Killing Of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Yes Or No?

[Lil Red]

should "we" have killed him or should "we" have tried to apprehend him and put him on trial for treason? some people are saying he renounced his citizenship, others are saying he didn't. According to [url="http://chicksontheright.com/2011/09/30/dude-seriously/"]this link[/url], Ron Paul is “[url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLERIC_KILLED_RON_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-30-10-34-45"]condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.[/url]” Should Ron Paul be saying that? What do you think about the whole situation?

[BG45]

I'm conflicted on this case, because I can see both sides of it.

On the one hand, we used an unmanned drone to kill an American citizen. There was no attempt at a trial, no due process model of justice. He didn't have a chance to surrender to the drone that took his life. As Ron Paul put it, this was essentially an assassination of an American citizen.

On the other hand, he had taken up arms against his own government and was responsible for civilian deaths around the world. He was actively engaged in terrorist activities; what would make his death different from any other person killed in a drone strike if we don't consider his citizenship ? His actions do match the crime of treason under the Constitution, which is the only crime specifically defined in the US Constitution (even though piracy, felonies on the high seas, offenses against the laws of nations, and counterfeiting are all mentioned...also if we look at overturned Amendments possession of alcohol was defined as a crime). He was providing material support and comfort to the enemies of the United States, he was encouraging the killing of American citizens, etc.

Personally? I'd have preferred a trial. But that mainly stems from the fact I believe all life is sacred.

Edit: Wow the AP's link HTML is misleading if you hover over it instead of reading the article lol. "US_CLERIC_KILLED_RON_PAUL".

Edited October 1, 2011 by BG45

[rizz_loves_jesus]

It depends on the situation. Could they have put other lives in danger by attempting to capture him? Was he posing an immediate threat to innocent lives at the time they killed him?

If the answer to either of the above is "yes," I believe they could be justified in killing him. But if they were both no, the Constitution has been gravely violated--nowhere does it say that one's citizenship or 6th Amendment rights are forfeited because they are accused of terrorism.

Edited October 1, 2011 by rizz_loves_jesus

[Winchester]

Should we fire missiles into the homes of known drug dealers?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i respect the value for due process. but several things.

first, at the end of the day, this guy was not good. he would have received the death penalty in the end anyways, i'd think, so it'd be a technicality that he doesn't get due process. again, i do respect due process, i'm just pointing out that it's something extra.

second, these were acts of war. no we dont drone attack drug dealers, cause they aren't killing people an such. moreso, they aren't killing people in the name of war against the united states. in a just war, the perpetraters deserve death. any rebellion even within the united states would end the same way. sure, it wasn't an 'official' country or uprising like north v south, but it's as close as you're gonna get, al queda, without actually gettin there. it's not even as if these are a few roque dudes declaring war on the country. al queda is very formidable as an organization, if i ever saw one.

third, the poster above said it well, "Was he posing an immediate threat to innocent lives at the time they killed him?" like i said, drug dealers aren't killing people. if they were, it'd all come down to how immediate their killings were etc. it sorta reminds me of the tiller killing. in my mind, he was going to kill again.. and the whole question was whether we should further define allowing for 'immediacy' when it's not right there at gun point, given it's pretty exactly a sure thing they will kill again. this terrorist guy was immediate enough, in my book.

if they could have captured him, no problems, and did due process, should they have? maybe... but only because i respect life, an even say that we should not have the death penalty unless necessary. but that's almost like saying, should we capture hitler, and put him in jail, etc etc, or other historical uprising figures ( that are less 'war' like an a lil more blurry)? at the end of the day, even though i respect life, it's not like you'll hear me going on about it, just like i dont go on about it when serial murderers are executed, even though we could have kept them in jail for the rest of their life.
i said 'maybe' as to the capturing him and giving him trial, cause i see it as more blurry about whether it's war an the immediacy stuff etc.

Edited October 1, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[4588686]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1317488843' post='2313403']
I'm conflicted on this case, because I can see both sides of it.

On the one hand, we used an unmanned drone to kill an American citizen. There was no attempt at a trial, no due process model of justice. He didn't have a chance to surrender to the drone that took his life. As Ron Paul put it, this was essentially an assassination of an American citizen.

[/quote]

American citizens returned to Germany to fight for the Furer during WWII. Being an American citizen isn't a bullet proof vest if you decide to move to another country and actively wage war against the United States. Killing them was not an assassination, in my opinion. Except to the extent that any killing in a war zone is an assassination.

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1317488843' post='2313403']
I'm conflicted on this case, because I can see both sides of it.

On the one hand, we used an unmanned drone to kill an American citizen. There was no attempt at a trial, no due process model of justice. He didn't have a chance to surrender to the drone that took his life. As Ron Paul put it, this was essentially an assassination of an American citizen.

