Drone Kills Top Al Qaeda Figure

wiredmikey writes with this excerpt from a Wall Street Journal report: "The U.S. ushered in a new CIA-led counterterrorism program in Yemen on Friday, sending unmanned aircraft to kill an American-born cleric who occupied a top place on the U.S.'s anti-terrorist list. The death of Anwar al-Awlaki eliminates a leading figure in Yemen's branch of al Qaeda and one of its most charismatic recruiters. A Web-savvy Islamic preacher with sparkling English, Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth. He had been linked to suspects in the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree and the botched bombing of a Detroit-bound jet that Christmas."

Comments

5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:5th Amendment

[ArcherB]

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.

I highlighted the relevant part.

Re:5th Amendment

[redemtionboy]

Came here to say this. It's amazing what our government decides it can get away with. Once we allow it to have the power to do this for someone who was most certainly guilty, we have given it the power to do this with anyone else it decides is guilty enough. It's very dangerous territory that we need to retreat from. End American imperialism. It's time we got rid of Obushma.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

1. We're not at war with Yemen
2. Who decides that someone deserves to die? Who is this 'government' you refer to?

Re:5th Amendment

[dkleinsc]

Anwar al-Awlaki was not and had never been a member of the US military, which is what that clause is plainly referring to. And even the military doesn't have carte blanche to just slaughter people - they're (in theory at least) bound by treaties and rules of engagement. No matter how you slice it, this was a US president ordering (or even worse, the CIA and DoD acting without orders) a US citizen killed far from any battlefield without presenting a shred of evidence to a jury.

There would be also some question about whether this was a time of war, as no declaration of war has ever been passed by Congress against Iraq, Afghanistan, or Al Qaida. Regarding "public danger", your chance of being killed by a terrorist has never been greater than your chance of being killed by a washing machine.

Re:5th Amendment

[alcourt]

During World War I and II, individuals in some cases joined the armies of those nations fighting against the US. That made them legitimate targets for military action. The most significant precedent however, is the US Civil War.

It would be hard to argue that a leader in a group that the US has effectively declared war on (including resolutions of Congress that authorize military force) is not a legitimate military target.

Re:5th Amendment

[KublaiKhan]

Are we in a declared war, then?

For that matter, can you declare a war with al-Qaeda?

Not that I particularly object to this guy's death, but the legalities are potentially troubling.

Re:5th Amendment

[OzPeter]

So, Constitutionally when a cop sees a person threatening the life of another the officers is not permitted too use deadly force to stop the act?

They are allowed. But what is not allowed is following the perp home and while they are sitting there watching TV, pointing your gun through the window and assassinating them.

Re:5th Amendment

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

US soil doesn't make a difference on Due Process, I think. According to the media, the judge in the case said that if he wanted due process, he could hand himself in, but otherwise the courts shouldn't step in. What bothers me is that his dad had to sue to get it before a judge in the first place--it seems to me that there should be at least a magistrate or neutral arbiter involved, and that you should have the same constitutional standards you do for convicting someone of treason--or at least probable cause of treason.

Re:5th Amendment

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

They are also bound by the constitution. The military does not have the right to violate it, although the courts would give them a lot of leeway to bend it if they claimed they had to. (See, e.g., the Korematsu case.)

Re:5th Amendment

[alcourt]

If a US born person happened to serve with the Barbary Pirates, you think that would have made them not a legitimate target for the military reprisal?

Authorized military action isn't only a congressional resolution that explicitly calls it war.

Re:5th Amendment

[portforward]

The president of Yemen is a US ally. The country itself just re-formed after being split and then reunited in a civil war. It's not like say Canada where the US embassy can make a request to extradite a criminal in say Calgary and the Prime Minister or Justice Minister calls the chief of police in Calgary to just go arrest the guy. Hence the statement US forces "occupy" because the president of Yemen isn't in control of the whole country.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"

He's in the land forces. He's just in service in the land forces of an enemy.

That sort of thing happens when you commit treason and declare war against the country you're supposedly a citizen in...

They say he did that BUT if you read his speeches it doesn't quite jibe with the claims so this is fierce propaganda. Also, the declaration of war must be against a soverign nation and not an idealistic and nebulous term such as terrorism. By definition that can mean anyone who doesn't like the US. Al Queda isn't a soverign nation and there is no evidence he was actually a member. Rooting for those who fight arguably illegal US operations abroad isn't treason. If it is then we are in deep caca. If, in fact, he is guilty of the alleged crimes why was there no grand jury indictment or warrant out for his arrest? Now it is moot because he is dead. The "secret" list has 12 names on it of US citizens targeted for assassination and none have been vetted through any legal process

Re:5th Amendment

[hoggoth]

And replace Obushma with who? Down with the Republicans! Down with the Democrats!

Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:5th Amendment

[jo42]

the guy was calling for the destruction of the US Constitution and the implementation of Sharia law

He was practicing his 1st amendment rights.

Re:5th Amendment

[Jiro]

By this reasoning, a US citizen who simply went overseas and, oh, joined the German army during World War II couldn't be shot either. You say "far from any battlefield", but you are not claiming that the fifth amendment doesn't apply to battlefields, you are claiming that it doesn't apply to people who are not members of the US military, which a German soldier wouldn't be.

Of course, someone who is fighting the US "far from any battlefield" is, since he is fighting, actually on the battlefield.

Re:5th Amendment

[magarity]

The most significant precedent however, is the US Civil War.

A civil war is one in which two (or more) groups fight for control of the same government. The southern states did not want to control the entire union, therefore it should be called the war for southern independence, not the civil war.

Re:5th Amendment

[DragonTHC]

that highlighted section is meant to refer to the UCMJ for active duty military personnel during a time of war or public danger.

It does not, in any way, say that when a war is going on, you can suspend the 5th amendment. It only means that in a time of war, active duty military personnel are not granted due process by the constitution.

Regular citizens are granted full protection of due process in all times.

don't even attempt to think that this wasn't a violation of the constitution.

I'll abridge to the pertinent bits for you: {No person, except in cases in the forces or militia in actual service in time of war, shall be deprived of life without due process of law}

Re:5th Amendment

[Calibax]

You're chance of being killed by a terrorist is low, but the chance of a US citizen being killed is over 300 million times higher. Or are you saying that elected officials should only be concerned about you and not all citizens?

I'm strongly against the death penalty. I think it's barbaric and has at least one overwhelming reason not to do it - you can't reverse mistakes. However, in the case of people who are spending their entire lives working out ways to kill their fellow citizens in wholesale quantities using military grade weapons if available or airplanes if not, I'm willing to make an exception.

I would argue that this cleric would have been more than happy to renounce his citizenship, except he knew full well that visiting an embassy to sign the required paperwork would not end well for him.

Re:5th Amendment

[MightyYar]

but it is still a slippery slope.

I don't think this is "slippery" at all... this is a clear case of someone who was an enemy of the state operating from within a nation where we are already fighting militarily.

where do we draw the line?

You don't draw "a line", because it's a subjective decision. You leave it up to the Commander-In-Chief. If he's "wrong", he pays for it either politically or through the actions of Congress or the courts.

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

No it doesn't. It just says it does. You know, sort of like how every action Hitler took was "legal" for the same reason.

I wonder how long before they start doing this on American soil? How long before they dispense with use of drones and authorize police in the streets to execute "terrorists" at will?

Re:5th Amendment

[chill]

World War 2 was a real war, with a declaration by Congress. The "war on terror" is not. Thus the other side are not "soldiers" and your comparison is invalid.

Terrorist activity, like it or not, is *criminal* activity and not under the rules of war, regardless of how the press refers to it.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Our ancestors had a penchant for being able to hold thoughts longer than soundbites.

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

No, it means that a US citizen who went to Germany as a priest and recruiter for a non-state paramilitary organization PRIOR TO A DECLARATION OF WAR against Germany couldn't be targeted for assassination.

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

Sorry, are you talking about al Qaeda, or the US armed forces, including the non-uniformed CIA?

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

Muslims are Semitic peoples, so I think we could get away with calling them "Juden". Maybe we could make them wear little crescents, and gradually erode any and all rights, first to property, then to movement, then to life itself.

Re:5th Amendment

[couchslug]

"A war is between two governments and involves armies."

Do words mean anything to you or do you just "make shit up" ?

Asymmetric unconventional warfare by non-state actors is old news (for example the old worldwide Communist revolutionary movement) and is much more than "crime".

Attacking external combatants who happen to hold an own-side passport is well within the accepted law of war.

No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him. His citizenship couldn't be less relevant because the rules of war apply in war.

He was an active member of a hostile force.

He demonstrated hostile intent.

Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.

Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#Definition_and_differences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor

Re:5th Amendment

[deadwill69]

As a retired military person myself, I fully agree that we have been walking down the path of religious and political oppression and have enacted legislation in the last 40 years that would make our founding father's roll in their graves. But, this type action has a long history in our country. In 1918 the Sedition Act was passed in response to a similar situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 Luckily it was finally declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1969. During the 60's and 70's this was followed by numerous other acts (I'm not even going to list them, too many to count and all passed in the "save the children" mindset. Let's jump to the Patriot Act: This was basically an unofficial declaration of Martial Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law ) and along with all the legislation passed with the War on Drugs has made everyone a criminal and has bypassed the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs Now in 2007, our strong leaders passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007... see where this is going? So basically, this man has committed treasonous acts against the government and the people of this country. His speak is protected as it should be, but the actions taken place as a result of his speech are not. If you tell some one to kill another person, by them a gun, and then drive them to the crime scene, you are now an accessory and eligible for the same punishment. As stated in one of the other comments, you do not necessarily get a trial if you are caught in the commission of a crime and their is fear of imminent danger to myself or others. There are numerous laws that give me the right to defend myself and many states allow me to defend others also. In some states, you don't even have to be committing a crime: Just the appearance. I personally think this raises a lot of questions we need to address with our congress critters, but justification is not one of them. Oh, and the declaration of war thing: We have had a joint declaration to use military force with authorized all the powers of a declaration of war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror Sorry for the rant.

