• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why shouldn't we kill Awlaki?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,036
Location
Yokohama, Japan
The man is openly calling for Muslims to kill Americans. Furthermore, these are not just words (although one could argue that such words alone would justify targeting him on self-defense grounds if others act on those words or could reasonably be expected to act on those words) he is actively conspiring with Al Qaeda to take concrete actions to kill Americans. Killing him is a simple act of self defense, just as a policeman shooting a madman on a shooting spree is entirely justifiable.

But yet, the ACLU is arguing otherwise.
 
Humm... ACLU lawyers are mad that they were not consulted before printing of the 'wanted dead or alive' posters...

Actually, I am sympathetic to the ACLU's being concerned about 'secret hit lists' for American citizens without legal process. I think they are mistaken to say that this is the victim of a hit list.

Awlaki could turn himself in and argue his case in court. He is not as far as I can see, being denied a day in court if he took steps to have one.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
So if an American citizen is shooting up a mall, should the police shoot him?
Click to expand...

From the second article you linked:

"The lawsuit does not seek to prevent the government from carrying out targeted killings. Instead, the ACLU is asking Judge Bates to examine the government’s criteria for placing Awlaki on the alleged kill list.

To justify lethal action, the ACLU suit says, the government must be able to demonstrate that the targeted killing is necessary to prevent a direct and imminent threat to public safety. In addition, the suit says, the government must be able to show there are no non-lethal options available to neutralize a threat from Awlaki."

And that's the way in which your analogy doesn't hold; a shooting spree is carried out by someone who undeniably presents a "direct and imminent threat to public safety", whereas that has not been demonstrated here. They're automatically treating him like an enemy combatant of sorts when such a classification may not be justified.
 
Last edited:
I believe that the government has the evidence to demonstrate that Awlaki is "a direct and imminent threat to public safety."
 
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. But I don't put someone actively engaging in a shooting spree in a public setting on the same footing as somebody actively inciting violence against a group of citizens, which is why I don't think the evidence has been met yet.

I do think that given his affiliation with Yemen Al-Qaeda and the fact that he is contributing to a violent atmosphere for Americans do warrant a legal response, because you know... those things aren't cool, lol.
 
Last edited:
Alawki is on foreign soil.

Alawki has integrated himself into the enemy command and control network.

Command, control and communications are legitimate wartime targets.

Short version: Weapons hot, fire at will.
 
I'm with the ACLU, there should be due process. If they can get a judge to sign off on it, I'll be satisfied.
 
Puppycow said:
So if an American citizen is shooting up a mall, should the police shoot him?
Click to expand...

If someone says it is ok to shoot up people in the mall but does nothing should the police shoot him?

If someone is shooting people in the mall and can be stopped without killing him should the police shoot him?
 
eeyore1954 said:
If someone says it is ok to shoot up people in the mall but does nothing should the police shoot him?
Click to expand...
In this case he's not just saying it is ok, he is saying it is a religious duty, and in fact he himself and others are actively trying to do so. Every day that he is alive and on the loose there is a possibility that he will find a way to attack Americans. His own words leave no doubt as to his intentions. At any time however, he could renounce violence and, assuming that his actions are consistent with his words thereafter, then I would say we should stop trying to assassinate him, although he should still be considered a fugitive for past crimes.

If someone is shooting people in the mall and can be stopped without killing him should the police shoot him?
Click to expand...
If no additional risk to others is incurred, yes. The point with Awlaki is that trying to capture him alive would put soldiers at considerably more risk than shooting him with a drone or bombing him.
 
Puppycow said:
The man is openly calling for Muslims to kill Americans. Furthermore, these are not just words (although one could argue that such words alone would justify targeting him on self-defense grounds if others act on those words or could reasonably be expected to act on those words) he is actively conspiring with Al Qaeda to take concrete actions to kill Americans. Killing him is a simple act of self defense, just as a policeman shooting a madman on a shooting spree is entirely justifiable.

But yet, the ACLU is arguing otherwise.
Click to expand...

If there is a legislative and constitutional means to do so the main reason not to do so is that the laws exist partly to constrain ths actions of the government. Now if we capture him legally, then by all means bring him to the US for a trial.
 
Big Boss said:
I do think that given his affiliation with Yemen Al-Qaeda and the fact that he is contributing to a violent atmosphere for Americans do warrant a legal response, because you know... those things aren't cool, lol.
Click to expand...
What "legal response" do you suggest? This guy already inspired the Ft. Hood shooting, and several plots that were foiled without loss of life.
 
Hasn't due process of law already determined Al Queda to be a terrorist organization and that we are at war with them and can act accordingly?
 
Dancing David said:
Yes but we are not at war with Yemen specifically, so acts of agression against the sovereign nation of Yemen are a problem.
Click to expand...
We're not acting against Yemen, are we?

And if you noticed, no specific country is mentioned in the AUMF. If Yemen decided to ally itself with al Qaeda they'd be a legitimate target.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom