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

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

It means that the US government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without strictly following the procedures for doing that under the law.  It can apply to both civil or criminal contexts.

Rule of law and just killing a terrorist because it is impossible to apprehend him otherwise are not compatible for me.

That is true if the basis for seeking out the terrorist is to apply a criminal sanction.  In that case deprivation of life cannot occur without due process of law, which in a criminal matter means the right to present a defense, with counsel, etc.  However, if the terrorist is a combatant in a war against the United States, then the relevant law to which "due process" applies is not the criminal law but the laws of war.  And the laws of war permit a belligerant to kill other belligerents without warning and without a trial.

That raises the question of whether al-Awlaki is merely a criminal or whether he is a combatant engaged in war against the United States.  Obama's order as I see it definitely answers that question from the standpoint how the White House views the matter.

[dps]

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"?

Neither, exactly.  It applies to judicial and quasi-judicial processes in general, not just criminal proceedings.

[DontSayBanana]

"Due process" is a reference to the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Honestly, the thing that bugs me is that we hold born citizenship to some impossibly high standard.  If this had been a naturalized citizen, it would have been a non-issue because citizenship would be revoked.  But for a confirmed terrorist sympathizer working with foreign nationals on foreign soil as a self-declared enemy of the United States government to get special treatment simply by dint of being born here?  I have to wonder which side is being more pigheaded about absurd ideals.

[CountDeMoney]

Takes three pages to determine that most of you are morons. Way to go.

[Razgovory]

Takes three pages to determine that most of you are morons. Way to go.

Pah, you knew I was moron from the word go.

[Jaron]

I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.

[grumbler]

I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.

That makes much more sense as an argument against the death penalty than it does against an enemy in the field... but you knew that. 

[sbr]

I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.

I think renouncing his citizenship was implied when he left the country for Yemen and help plan terrorist attacks on real US citizens.

Just because his parent lived here when he was born shouldn't give him special protection.

[Razgovory]

I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.

I think renouncing his citizenship was implied when he left the country for Yemen and help plan terrorist attacks on real US citizens.

Just because his parent lived here when he was born shouldn't give him special protection.

Nope.  If that was true we couldn't try anyone for treason.

[grumbler]

I'm still not comfortable with this. I don't think assassinating our own citizens is a path this country should take, no matter how severe the crimes committed against the state.

I think renouncing his citizenship was implied when he left the country for Yemen and help plan terrorist attacks on real US citizens.

Just because his parent lived here when he was born shouldn't give him special protection.

Nope.  If that was true we couldn't try anyone for treason.

I am not sure what point you are striking for, here.  If you are saying that simply leaving the country and taking up arms with an enemy does not constitute "implied renunciation of citizenship" I think you are probably right.  If you are saying that the US couldn't try someone for treason because they are not US citizens, that is not strictly correct.

[ulmont]

If you are saying that the US couldn't try someone for treason because they are not US citizens, that is not strictly correct.

Damned close, though.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

While the accused does not have to be a US citizen, they clearly are required to "owe[] allegiance to the United States."

[Martinus]

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?

What an entirely inappropriate and retarded analogy. I award you 1 Marty point for excellence in bad analogies.

[Martinus]

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.

The funny part is that the left lambasted Bush for being a fascist and the right is now lambasting Obama for being a terrorist-loving pinko.

[Martinus]

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?

The question is what makes a government-organized killing "a military action".

[Berkut]

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.

The funny part is that the left lambasted Bush for being a fascist and the right is now lambasting Obama for being a terrorist-loving pinko.

Wait, you aren't trying to suggest that most of the angst on both sides has nothing to do with actual policy, and is simply tribal feces flinging, are you???