Re:5th Amendment

[Jiro]

We also have existing law on the books that says if you join a foreign military, you lose your citizen ship.

This is not true and would lead to ridiculous situations considering that someone could be forcibly conscripted into a foreign military.

Re:5th Amendment

[tycoex]

Are you saying that governments are the only international actors that matter?

IOs matter very much in our present international system. Anwar al-Awlaki was a member of an international non-state military force, that has declared war against the United States. He is no different than any other enemy soldier.

Re:5th Amendment

[Grygus]

I think that is a pretty terrible analogy since this guy almost certainly never actually attacked anyone, but let's go with that: at the very least, an investigation into whether this was legal is exactly what people are asking for. We're not getting it. So I take it that you now see the problem.

I think the analogy is better that he was unarmed and standing in the middle of street yelling that someone should kill cops, then the cop shot him dead. Still imperfect but it's closer to what the man was actually accused of doing.

Re:5th Amendment

[Runaway1956]

Let us use our imaginations, just a little bit, so that I can draw a parallel.

It's just prior to WW2, and tensions are increasing between the US and Germany. One or more US citizens are quite vocal in their support of Germany. They seek to gain public support for Germany and the Nazi party at every opportunity. Sometime within a couple months of the US actually declaring war on Germany, the person(s) under discussion take a ship to Germany, denounce their American citizenship, and join the Nazi party. From that time on, they work hard in the service of the Nazi party, taking intelligence missions, recruiting missions, public addresses in various countries meant to sway public opinion away from the US, and toward Nazi Germany's goals.

Would you still demand some kind of "due process" for the individual(s) involved, or would you agree that the United States should send a bombing mission to silence these high profile Nazi sympathizers?

Now, before you try to tell me that it's not the same scenario - I'll remind you that Al Unlucky has indeed publicly renounced his US citizenship. THAT is where all the media has it WRONG. Al Unlucky hasn't been a US citizen for a long, long time. And, Unlucky did indeed join a "party", or organization, whose stated goals include the overthrow of the United States.

Mr. Unlucky may not have been "Public Enemy Number One" - but he certainly ranked up there. Due Process does NOT apply in military situations such as this, or the analogy that I drew above. Al Unlucky made himself subject to military action, if not to military justice. In short, he got what he deserved.

Now, I hope that everyone can stop whining about civil rights, yada yada yada. An enemy combatant can be shot down anytime, as can an enemy spy.

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

Really? If you could time travel, you would have assassinated Hitler? Why wouldn't you go to Versailles while they were negotiating the end of WWI and tell them of the terrible consequences of oppressing the Germans to the point of economic collapse?

If you killed Hitler, all you would have gotten was a martyr to the Nazi cause, and a better commander in chief at the head of their military. Would you have assassinated Hitler if it meant the Nazis won on D-Day? If they never invaded Russia and lost their forces to the general winter or, God forbid, they remained allies through the end of the war? Imagine an axis that stretched uninterrupted from Vichy France all the way to Japan.

Why is it that people always forget that actions have consequences? France and England CREATED Hitler through their brutal oppression of Germany. The US CREATED al-Qaeda via decades of interference in Mideast politics, especially propping up Saudi dictators. Continued interference will do nothing but make it worse and worse, until some figure appears in the Middle East and unites the whole Arab world, and we find that we are facing a nuclear armed Arab superpower with a hundred years of hate staring at us across the Atlantic as our economy falls apart and our military become unsustainable.

Re:5th Amendment

[X.25]

The president of Yemen is a US ally.

Is it the same president that slaughters his own people?

Nice allies you have. I guess it's ok if he does it, since he's your "ally", right?

Re:5th Amendment

[dan828]

I won't lose sleep over the bastard either-- what makes me lose sleep is the the president/executive branch can unilaterally decide to kill two American citizens, and then without and review or oversight on the part of either of the other branches of the US government, carry out the killing. There needs to be more in place to check presidential power than just "it's ok, trust us, we won't do anything out of line, our own lawyers agree it's ok."

Re:5th Amendment

[hypergreatthing]

We're at war with Yemen?

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he legally renounce his US citizenship? It's not enough to simply say, "I renounce my citizenship" to make it effective.

Are you seriously suggesting that treason, conspiracy to commit mass murder, and aiding and abetting the enemy in times of war are NOT sufficient to be declared an enemy of the state? Are you seriously suggesting that we can't treat any person as an enemy of the United States of America unless they fill out the proper paperwork?!?