[/quote]

American citizens returned to Germany to fight for the Furer during WWII. Being an American citizen isn't a bullet proof vest if you decide to move to another country and actively wage war against the United States. Killing them was not an assassination, in my opinion. Except to the extent that any killing in a war zone is an assassination.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317492500' post='2313434']
Should we fire missiles into the homes of known drug dealers?
[/quote]

Not the same thing.


This part of Yemen has little to no legal authority present. A known drug dealer can be arrested by the police and a trial.

[Winchester]

It wasn't in combat. They launched a missile at him. He wasn't shooting at them at the time, and he hadn't renounced his citizenship. Being a uniformed soldier isn't exactly the same as being a terrorist. It's comparable, but not the same. If being accused of terrorism is sufficient cause to blow you up with a missile, then the government's ability to legally kill you has no bounds.

[ParadiseFound]

Not sure about this. High treason (I'm no expert but I think that's essentially what Mr. Al-Awlaki committed) is very a serious offence, buuuuut...There was no trial. I guess he wasn't killed on U.S. soil so he wasn't entitled to a fair trial like he would have been in America, but people have so set an example, right?

I suppose capturing him and trying him etc. would have taken too much time, effort and money.

[CatherineM]

I would have liked to have seen him tried first even without him present. Still, my dad had stories about Americans who had to kill other Americans during the war because they endangered other soldiers.

[arfink]

No. Due process was due to this guy. I don't care if we'd have killed him anyways, they knew he was a US citizen.

I am also opposed to lethal drone strikes and think that removing the human element from battle will only make killing easier for people to do and to rationalize.

[BigJon16]

I feel that any person, whether they be citizen or not, or drug dealer or terrorist, has the right to to be tried. Habeas Corpus, for all you latin(or history) geeks out there.

If the governement feels that it can take this right away from a person who is a terrorist, then what says that they might not try and justify taking this right away from a true US citizen? I feel that this may open up an easy way for the government to possibly abuse its power.

Now I dont mean to sound like a "anarchist/the government is going to doom us all!/hippie", but I feel that without the fundamental basis of Habeas Corpus, then our whole judicial system, could essentially fall apart. It would be like allowing someone to pay for a "license to kill", and thus allowing them to go on a rampage. "Sure, it might have jumped through a few loopholes, but is it 'legal'" What!? Then what is the point of having laws!?

That might be a bad analogy, but I hope you can get the gist of what Im trying to say.

[BG45]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1317496769' post='2313452']
American citizens returned to Germany to fight for the Furer during WWII. Being an American citizen isn't a bullet proof vest if you decide to move to another country and actively wage war against the United States. Killing them was not an assassination, in my opinion. Except to the extent that any killing in a war zone is an assassination.
[/quote]

As Winnie said, there's a difference (in my mind at least) between being a uniformed soldier and a terrorist. It might be a thin line, but it exists. And when you kill a man who isn't fighting back, it's usually not considered to be part of war. If we do treat this man as we would a uniformed soldier, then we broke Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. However it is the opinion of the United States government that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the War on Terror; for a comparable scenario, see Usama bin Laden being shot to death by Navy SEALS while unarmed.

As for Habeas Corpus...we suspended it exactly once in US history. During that time period six hundred thousand people died. They didn't die from the lack of Habeas Corpus, but I refuse to believe we're a point as desperate as the Civil War to deny it to individuals.

I am pro-life, and in my pro-life convictions I am against the death penalty. As a pro-life person, I am against gunning down anyone who isn't armed, regardless of their past crimes.

[WarriorForJesus]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1317487889' post='2313398']
should "we" have killed him or should "we" have tried to apprehend him and put him on trial for treason? some people are saying he renounced his citizenship, others are saying he didn't. According to [url="http://chicksontheright.com/2011/09/30/dude-seriously/"]this link[/url], Ron Paul is “[url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLERIC_KILLED_RON_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-30-10-34-45"]condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.[/url]” Should Ron Paul be saying that? What do you think about the whole situation?
[/quote]

[color=#800080]No, we shouldn't have killed him. Why? Because he was a citizen of the United States of America. Every American citizen is due their day in court, if they are at odds with the U.S. law. [/color]

[color=#800080]I do not know all of the details so if there were some people this "terrorist" would have harmed and every precaution was taken, then yes, they had the right to kill him.[/color]

[color=#800080]May the good Lord have mercy on his and the President's souls.[/color]

[color=#800080]Janice[/color]

[AccountDeleted]

What separates us from the terrorists if we don't use due process of law? they think their cause is just and that they can kill without impunity. If we start killing people without a trial then we are terrorists too.

I like catherinem's idea of at least having a trial in abstentia (and inviting him to come defend himself - or others to state his case - perhaps a court appointed attorney?) - then notifying him that had been convicted and was sentenced to execution --- some warning, something to show that we are not the same as terrorists who kill without any due process at all. I shudder at the possible future ramifications for allowing such things to be done in the name of the US.