7 ms·

>>A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Super handy that the US Go

>>A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Super handy that the US Government can kill people now without a trial or due process of any kind.

dragonwriter 13y ago
The US government has always been able to wage war, and has never required trial or due process to kill the enemy in war.
- maratd 13y ago
  The constitution requires a declaration of war. That requirement has been withered away in recent years, don't you think? It was there to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense.
  - chad_oliver 13y ago
    To be fair, a large part of why America doesn't declare war is because no-one declares war. After WWII we no longer consider war-making a sovereign right of nations, so a declaration of war is useless.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not specify that this declaration need take any particular form. I've never seen a convincing explanation for why Congressional authorization such as the AUMF doesn't qualify as an exercise of Congress's powers under Article I, Section 8. Especially considering that the practice of Congress authorizing military actions without a formal declaration of war dates back almost to the founding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite....
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The constitution requires a declaration of war. First, no, it doesn't. It gives Congress the power to declare war. It neither explicitly requires nor has ever been understood to implicitly require a war be declared to be prosecuted in all circumstance, particularly not in the event of a war initiated by an enemy attack. Second, as with every other Congressional power, exercising the power to declare war doesn't require any kind of magic words. All of the controversial drone attacks on al-Qaeda targets have been as part of action specifically authorized by Congress in Public Law 107-40 [1]. Whatever problems there are with the War on Terrorism, the absence of Congressional declaration of war certainly isn't one of them. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
- reillyse 13y ago
  Pretty sure the US has never been at war with Yemen or ever officially fought a war in Yemen.
- grey-area 13y ago
  They have not been able to declare war on the entire world, including their own citizens, before now. Assassination has not been an accepted tool of foreign policy for decades since Ford. Even in wartime (if this is indeed war), rules apply, so if you want to apply the rules of war assassinations of enemies who are unarmed and not on any battlefield are not permitted. Awlaki, and later his teenage son, and the innocents killed with them, were not killed on any battlefield or as part of any war, unless you redefine war to mean any killing outside the judicial process, as Bush and then Obama have done. But I think it's more useful to consider the methods used rather than arguing about semantics - the US president now claims the right to kill citizens, and anyone else, without trial or justification. That is a huge shift in policy and also has implications at home. If they can kill at will abroad, why not at home?
  - jgalt212 13y ago
    The whole concept of rules to warfare is on a certain level a bit silly. As if the hawks can add rules to warfare, they can make it more palatable to general public and then wage war more frequently. On other side of the coin, if war is just so horrible (many innocents and civilians needlessly killed), then warfare as a business practice for the state will become less frequent. To a certain extent, the threat of global thermonuclear war has somewhat borne out this line of reasoning.
NN88 13y ago
PERSONALLY...I wish people would stop defending Awlaki. The guy was an avowed asshole and it just gets reaffirmed with each passing day. I wish there was another, less controversial candidate to debate USA's killing of its citizens. I don't condone the US's actions, but I sure as hell understand the reasoning for doing it. ALSO, don't forget that he renounced his citizenship and Yemen tried him in-absentia.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Pointing out the fact of his killing in no way defends Awlaki. The principle remains the same regardless of who Awlaki was, or what the administration has told you he was - the state should not be allowed to assassinate unarmed citizens or anyone else without trial, due process, etc. if he was guilty they should have tried him in absentia. What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?
  - NN88 13y ago
    1. wasn't his son traveling with another targeted individual? 2. i'm iffy on the assassination thing because its not like the US wasn't looking for that guy dead or alive. You act like slapping hand-cuffs on him was plausible. 3. Yemen tried him.
    - grey-area 13y ago
      A system of courts and due process is inconvenient and sometimes means the guilty are not punished, but it is preferable to the alternatives. I've seen no evidence that he was travelling with a targeted individual, or even that the targeting was justified, the statement was I believe 'he was not specifically targeted'. That's because there was no trial, and no evidence presented. Have you seen any evidence, or merely the assurances of gov. officials? Does proximity to a criminal while eating now warrant instant death? As to the Yemen trial, that applies to Awlaki, not his son, and you have a remarkable faith in the Yemeni justice system. If the US is to assassinate people, I do think they owe them at least a trial in their own courts. Personally I think this policy is wrongheaded and damaging to US interests in the long term, given all the innocents inevitably killed by drone or missiles in civilian areas. However it's also a sign of declining respect for the law in the US. According to Obama, and yourself if you accept these assassinations, his will is law.
rayiner 13y ago
First, due process only applies to those on American soil and to U.S. citizens abroad. The U.S. could nuke Yemen tomorrow and it absolutely would not be a Constitutional violation. It would be bad foreign policy, it would be an act of genocide, but there would be nothing "illegal" about it. Courts are intrinsically domestic institutions, they do not exist to supervise the conduct of nations in foreign affairs. Second, "due process" does not mean "trial." The word "due" is used synonymously with the word "warranted" or "appropriate." What is the appropriate amount of procedural protection for someone who evaded attempts to capture him for a decade by hiding in the deserts of Yemen and inciting acts of war against the U.S. during that time? It's debatable, but it's not clear that Al Awlaki didn't get all of the process he was due.
- joejohnson 13y ago
  Here's a nice paper from the Thomas Jefferson Law Review, "Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?" http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... It's a good paper (you should read it), but the answer to the title question is a pretty clear "yes".
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That paper considers foreign nationals on U.S. soil, within the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. I'm talking about foreign nationals on foreign soil.
rplevy 13y ago
Importantly, both Awlaki and his teenage son who was later targeted in another drone strike, were both American citizens. You can argue as much as you like in favor of the joys of murder and assassination as a way of organizing the world, but there is no conceivable argument that this is constitutional.