Seriously? No, no, seriously?

Re:5th Amendment

[localman]

The part that weirds me out is how some well-known terrorist leader gets taken down and we're all of a sudden concerned about who we're killing over there? What about all the innocent people we're killing all the time? Nobody seems to care much about that.

Re:5th Amendment

[chill]

The Cold War is convenient phrase to describe the political climate, not an actual â warâ. It is on the same level as the â warsâ on poverty, drugs and violence.

Re:5th Amendment

[Curunir_wolf]

So we now have a perpetual "war on terror" and "war on drugs" and war on American citizens of all kinds, so we have an unending loophole to ignore human rights all over the world.

Keep on saying "it can't happen here." Tyranny can gain control anywhere.

Re:5th Amendment

[Curunir_wolf]

When it comes to US citizens, it is more of a problem, even though the Constitution doesn't differentiate "citizen" and "person".

This IS the precedent for that, as al-Awlaki was a US Citizen.

Re:5th Amendment

[nbauman]

You should have known when the Democrats at their convention in Boston herded demonstrators off the street, and restricted them to a "free speech zone" surrounded by barbed wire, that the free speech wouldn't be the Obama Administration's greatest accomplishment.

Re:5th Amendment

[hairyfeet]

Except we had an easy way to not shred the constitution and give the president a blank check to kill ANYONE but the POTUS and the ones at the top simply ignored it....trial in absentia. We've had trial in absentia for many decades FOR A REASON and that is so even those who are not currently in our jurisdiction can have their rights. Once he was found guilty in absentia they could have done whatever it took to bring him to justice.

Nope just another case of giving those at the top more power than the constitution ever allowed. Sadly it truly is nothing but a worthless piece of paper, thanks to those like Bush and Obama that simply ignore it. And for those that think it can't happen here? two words...Fred Hampton

Re:5th Amendment

[TheLink]

I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that the process (review, oversight etc) guarantees justice.

If you're so confident the courts etc will "sign off" on this then why doesn't the Gov just make a good show of the "due process"?

If you're a US citizen this should trouble you. As for the rest of the world, I daresay most of us already distrust the US Gov. US citizens may also distrust the US Gov, but if the Gov at least pretended to regard that "piece of paper" and etc highly, they'd at least have to work harder to screw you all.

You keep letting them get away with ignoring the "piece of paper" and "due process", you'd be in trouble.

Having your day in kangaroo court is still better than being assassinated/executed at any convenient time.

Re:5th Amendment

[jbengt]

The bit you seemed to only just glance over:

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

Which seems from the context to be meant to allow the armed forces to hold a court martial in times of war or rebellion without needing to convene a grand jury, not to allow an assassination. (Assassination, even if not unconstitutional, is explicitly illegal by act of Congress.)

The bit you seemed to only glance over:

. . . nor shall any person be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

(IANACL, YMMV, etc.)

Re:5th Amendment

[a whoabot]

Except that there is no evidence he was a combatant or a spy! What combat was he involved in? What spying did he do? There is no evidence that he was a member of Al-Qaeda except innuendo. There is no evidence that he was involved in training missions. There is innuendo, the worst possible evidence, that he recruited people and that is all. Or there is this claim from US officials that they have evidence that he had an "operational role" in terrorist activities, but they leave this completely undefined.

He stopped being a citizen because he merely said he renounced his citizenship? That is not how you lose US citizenship.

In my opinion, the US executive branch, be it Obama or his underlings, murdered a US citizen.

But if you want to contradict me, you can send me some citations and I'll reconsider. Don't just send me to the Wikipedia page though where too often their citations do not match up with the claims made.

Re:5th Amendment

[jbengt]

The Cold War was definitely not a war.
Neither was the war on poverty.
Nor the war on drugs.
Nor the war on terrorism.
Metaphors, all - unless you insist on changing the definition of war.

Re:5th Amendment

[DaleSwanson]

Please reread that carefully (Emphasis mine):

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

That is talking about people who are in the armed forces, and serving during a time of war. In that case those people (US service members) have the grand jury requirement waived. Also note that it is only about the grand jury requirement, not due process.

Also note this clause:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

That one is pretty unambiguous, and has no qualifiers. There is no legal reason for the government to deprive someone of life without due process.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

The irony here is that all the civil liberties African Americans fought and even died for in their quest to be treated equally under the law, are being thrown out by an African American president.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

It's been argued that he aided and directed the underwear bomber and some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Two points:

Bullshit and Bullshit.

As to the first piece of bullshit, show me where in the Constitution it says, "When accused by police, you are presumed guilty and will be executed."

As to the second, Al-awlaki was a moderate cleric invited to speak all over WA DC after the 9-11 attack. What turned him from moderate to radical, is the unrelenting slaughter of innocent people. Even _I_ think the US is evil for doing that and I'm just an average white guy atheist whose very immune to any arguments relating to crusades or jihad.

