3 ms·

>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

by yucky 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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. That is exactly what makes it unconstitutional. The AUMF doesn't trump the US Constitution. Using the "global war" terminology literally justifies assassinating some guy in Cleveland or Detroit or Seattle too. It was also written specifically to constrain its use to those who directly conspired against the US on 9/11. Anwar Al-Awlaki had nothing to do with planning or participating in 9/11. And that's not a defense of him as a good person, but that's why we have a judicial system. >It’s impossible to say if the action was legal or not. It's quite clearly unconstitutional. Rather than quoting the war criminals responsible for the assassination as proof that it's legal, why not show me which part of the Constitution you think justifies putting US citizens on a hit list and denying them their rights. You keep on using the tired ass "whelp, we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" defense. It's circular logic, which you are well aware of. So dust off that torn US Constitution from your bookshelf and make a real case, or just be honest and say you don't care if it was constitutional.

by yucky 5y ago

trevorboaconstr 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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. That is exactly what makes it unconstitutional. The AUMF doesn't trump the US Constitution. Using the "global war" terminology literally justifies assassinating some guy in Cleveland or Detroit or Seattle too. It was also written specifically to constrain its use to those who directly conspired against the US on 9/11. Anwar Al-Awlaki had nothing to do with planning or participating in 9/11. And that's not a defense of him as a good person, but that's why we have a judicial system. >It’s impossible to say if the action was legal or not. It's quite clearly unconstitutional. Rather than quoting the war criminals responsible for the assassination as proof that it's legal, why not show me which part of the Constitution you think justifies putting US citizens on a hit list and denying them their rights. You keep on using the tired ass "whelp, we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" defense. It's circular logic, which you are well aware of. So dust off that torn US Constitution from your bookshelf and make a real case, or just be honest and say you don't care if it was constitutional.