Anwar al-Aulaqi: al-Whackedqi?

[DGuller]

Interesting concept.  Got any sources for the claim that they feel "shame" (let alone "abiding shame")?

No of course not.  But you should always assume the best of people you disagree with.

If the US is going to be in the business of assassinating bad guys, then I don't see why citizenship status should be an automatic free pass.

I disagree with assassinations in general.  I also disagree with the state killing her citizens.  Putting the two together without a judicial process seems fundamentally wrong.  And I do wonder where the line is drawn with this.

I can see the attraction in this case and I won't mourn the guy but depending on how involved the US was I think it's problematic.

I know you feel shame for making this post.  I assume the best of you.

[Maximus]

What's the alternative when the state is effectively at war with said citizen who is in a foreign and somewhat hostile country? Knock on the door and serve him a summons?

[Siege]

I disagree with assassinations in general.  I also disagree with the state killing her citizens. 

I don't, on both counts. I am sworn to defend America from ALL her enemies, foreign and domestic.

[Sheilbh]

I know you feel shame for making this post.  I assume the best of you.

  Fair.  I think they're embarassed which is why to the best of my knowledge they've still not explained the legal principles behind this.  I'm with Marc Ambider on that, did they waive his citizenship, or could they?  The US hasn't, so far as I know, summarily executed terrorists like the Fort Hood guy.  Who decides who should be arrested and who killed?  How?

As I've said I don't think the details are clear and it depends how involved the US was but if he died while they were trying to capture him (as I like to think happened with Bin Laden), then fine.  But if he died because that was the order then I'm not comfortable with that (though the world's better without him).

[Sheilbh]

What's the alternative when the state is effectively at war with said citizen who is in a foreign and somewhat hostile country? Knock on the door and serve him a summons?

It's not easy.  But the idea that you don't extra-judicially kill citizens isn't one that should only apply when things are easy.  The alternative's to try and capture him and to fight his branch of al-Qaeda in Yemen with the assistance of the Yemenis, the drones, the Saudis and everything else.  If he's captured it's a bonus, if he dies that's fine too. 

[Siege]

What's the alternative when the state is effectively at war with said citizen who is in a foreign and somewhat hostile country? Knock on the door and serve him a summons?

It's not easy.  But the idea that you don't extra-judicially kill citizens isn't one that should only apply when things are easy.  The alternative's to try and capture him and to fight his branch of al-Qaeda in Yemen with the assistance of the Yemenis, the drones, the Saudis and everything else.  If he's captured it's a bonus, if he dies that's fine too. 

How is this diferent from what happened?

[grumbler]

It's not easy.  But the idea that you don't extra-judicially kill citizens isn't one that should only apply when things are easy.  The alternative's to try and capture him and to fight his branch of al-Qaeda in Yemen with the assistance of the Yemenis, the drones, the Saudis and everything else.  If he's captured it's a bonus, if he dies that's fine too. 

I am not sure what your point is.  The US government, like many others, assassinated tens of thousands of German and Japanese soldiers in WW2, and assassinated al-Aulaqi in like manner (draw the parallel to Yamamoto, if you like).  Sure, there are preferred outcomes like capturing the guy, but that outcome wasn't in the cards.

The Fort Hood guy suffered attempted assassination from one of the guards on the base, but survived it and was captured.  Once captured, there was no need for assassination.