Your comment demonstrates exactly why this is so dangerous. Unsupported allegations now are considered proof in your mind. The constitution requires more than that and for good reason, but if this is what is to pass as evidence in America, it's fricken over. We've passed into the dictatorship stage.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

All this part says is that if you are in the military, you don't get to have all these rights. Last I checked, Al-awlaki was not a member of any branch of the US armed forces.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

Yeah so? So does every serial killer or drunk driver. That doesn't change the fact that they get a trial.

Besides, now that the president has carte blanche to kill anyone he wants without any proof or evidence, guess who's the real danger to Americans.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

Are you a total retard or just too doped up on your "America Fuck Yeah" bong? The assertion that countless civilians have been killed is obvious beyond the need for citation. But how about a look at what some of our "heros" have done recently (I know abu ghraib is probably too far back for your memory).

How about this group of Hero Soldiers in Afghanistan who murdered innocents for fun, took photos, and kept body parts as trophies: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0859078

Sadly, although he should have been executed, the latest in the group to be sentenced will get 7 years, 4 with good time, and credit for time served. If this happened in America, he'd be branded a serial killer and would get the death penalty in states that have it -- seriously, show the dried up finger he kept as trophy to a jury and they'd be wanting to inject him personally.

Instead, since it was only innocent Afghanistans, fuck it, slap 'em on the wrist and call them heros. I tell you this, if an Afghan family member of one of the victims tracked Andrew Holmes down and blew his brains out, I'd be contributing to that family member's defense costs because justice sure wasn't served here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/09/24/1811217/soldier-gets-7-years-in-afghan.html

Re:5th Amendment

[shentino]

Nice strawman with the nazi party there.

Unless one of those so called "traitors" starts killing people or launching attacks or spilling classified information or something, they are unpopular airheads with an unwelcome opinion, but nothing more.

The only thing you mentioned that was worthy of action was intelligence mission.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

All of the deaths relating to an incipient civil war in Iraq are proximately caused by us.

Re:5th Amendment

[Sprouticus]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+war
civil war
noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

Not accurate. The States that seceded attepted to setup a federal government, which included a constitution. They may not have tried to rule the ENTIRE US, but that does not mean it was not a civil war.

In Sudan for instance, the South recently gained independance from the north. They ever tried to control the north. But it was still called a civili war.

The only people who dont call the Civil War a civil war are Southerners who wish to revise history to make their forefathers look like heros and not the biggoted traitors that they were.

Re:5th Amendment

[andydread]

How the hell do you know that there is no evidence? Do you work for the CIA? This was purely a self defense action. This moron was traveling with the other moron that made the underwear bomb that they tried to blow up an airliner with and the printer cartridge bomb. I take it in your world the CIA will put all their evidence online so that you can certify their evidence. You sir are so full of shit it oozes through your pores and leaves brown on everything you touch.

Re:5th Amendment

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

He was put on the list at least 14 months before that happened, all of which time he could have surrendered. And as I said, he could have surrendered at an American embassy when he read about this order, and it would never get executed. A presidential order does not override a constitutional amendment, and the US sure as hell would not have blown up it's own embassy.

And please ... this guy willingly took "death from allah's servant" as a name. Please don't pretend he was a good guy.

I don't see how this changes anything about my post. At some point during police operations, the decision is made to use force against someone. This decision is no different from putting a SWAT team outside a mobster's house, other than the press it's received.

Re:5th Amendment

[canadian_right]

So you are saying that if you decide to kill innocents it is ok as long as the reason was someone else was killing innocents? Which means this terrorist should not have been offended by the USA's many wars as they were caused by the killing of innocents, and thus since he had no good reason to want to kill innocents he was in fact fair game.

The above paragraph is sophistry, but no worse than the parents. No matter how offended you are by some action it does not justify the wanton murder of innocents which is what this assassinated guy was promoting and organizing.

Re:5th Amendment

[Nyder]

Really? If you could time travel, you would have assassinated Hitler?

Nope.

If i could time travel, i'd make it my mission to go back and beat the shit out of fucked up people in history.

Hitler? I'd probably go back and beat him up as a kid, sheesh, he might deserve a few visits during his timeline.

Ronald Reagen? I'd hit him so hard he'd go senile.

Let's see, who else deserves a historical beatdown. there we go, new reality series!!!!

"Historical Beatdown!!! The only show where you can pick a MMA athlete to go back in time and beat the crap out of some famous person!!!!

Didn't like Joan of Arc? Get Cristiane (Cyborg) Santos to show her a beatdown like she's never experienced."

now that's TV i could watch.

One of 'us'

[maxume]

It's fascinating how many people are worried that the U.S. government assassinated a U.S. citizen, rather than worrying that the U.S. government is assassinating people.

And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war and that there is a very strong case that this guy was involved with the enemy in that war.

Re:One of 'us'

[whisper_jeff]

And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war...