dragonwriter 13y ago

The US government has always been able to wage war, and has never required trial or due process to kill the enemy in war.

maratd 13y ago
The constitution requires a declaration of war. That requirement has been withered away in recent years, don't you think? It was there to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense.
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  To be fair, a large part of why America doesn't declare war is because no-one declares war. After WWII we no longer consider war-making a sovereign right of nations, so a declaration of war is useless.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not specify that this declaration need take any particular form. I've never seen a convincing explanation for why Congressional authorization such as the AUMF doesn't qualify as an exercise of Congress's powers under Article I, Section 8. Especially considering that the practice of Congress authorizing military actions without a formal declaration of war dates back almost to the founding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite....
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The constitution requires a declaration of war. First, no, it doesn't. It gives Congress the power to declare war. It neither explicitly requires nor has ever been understood to implicitly require a war be declared to be prosecuted in all circumstance, particularly not in the event of a war initiated by an enemy attack. Second, as with every other Congressional power, exercising the power to declare war doesn't require any kind of magic words. All of the controversial drone attacks on al-Qaeda targets have been as part of action specifically authorized by Congress in Public Law 107-40 [1]. Whatever problems there are with the War on Terrorism, the absence of Congressional declaration of war certainly isn't one of them. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
reillyse 13y ago
Pretty sure the US has never been at war with Yemen or ever officially fought a war in Yemen.
grey-area 13y ago
They have not been able to declare war on the entire world, including their own citizens, before now. Assassination has not been an accepted tool of foreign policy for decades since Ford. Even in wartime (if this is indeed war), rules apply, so if you want to apply the rules of war assassinations of enemies who are unarmed and not on any battlefield are not permitted. Awlaki, and later his teenage son, and the innocents killed with them, were not killed on any battlefield or as part of any war, unless you redefine war to mean any killing outside the judicial process, as Bush and then Obama have done. But I think it's more useful to consider the methods used rather than arguing about semantics - the US president now claims the right to kill citizens, and anyone else, without trial or justification. That is a huge shift in policy and also has implications at home. If they can kill at will abroad, why not at home?
- jgalt212 13y ago
  The whole concept of rules to warfare is on a certain level a bit silly. As if the hawks can add rules to warfare, they can make it more palatable to general public and then wage war more frequently. On other side of the coin, if war is just so horrible (many innocents and civilians needlessly killed), then warfare as a business practice for the state will become less frequent. To a certain extent, the threat of global thermonuclear war has somewhat borne out this line of reasoning.

NN88 13y ago

PERSONALLY...I wish people would stop defending Awlaki. The guy was an avowed asshole and it just gets reaffirmed with each passing day. I wish there was another, less controversial candidate to debate USA's killing of its citizens. I don't condone the US's actions, but I sure as hell understand the reasoning for doing it. ALSO, don't forget that he renounced his citizenship and Yemen tried him in-absentia.

grey-area 13y ago
Pointing out the fact of his killing in no way defends Awlaki. The principle remains the same regardless of who Awlaki was, or what the administration has told you he was - the state should not be allowed to assassinate unarmed citizens or anyone else without trial, due process, etc. if he was guilty they should have tried him in absentia. What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?
- NN88 13y ago
  1. wasn't his son traveling with another targeted individual? 2. i'm iffy on the assassination thing because its not like the US wasn't looking for that guy dead or alive. You act like slapping hand-cuffs on him was plausible. 3. Yemen tried him.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    A system of courts and due process is inconvenient and sometimes means the guilty are not punished, but it is preferable to the alternatives. I've seen no evidence that he was travelling with a targeted individual, or even that the targeting was justified, the statement was I believe 'he was not specifically targeted'. That's because there was no trial, and no evidence presented. Have you seen any evidence, or merely the assurances of gov. officials? Does proximity to a criminal while eating now warrant instant death? As to the Yemen trial, that applies to Awlaki, not his son, and you have a remarkable faith in the Yemeni justice system. If the US is to assassinate people, I do think they owe them at least a trial in their own courts. Personally I think this policy is wrongheaded and damaging to US interests in the long term, given all the innocents inevitably killed by drone or missiles in civilian areas. However it's also a sign of declining respect for the law in the US. According to Obama, and yourself if you accept these assassinations, his will is law.

rayiner 13y ago

First, due process only applies to those on American soil and to U.S. citizens abroad. The U.S. could nuke Yemen tomorrow and it absolutely would not be a Constitutional violation. It would be bad foreign policy, it would be an act of genocide, but there would be nothing "illegal" about it. Courts are intrinsically domestic institutions, they do not exist to supervise the conduct of nations in foreign affairs. Second, "due process" does not mean "trial." The word "due" is used synonymously with the word "warranted" or "appropriate." What is the appropriate amount of procedural protection for someone who evaded attempts to capture him for a decade by hiding in the deserts of Yemen and inciting acts of war against the U.S. during that time? It's debatable, but it's not clear that Al Awlaki didn't get all of the process he was due.

joejohnson 13y ago
Here's a nice paper from the Thomas Jefferson Law Review, "Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?" http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... It's a good paper (you should read it), but the answer to the title question is a pretty clear "yes".
- rayiner 13y ago
  That paper considers foreign nationals on U.S. soil, within the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. I'm talking about foreign nationals on foreign soil.

rplevy 13y ago

Importantly, both Awlaki and his teenage son who was later targeted in another drone strike, were both American citizens. You can argue as much as you like in favor of the joys of murder and assassination as a way of organizing the world, but there is no conceivable argument that this is constitutional.