Why shouldn't we kill Awlaki?

[Checkmite]

So shouldn't the Muslims kill him?

Indeed; half the job is done for us. I suggest "leaking" something about how Awlaki is working with US officials - giving them the information needed to intercept the recent parcel bombs for instance, amongst other things. It should not take long.

 

[Almo]

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?

I don't think you can declar war on an organization. Sure, we do it colloquially, but legally, I thought "War" was between nations.

 

[Thunder]

American citizens should be brought to justice.

non-Americans..however...

 

[portlandatheist]

I don't think you can declar war on an organization. Sure, we do it colloquially, but legally, I thought "War" was between nations.

That may be true but it seems to me that the due process requirement has likely been met via the state department and/or other organizations determining the situation between us and Al Queda.

 

[Pardalis]

He's an American citizen.

So was Timothy Mc Veigh.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think you can declar war on an organization. Sure, we do it colloquially, but legally, I thought "War" was between nations.

No, there is no war in international law. There is only "armed conflict", and one doesn't have to be a nation to participate nor to be bound by the LOAC.

 

[INRM]

Because he's an American citizen, and Obama wants to be able to arbitrarily order his assassination even if he's on US soil and can be captured safely. I don't know about you, but if I could capture him, I would rather do this as useful intel could be gathered from him.

I think it would be okay to kill him on a battlefield, if he was in a foreign land, but on American soil strikes me as a very bad and dangerous precedent (And for anybody who wants to ask -- what if he does something violent? I will say this: It's already allowed for police to use lethal force if a criminal poses an imminent threat).

If you give a President the unreviewable authority to arbitrarily order the assassination of an American citizen, who's to say he won't label people who aren't truly terrorists, but people such as protestors, dissidents, and government critics. As it already is, this Administration effectively considers protesters to be low-level terrorists.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

If they did, however to get to Alwaki, would mean doing something in Yemen, and they may or may not be allied with Al Queda. (I don't have enough data to make that decision.)

Now as we knwo from Regan's behavior is subverting teh will of Congress and COTUS, you can have government participation and non-participation in acts which may or may not be illegal.

So at this point I would be reluctant to just abrogate the sovereign state of Yemen. Now given more evidence, we could declare war, get their permission, many choices.

 

[Dancing David]

American citizens should be brought to justice.

non-Americans..however...

get teh exact same treatment in COTUS, the language always referens to 'person' not citizen.

 

[WildCat]

If they did, however to get to Alwaki, would mean doing something in Yemen, and they may or may not be allied with Al Queda. (I don't have enough data to make that decision.)

Now as we knwo from Regan's behavior is subverting teh will of Congress and COTUS, you can have government participation and non-participation in acts which may or may not be illegal.

So at this point I would be reluctant to just abrogate the sovereign state of Yemen. Now given more evidence, we could declare war, get their permission, many choices.

You think we don't have Yemen's cooperation in attacking al Qaeda training camps there?

We already have a declaration of war against al Qaeda.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think you can declar war on an organization. Sure, we do it colloquially, but legally, I thought "War" was between nations.

True enough, but "nations" is just another colloquial term, when you think about it.

We think in terms of "nations" because it's convenient, not because it's THE TRUTH.

And, convenient though it may be, it does leave some loopholes. For example, the loopholes "terrorists" (another colloquialism) use to make things inconvenient for nations.

The only certainty is that things will change. Colloquialisms that are convenient today could become terribly annoying tomorrow, a which point they will promptly be exchanged for other, more convenient colloquialisms.

"War" used to mean single combat between two champions to decide which faction got to despoil the other. Then one day someone figured out that a dozen regular Joes in a shieldwall formation could overpower any one champion, and "war" came to mean something else entirely.[1]


-----
[1] I know it didn't happen exactly that way, but I think the point is sound.