No. There isn't. The US hasn't declared war in a very long time, in fact. I believe, if I remember correctly, that it's classified as a "military action". The US has not, however, declared war.

Well, except the war on drugs and the war on terrorism but I don't think that's what you meant when you said "legally declared war".

Re:One of 'us'

[Ralph Spoilsport]

He was not a "troop" as he was not an "enemy" nor military.

He was an american citizen, and therefore due all the rights a citizen deserves, which include being arrested, tried, and convicted for treason.

He was not a "troop" - he was a civilian.

You are wrong, and a typical example of how the terrorists WON on 9/11.

Re:One of 'us'

[Prof.Phreak]

Well, if he was head of the peace movement, I'd be angry and outraged.

As things are, I think our government's strategy now is to kill off anyone who declares themselves a leader of a terrorist group with clear intention to cause trouble for USofA---before long, nobody would want to be a leader (if they're systematically killed off months/weeks after assuming the role).

Morale of the story: if you don't want to be a (drone) target, don't declare America as your target.

Re:One of 'us'

[maxume]

I think you are making an awful big assumption when you say that nobody will want to organize resistance against a nation that claims to have power over the life and death of any person they deem to be a sufficient threat.

Re:One of 'us'

[imuffin]

Right. The 5th amendment doesn't specify that due process is guaranteed only for citizens; it applies to all persons. That's the point of the bill of rights: it outlines inalienable human rights that belong to all humans, citizens or not.

Seven of Nine disapproves

[Dachannien]

Inefficient. Drones should assimilate, not kill.

Re:Seven of Nine disapproves

[seven of five]

But I approve.

Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[mwasham]

If you value liberty you need to suck it up and admit that Ron Paul is right and quit playing this dems/reps game. They are one and the same.

Re:Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[mwasham]

"moneyed interests" - already control us. No need to trade anything. Ron Paul is the only candidate standing up to the "moneyed interests". You should educate yourself before you speak such non-sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8 http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

Re:Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[shutdown -p now]

I almost completely disagree with Ron Paul on his political views, but I'd still support him over most other American politicians, for one simple reason: in vast majority of cases, regardless of his personal position, he's for letting the states decide. Given that I reside in a thoroughly "blue" state, Ron Paul being elected would likely lead to more left-leaning policies being implemented on the local level (drug liberalization, socialized healthcare etc) without feds intervening to prevent them. Which is perfectly fine with me.

Re:Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[Uberbah]

Ron Paul is the only candidate standing up to the "moneyed interests".

Laughable. Just because he'd stand up to the Fed doesn't mean he's going to stand up to the banks on their usurious interest rates. Just because he'd reign in the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex doesn't mean he'd do jack to stop Tyson from forming a monopoly on chicken meat while axing their already meager safety budget.

Who wants some salmonella with their KFC, paid for with your CitiBOAMorgan VISA card, which only charges 40% plus annual fees? Anyone? Anyone?

Re:guns don't kill people.

[Windwraith]

No, people with drones kill people without drones and drones with people kill people.

Because drones that kill people require people with drones that kill people. You cannot kill people with drones without drones and without people with drones operating drones to kill people.

Can I have a drone? I'll name it Buster, I already got the dronehouse in my yard.

watch out for those links

[burris]

Watch out for those links to suspects, they'll get you and everyone in your immediate vicinity killed without warning by a missile fired from a robotic aircraft controlled by foreigners hundreds of miles away. There is no point in building a case against someone, capturing them, and having a public trial where the evidence is subject to intense scrutiny and the outcome is determined by disinterested peers. That kind of thing is messy and time consuming, and there is no telling what the outcome might be. After all, 20-25% of the victims in this instance were linked to someone who is suspected of carrying out some horrible crime.

Re:War /= civil process.

[YA_Python_dev]

There's no war between the US and Yemen. And fighting organized crime is not a "war". Even the worst criminal has a right to a fair trial. It's a fundamental right, it cannot be revoked by anyone. Whoever ordered this murder should now be put on trial for it.

Drone Kills Top Al Qaeda Figure

[Boona]

Statistically it was bound to happen.

Re:Let's get a couple things straight, here.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Killing him was self defense.

I don't expect you to show any outrage when the other side are killing Americans using the same "logic" then.

Other Countries Can Do This Too, You Know...

[IonOtter]

Suppose Iran decides that someone in this country is an "enemy of the state", and launches drones from their "warships" off the coast of the US? Or they get "government approval" from someone in Mexico, and do the same? Heck, they won't even have to launch from that close.

North Korea has already been caught using poisoned needles to take out people they consider to be "enemies".

Just to be clear, I have no objection to taking this asshole out once and for all?

But I won't be standing atop the Mountain of Purity, wearing white robes and singing hosannas, either. Dirty pool goes both ways, folks.

Re:War /= civil process.

[dkleinsc]

No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him.

