Under any circumstances? I don't know the details of this latest killing, but your policy seems like it would unreasonably shackle our counter-terrorism efforts. I assume that you would not oppose the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen who is wearing a uniform and fighting against us in a war (declared or otherwise). Is that true? If so, where and how would you draw the line between permissible and impermissible extra-judicial killing?

Situations such as this are all pretty much settled law. US courts have no jurisdiction on foreign battlefields, the Constitution grants total, and just about dictatorial authority over any battlefield to the President, who is not bound to respect anyone's rights on the battlefield, unless where bound by treaty law. Otherwise, the President enjoys wide lattitude to do whatever is necessary to achieve victory. The President loses that authority in any place where US Courts have actual jurisdiction, a principle that goes back two thousand years or so, to the old Rubicon law of the Romans. Personnally, I never heard of Roosevelt asking for a court order to kill these SOB's:

Axis History Factbook: US volunteers in the Waffen-SS

I see no difference between them or this current SOB.

Obama sactioned his execution.

The Yemeni Government sanctioned his execution.

High value target with a bounty on his head. 'Dead or Alive'.

If he did not want to get killed..he could have turned himself in.

He knew he had a very short shelf life..played the game and lost..and payed the ultimate price.

His successor will meet the same end.

This guy had to go

I am glad that he is gone.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

In fact, the report i read said that he directly ordered it.That's interesting, isn't it? I'm glad I'm not in charge of the Yemeni government. Weird times over there these days.

Thanks for the clarification Honus.
The Yemeni Government has been problematic. They recently released a whole bunch of AQAP operatives, which I am sure caused U.S. counter-terrorism officials hours of teeth-knashing fits.

But then someone from the U.S got smart and slid them $150 million USD, and they changed their tune.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

Those are very good points. Obviously I have not thought it through.

I think uniformed soldiers are protected by the Geneva Conventions. So if captured I suspect he would be held as a lawful enemy combatant, but I don't know. That's an interesting question.

If in enemy uniform then he's a fair target. A uniform identifies combatant status. I believe that in the past a captured American in enemy uniform was subject to constitutional trial as a spy. Not sure.

I guess my major beef is the concept of targeted killing. I do not understand why there is some distinction between assassination and targeted killing. I can't put my finger on why it makes me uncomfortable. From a logical POV we might say that targeting enemy gov officials would subject our own to similar targeting.

Finally, I have a problem with killing citizens without due process of law. I have no problem mowing-down foreign combatants. I want a higher standard for our own citizens. Else, what's to stop some president from okaying the killing of a political opponent as a threat to state security?

It looks like an assassination to me. I don't know the rules governing this sort of thing, but I'm guessing that those rules are murky.

It should be quite clear reading this that the man was engaged in making war on the United States:

Anwar al-Awlaki: al Qaeda's rock star no more – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Perhaps the part about "killing Americans" is of interest:

Well looks like it was him, not us. That is war. Live by the sword, etc. Since this man was actually seeking ways to kill my children, I think those who defend him or attack Obama over this are fools at best.

I haven't heard anyone defend Al-Awlaki. If Obama ordered an illegal attack, then maybe it is appropriate to attack him. It is a question worth asking.

Obama followed his predecessor's strategy. It speaks well of neither, IMO.

I guess I'm all alone out here in being uncomfortable with the military or CIA killing Americans without trial. This is so inside out, to me.

I remember heated arguments with folks about non-judicial treatment of non-American enemy combatants caught on the battlefield. It's okay to target Americans for extra-judicial killing but it's not okay to stand an enemy combatant nekkid in a cold room?

I share your discomfort, although his status as an American doesn't make much of a moral or ethical difference to me. It might make a legal difference. I don't know.

Try to think of it in terms of what he and his co-horts were planning to do/have done.
Then perhaps you can get your head around why the decision was made to eliminate these guys.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.

B: I think uniformed soldiers are protected by the Geneva Conventions. So if captured I suspect he would be held as a lawful enemy combatant, but I don't know. That's an interesting question.
>>> Uniformed soldiers are protected by multiple Geneva conventions. Combatants have to be from a recognized organization that has standing as representing a state or a group within a state. That's why Hamas and al Fatah have standing. And a uniform.

If in enemy uniform then he's a fair target. A uniform identifies combatant status. I believe that in the past a captured American in enemy uniform was subject to constitutional trial as a spy. Not sure.
>>> Yes, in past conflicts.

B: I guess my major beef is the concept of targeted killing. I do not understand why there is some distinction between assassination and targeted killing. I can't put my finger on why it makes me uncomfortable. From a logical POV we might say that targeting enemy gov officials would subject our own to similar targeting.

>> There were German hit lists in WW2, the Russians had hit lists during the cold war, and AQ, AQIM and AQAP, even though they were not recognized as fighting for the welfare of people of a given state, also had hit lists. AQIM would have had more more legal standing if they had remained the GICM (Moroccan Islamic Combat Group) because at that time, they had a charter indicating they were a freedom-fighting group interested only in the overthrow of the Moroccan government. When they disavowed that charter and pledged allegiance to bin Laden and became Harakat al Mukawama al Islamiya al Maghrebiya (Al Q in the Maghreb), they lost their "citizenship" by choice-- for money. A choice they made freely.


B: Finally, I have a problem with killing citizens without due process of law. I have no problem mowing-down foreign combatants. I want a higher standard for our own citizens. Else, what's to stop some president from okaying the killing of a political opponent as a threat to state security?

>> I don't have a problem with this because al Aulaki renounced his US citizenship. So yeah, he was born in NM, but so what? He renounced US citizenship, rights and protections and swore allegiance to AQ. Let him take the consequences.

__________________
Strelnik
Invest in America: Buy a Congressman!

1950 170SD
1951 Citroen 11BN
1953 Citroen 11BNF limo
1953 220a project
1959 180D
1960 190D
1960 Borgward Isabella TS 2dr
1983 240D daily driver
1983 380SL
1990 350SDL daily driver alt
3 x Citroen DS21M, down from 5
3 x Citroen 2CV, down from 6