US born terror cleric killed

[BostonWu]

I think the operative word here is US Citizen. He gave up that privilege when he plotted and recruited people to hurt other US Citizens. I can't side with Ron Paul on this.

So a wife recruits a group of gang members to murder her husband, and maybe his kids from another marriage, perhaps even his parents.

It's OK to just kill her without a trial?

Poor anology. Your scenario is clearly not within the theater of war. IMO it doesn't matter if he's a US citizen - he's directly collaborating with the enemy in hostil territory so he gets what he gets.

[BostonWu]

We didn't target a US Citizen. We targeted the terrorist vehicle he happened to be an occupant of. So, Mr. Paul, let's just consider him collateral damage and call it good?

His response - "Why are we over there at all?"

See Mr Paul doesn't think we should be over there under any circumstances.

[DUShock]

But wait:

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

This is why this guy is not taken seriously.

The better part of me thinks Paul is right on this. Sometimes that part is smaller

Don't be so naive.

[RoyalShock]

I think the operative word here is US Citizen. He gave up that privilege when he plotted and recruited people to hurt other US Citizens. I can't side with Ron Paul on this.

So a wife recruits a group of gang members to murder her husband, and maybe his kids from another marriage, perhaps even his parents.

It's OK to just kill her without a trial?

Poor anology. Your scenario is clearly not within the theater of war. IMO it doesn't matter if he's a US citizen - he's directly collaborating with the enemy in hostil territory so he gets what he gets.

Unless I missed something, war has not been declared. Congress gave Bush permission to use military action in Afghanistan, but I don't recall there ever being a formal declaration of war.

If the Constitution has a provision for usurping due process in this case, fine.

You have to think about this philosophically. What other reasons can the government use in the future to justify such assassinations against US citizens?

I'm not saying this guy wasn't scum and wasn't a traitor, because he was.

[Kung Wu]

Unless I missed something, war has not been declared. Congress gave Bush permission to use military action in Afghanistan, but I don't recall there ever being a formal declaration of war.

If the Constitution has a provision for usurping due process in this case, fine.

You have to think about this philosophically. What other reasons can the government use in the future to justify such assassinations against US citizens?

I'm not saying this guy wasn't scum and wasn't a traitor, because he was.

No formal declaration is needed. Simple approval for military action is sufficient.

Congress put no such restriction on Bush at all. Afghanistan was never mentioned. This authorization is broad and Al Qaeda is clearly an organization involved in 9-11:

That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

Getting philosophical is good but your argument is a slippery slope. The way I read the above paragraph, the Pres is authorized to use force against Al Qeada operatives with no restrictions. Restrictions HAVE been placed subsequently for alien unprivileged belligerents in military courts, but no such luck for non-aliens. But this was on the "battlefield", he was not a captive.

Plus since he was a dual citizen they only intended to bomb the Yemeni half of him but the US half was standing too close.

[Maggie]

This is a very real dilemma and the targeting of U.S. citizens by our government is in a sense disturbing. If you accept that we are at “war”, officially declared or not, and that the “battleground” is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistain, Somalia, etc. Then al-Awlaki was aiding and abetting our enemy in an active theater – if he was in Dearborn, Michigan he would have been picked up by the FBI rather then taken out. Now if you capture an enemy combatant in this theater, you cannot kill him. But if he is at large, you can. That is true in all cases, not just this one.

As for the issue of citizenship. Citizenship is a contract between the citizen and the nation state. In exchange for the rights of citizenship the citizen, at least in the US, and I'm thinking of the naturalization oath, swears allegiance to the nation. al-Awlaki abrogated his end of the bargain by becoming part of a movement whose goal was the destruction of the state his citizenship obliged him to give his allegiance. He became a foreign combatant in a war by his new found allegiance against his former nation. The government of the US, at this point, is obliged to kill him, in order to fulfill its side of the contract to those citizens who have kept their side of the bargain.

And you could also think about it another way. al-Awlaki was dealt with (we can only hope) under common law that dates back for thousands of years. He was a leader in outlawry - a brigand. (Had he been afloat, he would be a pirate.) The rules of war pertain to organized militaries of nations. The rule of law applies to people who live under the law. al-Awlaki consciously chose to become an outlaw - in every sense of the term. Therefore, he is entitled to no more protection from the American courts than Blackbeard.

As for the slippery slope argument – those are hard to make even under the best of circumstances. I am not sure I buy it.

[pogo]

This is a very real dilemma and the targeting of U.S. citizens by our government is in a sense disturbing. If you accept that we are at “war”, officially declared or not, and that the “battleground” is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistain, Somalia, etc. Then al-Awlaki was aiding and abetting our enemy in an active theater – if he was in Dearborn, Michigan he would have been picked up by the FBI rather then taken out. Now if you capture an enemy combatant in this theater, you cannot kill him. But if he is at large, you can. That is true in all cases, not just this one.

As for the issue of citizenship. Citizenship is a contract between the citizen and the nation state. In exchange for the rights of citizenship the citizen, at least in the US, and I'm thinking of the naturalization oath, swears allegiance to the nation. al-Awlaki abrogated his end of the bargain by becoming part of a movement whose goal was the destruction of the state his citizenship obliged him to give his allegiance. He became a foreign combatant in a war by his new found allegiance against his former nation. The government of the US, at this point, is obliged to kill him, in order to fulfill its side of the contract to those citizens who have kept their side of the bargain.

And you could also think about it another way. al-Awlaki was dealt with (we can only hope) under common law that dates back for thousands of years. He was a leader in outlawry - a brigand. (Had he been afloat, he would be a pirate.) The rules of war pertain to organized militaries of nations. The rule of law applies to people who live under the law. al-Awlaki consciously chose to become an outlaw - in every sense of the term. Therefore, he is entitled to no more protection from the American courts than Blackbeard.

As for the slippery slope argument – those are hard to make even under the best of circumstances. I am not sure I buy it.

+1 Well said.