Actually, a lot of people do seriously argue that point. The one thing that is not in dispute is that al-Awlaki advocated violence against the US government, but that has been ruled protected speech - if it hadn't been, people like William Piece (author of the Turner Diaries) would be up on charges. What has never been proven in a court of law, and is disputed by many folks who actually know what they're talking about in Yemen, is that Awlaki had anything to do with planning and executing any actual terrorist attacks.

Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.

Sure there was:
1. Present evidence to a judge sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for arresting him.
2. Work with the Yemeni authorities, who are allies of the US, to attempt to capture him and bring him to the US for trial. If he attempts to resist arrest, by all means shoot back.
3. Indict and try him, and if he is guilty, lock him up forever or execute him.

Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.

Awlaki posted hostile videos on Youtube. The US and Yemeni governments fired cruise missiles that killed not only Awlaki but several others nearby. Tell me exactly what 'proportional' means to you.

Bieber, you're next!

[eddy]

>Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth.

during vietnam

[decora]

we went around to villages executing civilians because they were "aiding the enemy". how did we know? we just knew. stop asking questions hippie.

of course, when a radical leftist president starts executing right wing militia people without due process, rush limbaugh will shit a brick. .

Re:during vietnam

[couchslug]

You know going after Awlaki wasn't some random act like Calley turning his troops loose on Son My.

One doesn't waste extremely expensive mission resources plinking J. Random Jihadist.

A YEMENITE judge BTW ordered he be captured "dead or alive", so local due process was indeed followed.

Re:If the dude was so worried about his due proces

[maxume]

I'm not complaining about due process. I'm complaining about arguing the legal semantics rather than directly objecting to the fact that the government thinks it has these powers.

I do not believe that the incremental safety gained by actions like this is worth any of the costs (material, political, personnel). But that's probably because I tend to think that the incremental safety gained is largely notional, not something particularly real.

Ron Paul

[roman_mir]

That's why you vote for Ron Paul.

Realize that just a little while ago, FBI argued that there is significant terrorist threat within USA coming from various militias (remember Oklahoma?)

So it's not a stretch to say that if POTUS gets to keep the power to kill American citizens without a trial, eventually it will be used to kill American citizens in USA without a trial, who have suspected 'ties' to 'terrorism', and when government gets to decide who is a terrorist, who is a suspected terrorist and who has ties to them, the lines become increasingly blurry as to who can be killed next and where.

Realize that pretty much ANYBODY can eventually be tied to something that has to do with terrorism somehow, after all the 6 degrees of separation separate you from Kevin Bacon as much as they separate you from anybody, including various terrorists. (Now, it's not scientific, but there a point there. Something you said somewhere on the Internet at any point can be linked to something else, even if it is only similar, but not exactly the same, but who gives a shit about nuance, right?) In any case, this is completely illegal, immoral and anti-Constitutional.

I am making this comment right now, and it can be turned against me - it can be declared that this is equivalent to terrorist-sympathizing, because I don't want POTUS to kill Americans on a whim. Is that enough to launch a drone strike after me?

If you don't see me commenting here for over 2 weeks in a row, then that's it (and foes can cheer.)

Re:Stop crying

[cyber-vandal]

We're supposed to be better than them. Otherwise you might as well just have a military dictatorship where the General can kill whoever he wants at any time.

Re:He has been linked?

[Grygus]

This involves no war, and he was not a soldier. If you can define a war as "action against any organization ideologically opposed to the administration" and a soldier as "accused member of said organization" then you can kill pretty much anyone you like.

Re:5th Amendment - indite him?

[MonsterMasher]

I know of no proof that the played a role in AlQueda. I'm talking proof, not propaganda. If there was proof, he could have been charged, but he was never charged...

It's the politically motivated assassination of a USA citizen by the USA government with no justifiable legal reason or attempt at process.

What the hell else could it be? And it troubles me on so many levels. And the basic fact is that the few speeches I've heard on youtube were normal and righteous positions I generally agreed with.

Ops.. did I just make myself a target .. get it.. GET IT! .. Stupid cock-suckers.

Re:War /= civil process.

[Grygus]

I'm sorry. Demanding that you prove your assertions is not a terrorist or traitorous act. You have no idea what you're talking about.

We have this thing called the Constitution. I'm sure you claim to support it at every opportunity. Now you should read it.

Re:War /= civil process.

[tmosley]

Wow, when did advocating decent into fascism become "insightful"?

Yeah, let's all re-think our notion of murder, such that any killing by the state is justified because they say it is. Can't wait for this shit to be applied on US soil, then to every beat cop in the name of "safety".

Note that in 2006, approximately 200 people in the US were killed by police. In the same year, zero people were killed by terrorists.

Re:War /= civil process.

[tmosley]

So if the president ordered your death, and got the approval of some 3rd world crackpot dictator on his way out the door, you would be totally ok with that? Remember, no trial, no accountability. All they have to do is say that you were an enemy of the state.

Re:Let's get a couple things straight, here.

