US 'approves killing' US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

[Zanza]

Perhaps, but there lots of incidents of this happening.  Stuff like Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger.  It's not exactly a precedent.  The question is: Can law enforcement reasonable expect to capture him with out undue danger to themselves?  Probably not.  These guys tend to have armed militia surrounding them.  Of course he's free to contact a lawyer and arrange to turn himself in and face any charges against him in a court of law.

My point is that the alternative to not being able to capture him alive is not necessarily to kill him, but perhaps it is to just leave him be and wait for a better opportunity. I am generally very sceptical about the state killing people, especially its own citizens, so the latter possiblities could for me be the smaller evil than just killing him.

[DisturbedPervert]

I agree, he shouldn't be killed if possible.  Secret detention and torture in a third country is the best option.

[Zanza]

Virtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?

It's not about serving him a warrant. The alternative for me is to just leave him be. As I don't know anything about the case, so that may not be realistic as he may well constitute a direct danger to Americans. But if that's not the case, I could see myself preferring not to do anything against him instead of just killing him because he acts treasonous.

The difference to the Confederate Army is that it certainly was a direct threat to the very existence of the United States and its people. So inaction was not possible and the only possible alternative was outright warfare - obviously without using stuff like due process during battle.

[Razgovory]

Perhaps, but there lots of incidents of this happening.  Stuff like Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger.  It's not exactly a precedent.  The question is: Can law enforcement reasonable expect to capture him with out undue danger to themselves?  Probably not.  These guys tend to have armed militia surrounding them.  Of course he's free to contact a lawyer and arrange to turn himself in and face any charges against him in a court of law.

My point is that the alternative to not being able to capture him alive is not necessarily to kill him, but perhaps it is to just leave him be and wait for a better opportunity. I am generally very sceptical about the state killing people, especially its own citizens, so the latter possiblities could for me be the smaller evil than just killing him.

So a government shouldn't attempt to stop a criminal unless they are reasonably sure they can do so with out harming him?

[Zanza]

Unless he is an immediate threat for life and limb of other persons then, yes, governments should not use deadly force to stop a criminal.

[Camerus]

What about the fact that he is based in a third country (and thus impossible to apprehend in other ways), and from there certainly encouraging and likely orchestrating further attacks on the US?  Shouldn't that factor into the equation at all?

[Kleves]

The problem is, I think, that killing him would essentially be assassinating an American citizen. That seems a dangerous precendent.

[Berkut]

Virtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?

It's not about serving him a warrant. The alternative for me is to just leave him be. As I don't know anything about the case, so that may not be realistic as he may well constitute a direct danger to Americans. But if that's not the case, I could see myself preferring not to do anything against him instead of just killing him because he acts treasonous.

The difference to the Confederate Army is that it certainly was a direct threat to the very existence of the United States and its people. So inaction was not possible and the only possible alternative was outright warfare - obviously without using stuff like due process during battle.

But they have in fact made that very determination, as the article states.

They have decided that he has gone from simply speaking to acting, and therefore constitutes a real danger to American lives, and therefore have decided that the normal prohibitions you are rightly concerned about do not apply any longer.

You are basically agreeing with them, in theory, and they are agreeing with you, but adding that the case in question actually meets the criteria you have established for when the state should take such a drastic measure.

Like someone pointed out, if he wished to enjoy the protections of the Constitution, he can easily do so by turning himself in.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Constitutional question is a bit murky.  The text of the due process clause is clear enough - it refers to the rights of "persons" not just citizens.  In the terror detention cases, the Court considered and rejected making significant distinctions between citizens and non-citizens for due process purposes.   Thus, in Rasul, the Court ruled that non-citizens could seek a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the basis of their detention as "enemy combatants"; OTOH in Hamdi, the Court ruled that a US citizen could be detained as an "enemy combatant" to the same degree and extent as an alien.   

OTOH there is a line of precedents addressing the constitutionality of governmental actions overseas that does make an alien-citizen distinction.  In Verdugo-Urquidez the Court held that US government agents didn't need to abide by the 4th Amendment when conducting searches on non-US citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the US.  Although the case dealt solely with the 4th amendment, the decision was written very broadly and explicitly referred to other constitutional provisions, including - notably for the issue at hand here - the 5th amendment.  The Court also made a very clear and strong distinction between actions of the US overseas affecting US citizens and those affecting aliens. 

I think Verdugo-Urquidez was a dubious decision but it is the law of the land now, and the implication of that decision is that this guy's status as a US citizen is a meaningful datum.  Assuming the order is just "kill or capture" as oppposed to "capture - but deadly force is authorized in the event of resistance", it seems to me the only way to justify this order is to take the full Rumsfeldian position that al-Awlaki is an active enemy combatant engaged in warfare against the United States (with the corollary being that the "War on Terror" is legally speaking a war like any other traditional interstate conflict).

The conclusion that I draw from this order  is that Obama's policy w/r/t the war on terror is basically identical to that of the prior adminstration except rhetorically and as to matters of emphasis.

[Ed Anger]

The conclusion that I draw from this order  is that Obama's policy w/r/t the war on terror is basically identical to that of the prior adminstration except rhetorically and as to matters of emphasis.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is consistent with other terror-related decisions of the administration.  For all the talk about civilian vs. military trials, the policies of the two admins are identical.  The Bush admin policy was to try some detainees in civilian courts and some before commissions; the Obama admin policy is exactly the same - only the messaging was different.  The Bush admin policy was to detain people in Gitmo but eventually phase out its use.  That is also the Obama admin policy - with the difference that the message is to emphasize the desire to phase it out in press communications, without really doing much more to speed the process than the prior administration was doing. 

[Ed Anger]

This is consistent with other terror-related decisions of the administration.  For all the talk about civilian vs. military trials, the policies of the two admins are identical.  The Bush admin policy was to try some detainees in civilian courts and some before commissions; the Obama admin policy is exactly the same - only the messaging was different.  The Bush admin policy was to detain people in Gitmo but eventually phase out its use.  That is also the Obama admin policy - with the difference that the message is to emphasize the desire to phase it out in press communications, without really doing much more to speed the process than the prior administration was doing.

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!

[grumbler]

Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.

The Constitution has no due process procedures for military actions.  The Executive has no more responsibility to provide due process to a citizen than a non-citizen.  Do you object to the fact that due process does not apply to military actions, or to the fact that the US Constitution applies to the US government and not to US citizens?

[Razgovory]

Unless he is an immediate threat for life and limb of other persons then, yes, governments should not use deadly force to stop a criminal.

In such a world criminals need only carry weapons and show a willingness to use them if stopped by police to be untouchable.

[Zanza]

Do you object to the fact that due process does not apply to military actions, or to the fact that the US Constitution applies to the US government and not to US citizens?

The former. I am not quite sure what "due process" actually means so it is well possible that I misunderstand the concept. Does it only apply to criminal law or is it a more general term for "rule of law"? I understood it as the latter. Rule of law and just killing a terrorist because it is impossible to apprehend him otherwise are not compatible for me. The exception to that rule would be if that terrorists presents direct danger to life and limb of others.

As Berkut pointed out that's what the US government now decided regarding this particular terrorist and as I have to assume that their decision was not made lightly and that they had good intel on the guy being a direct danger.

That the military is the government agency that actually executes the action is not of such a big concern to me. I would have the same qualms if it was the FBI or some other government agency acting. I guess the military is bound to the constitution as every other government agency is.