citizen needs to be on notice that he stands suspected of being a traitor or of committing some other crime. If he is given this information, he can make the choice either to surrender himself to the United States, stand trial, and possibly clear his name or to continue to fight and die with the enemies of the United States.” “Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf. Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.” Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender.

yucky 4y ago
>Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target Yes, and in our legal system the government notifies you by filing charges. >Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender. Surrender for...what exactly? Not court, he wasn't being charged so there is nothing to surrender to. That was literally the entire point. If the government thought he was guilty of something, then charge him and prove it in court. This is not some obscure idea, our entire judicial system is based on it.
- trevorboaconstr 4y ago
  If, as per legal opinions, the target is not able to be apprehended given reasonable effort to do so, and evidence is presented as such, there is legal maneuvering to carry out a targeted killing-which is a military matter-, against a combatant. The legal opinion is very clear on this. Please give it a read. It’s very detailed and explicit. All your statements are covered.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Anybody can write anything as a legal opinion. Just writing it does not make it valid. That it was written with specific intention to enable a statutorily disallowed action makes it less persuasive, not more.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >If, as per legal opinions, the target is not able to be apprehended given reasonable effort to do so Apprehended for...what exactly? He was never even charged with a crime. There is no legal framework for arresting a US citizen on no charges. >and evidence is presented as such No evidence was ever presented. Which is obvious, since there were no charges and thus no court proceedings. >there is legal maneuvering to carry out a targeted killing-which is a military matter-, against a combatant. He was not a combatant because he was not killed on a battlefield or even in a country that we were at war with.
    - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
      He was a combatant under the AUMF following 9/11 that allowed the US to launch a global war. It doesn't matter if they are in a “combat zone”. That’s not how the AUMF works. He had been directly tied to conspiring with terrorist groups to carry out attacks. Support, logistics, etc. He even publicly stated his support and affiliation. That is known. One of the arguments is that the US government was acting in self defense. The logical justifications as outlined in the specifications for targeted killing in the target list is unknown, due to state secrets law. It’s impossible to say if the action was legal or not. As legal scholars have been able to make a legal case for targeted killings, it’s completely possible that it was legal. That’s why it’s relevant. But due to the law, we’ll probably never know. It’s probably a good indication too that the courts declined to pursue the case. Have you taken the time to read what’s available of the actual memo? Heavily redacted: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/16firstolcawlakimemo-reupload.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/16firstolc... “The conclusion draws further support from the fact that even, in domestic law enforcement, the operations the Supreme Court has noted that the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm , deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape and if, where feasible, some warning hasbeen given.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985), where a capture operation is infeasible and the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and poses a continued and imminent threat to persons or interests, the use of lethal force would not violate the FourthAmendment.” The Supreme Courts ruling, as cited, seemed to support this. No formal charges need to be brought against an armed civilian threatening others in the street, they would simply be given a warning, and shot dead. Al-Awlaki was not some innocent American sitting in a Starbucks drinking a coffee when the US decided it was his time. He was an active participant, facilitator, and leader of a hostile enemy group that sought, and tried to carry out terrorist attacks against the US.

yucky 4y ago

>Before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target Yes, and in our legal system the government notifies you by filing charges. >Doesn’t sound like it’s the government’s responsibility to bring charges. It appears to be the individual’s responsibility to surrender. Surrender for...what exactly? Not court, he wasn't being charged so there is nothing to surrender to. That was literally the entire point. If the government thought he was guilty of something, then charge him and prove it in court. This is not some obscure idea, our entire judicial system is based on it.

trevorboaconstr 4y ago
If, as per legal opinions, the target is not able to be apprehended given reasonable effort to do so, and evidence is presented as such, there is legal maneuvering to carry out a targeted killing-which is a military matter-, against a combatant. The legal opinion is very clear on this. Please give it a read. It’s very detailed and explicit. All your statements are covered.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Anybody can write anything as a legal opinion. Just writing it does not make it valid. That it was written with specific intention to enable a statutorily disallowed action makes it less persuasive, not more.
- yucky 4y ago
  >If, as per legal opinions, the target is not able to be apprehended given reasonable effort to do so Apprehended for...what exactly? He was never even charged with a crime. There is no legal framework for arresting a US citizen on no charges. >and evidence is presented as such No evidence was ever presented. Which is obvious, since there were no charges and thus no court proceedings. >there is legal maneuvering to carry out a targeted killing-which is a military matter-, against a combatant. He was not a combatant because he was not killed on a battlefield or even in a country that we were at war with.
  - trevorboaconstr 4y ago
    He was a combatant under the AUMF following 9/11 that allowed the US to launch a global war. It doesn't matter if they are in a “combat zone”. That’s not how the AUMF works. He had been directly tied to conspiring with terrorist groups to carry out attacks. Support, logistics, etc. He even publicly stated his support and affiliation. That is known. One of the arguments is that the US government was acting in self defense. The logical justifications as outlined in the specifications for targeted killing in the target list is unknown, due to state secrets law. It’s impossible to say if the action was legal or not. As legal scholars have been able to make a legal case for targeted killings, it’s completely possible that it was legal. That’s why it’s relevant. But due to the law, we’ll probably never know. It’s probably a good indication too that the courts declined to pursue the case. Have you taken the time to read what’s available of the actual memo? Heavily redacted: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/16firstolcawlakimemo-reupload.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/16firstolc... “The conclusion draws further support from the fact that even, in domestic law enforcement, the operations the Supreme Court has noted that the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm , deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape and if, where feasible, some warning hasbeen given.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985), where a capture operation is infeasible and the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and poses a continued and imminent threat to persons or interests, the use of lethal force would not violate the FourthAmendment.” The Supreme Courts ruling, as cited, seemed to support this. No formal charges need to be brought against an armed civilian threatening others in the street, they would simply be given a warning, and shot dead. Al-Awlaki was not some innocent American sitting in a Starbucks drinking a coffee when the US decided it was his time. He was an active participant, facilitator, and leader of a hostile enemy group that sought, and tried to carry out terrorist attacks against the US.