[Grygus]

Sweet, he made unending proclamations about his involvement? I might get all my concerns laid to rest. Surely this is all online; can you link me the definitive proof that he was in Al Queda? I will accept a video of him making the assertion himself, or even a statement by a credible news agency that isn't simply quoting the government.

Oh wait. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.

What you're asking me to do is take the killer's word for the fact that the victim needed killing. You seriously don't see the conflict there? I also question when exercising free speech (even if criminally excessive) became a crime worthy of the death penalty.

A simple question to those who object...

[Veggiesama]

Where the fuck were you during the last president?

Let's put this shit in perspective:
1 dead American-born cleric
100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians

I think we have had bigger issues than one asshat's due process rights.

Re:A simple question to those who object...

[Uberbah]

Where the fuck were you during the last president?

Why the fuck do you think this is binary?

Re:War /= civil process.

[jensend]

Undoing my mods to say this- the very first thing Wikipedia says about Brandenburg vs. Ohio is that "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action." Advocating violence in the abstract is a long long way from being involved in the day-to-day planning of suicide attacks as Awlaki was. Why are you ignoring this? If you were trying to make some kind of objective argument about justice, rather than being a partisan who's simply seizing the opportunity to push your view, you'd certainly have given this thought.

The government has the right to take action against those who are personally involved in perpetrating ongoing violence.

Nobody likes trials in absentia, but efforts to apprehend Awlaki had gone on for years without success, and finally a trial was scheduled in a Yemeni court. Awlaki could not have failed to have received information about the time and place of his trial, which was nationally and internationally in the news. His defense counsel was not just a sham but put up a vigorous defense. He was convicted and the judge called for his capture dead or alive. I think that in this case people went to extreme lengths to provide as much due process as could be given under the circumstances.

Re:War /= civil process.

[tmosley]

No-one is arguing that the terrorists should have more freedom to operate outside the law. You have now acknowledged that the police are as bad or worse than terrorists. So why are we giving them more power to oppress us?

You missed "shall be held to answer"

[billstewart]

You missed the beginning of the sentence, which is that "no person shall be held to answer for" - that means brought in to a court process. You can't have a court case for capital or infamous crimes simply on the accusation of a prosecutor or police, unlike for petty crimes. Obama's gang didn't have a court case here, they declared him to be guilty and assassinated him.

If we were talking about whether the prisoners in Gitmo had to be indicted by a grand jury before being given a fair trial, your quote would apply here.

Not About Awlaki

[Bob9113]

This is not about Awlaki. In my opinion, Awlaki is a piece of shit who deserved to die and his death makes the world a better place. A better place for us, for Yemen, for the Middle East, for Islam, and perhaps most of all; a better place for the impressionable kids whose minds he has been twisting. This has nothing to do with whether Awlaki getting capped was a good thing.

This is about us. It is about the principles that we choose to live by, even when it means we can't kill some piece of shit who clearly deserves it.

You are not allowed to punch people who talk on their cell phones in the movie theater. That is clearly bullshit, because people who talk on their cell phones in movie theaters totally deserve to get punched in the face. The reason we do not do it has nothing to do with what that asshole deserves. He deserves to get punched in the face. The reason we do not is because we, The United States and its Citizens, live by principles. Our unwavering dedication to our principles is the bedrock of our moral superiority. The bedrock of our principles is what lets us sleep at night when we must send our children to risk their lives and to kill.

We don't whine, wheedle, and try to figure out angles around our principles. We puff out our chests, point at The Constitution, and with a gleam in our eye declare, "We are just, and we do not sacrifice our principles to our passions. We are better than you." When that bedrock turns to sand, we become the enemy. If we give up our principles, all we have left to fight for are our money and power.

Re:War /= civil process.

[Rakshasa-sensei]

You need to re-think your notion of "murder." Murder was Awlaki's history, and stated purpose. Stopping him is not murder.

For people who actually know something about his history, torture is what dominate's Awlaki's history, not murder. Before he was tortured for year and a half in the presence of CIA he was just a conservative imam.

After the torture he, quite reasonably, came to the conclusion that the US was a bad influence on Yemen.

Forever war.

[the_raptor]

we are actively deployed and fighting battles where our soldiers and enemy combatants kill each other.

If that is the definition of war then the United States has never not been at war.

Indian's. Mexico. Canada. Spain. The Caribbean. Utah. pirates in what is now Libya. Korea 50's to today. Indo-China from the 50's to 75. South America. Caribbean again. Middle East. Somalia.

It would be a rare year in modern history where US forces did not fire a shot in anger.

Re:War /= civil process.

[scubamage]

There was no american trial in absentia though. So far as I know, there was a trial by the Yemeni government. Even so, that would only authorize action against Al-Awlaki - it would NOT authorize us to murder everyone else in the vehicle. If a cop was told to kill someone in a vehicle, and he took out that person and 4 others, he'd be brought up on murder charges.