Down Goes Anwar al-Aulaqi

[Boz]

The topic should never even have been brought up.

Let's all keep things in perspective, shall we?

[SFHoya99]

Getting back to the original topic, I think the actual debate -- not the debate over who should be saying what -- is an interesting one.

On one hand, I'd think everyone here is a bit squeamish about the general concept of the US targeting and killing an American citizen without any formal due process.

On the other hand, if you are for this sort of action in general, and given the reaction to the Bin Laden killing on here in general, the board is, is this a case of pragmatism dominating letter-of-the-law in a good way?

Bill James, oddly enough, wrote a little article in his New Historical Baseball Abstract that focused on how (personal note: I think because of lawyers) we operate now by the letter of the law but not so long ago it was okay to focus on the spirit and make judgements. He spoke specifically of some of the determinations of batting-title winners but expanded it to other things.

This seems like one of those moments. Are you okay with this because we didn't need a trial to know this man was a very bad man and a threat to other citizens of the US, so we didn't need to capture and try, or formally revoke citizenship through some kind of process?

Or are you not okay, because where's the line? There's a lot of fuzzy situations -- journalists who expose confidential information; businessmen who sell out the US in search of profits, etc.

[EasyEd]

I'm okay with it because he was a combatant fighting against the United States.

[hoyainspirit]

Oct 4, 2011 12:39:19 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I'm okay with it because he was a combatant fighting against the United States.

+1

[Elvado]

I am also fine with the action taken. In fact, I applaud it. I apologize for my part in the earlier derailment of this thread.

[SFHoya99]

So, to take the other side, everyone's fine with the executive branch determining that you are actually in combat against the United States?

[Cambridge]

What is the proposed alternative solution?

[SFHoya99]

Oct 4, 2011 14:15:28 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

What is the proposed alternative solution?

I'm not saying these are all practical:

You could attempt to capture him alive.
You could hold some kind of trial in absentia.
You could have some kind of (public) process for revoking citizenship that he or others could weigh in in his stead.

[EasyEd]

Oct 4, 2011 14:14:23 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, to take the other side, everyone's fine with the executive branch determining that you are actually in combat against the United States?

Yes.

[The Stig]

Oct 4, 2011 18:32:26 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Oct 4, 2011 14:14:23 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, to take the other side, everyone's fine with the executive branch determining that you are actually in combat against the United States?

Yes.

I'm a bit uncomfortable on this. There has to be some sort of check on the executive branch to make sure they don't abuse this power.

In this specific case, the executive judgment was good for the country. It was based on genuine national security threat and enabled the elimination of a genuine terrorist. All well and good. I'm certainly glad that Al-Awlaki is no longer among the living.

But let's think for a second about what Al-Awlaki's crime was. He was actively trying to bring down our government, he inspired others to kill Americans, and he used violent rhetoric against our country. The evidence that he actually planned and ordered attacks against the US is far from conclusive.

History has shown us that unscrupulous leaders tend to use national security as a cover to justify actions they take for personal political gain. Often times rules and precedents that help the country under judicious leaders can be absolutely disastrous under power-hungry leaders.

Let's use a ridiculous example to illustrate the point. Supposedly we had this precedent this past January, and suppose Obama was a power-hungry tyrant who was secretly determined to undermine our democracy. A US Member of Congress gets shot in Arizona. Evidence emerges that a popular opposition politician, one who actively opposed Obama's government, had used violent rhetoric and published advertisements that "advocated violence" against the Member of Congress who was shot. So we've got somebody who's trying to bring down our government and using violent rhetoric to inspire others to attack our country. With that twisted logic, it all the boxes we needed for Al-Awlaki, right?

So what would there have been to stop Obama from sending a Predator drone after Sarah Palin?

Like I said, a ridiculous example, but something worth thinking about. I think everybody here agrees that, in some form or another, the President should be able to send the Predator after Al-Awkali but shouldn't be able to use the same rules and precedents to take out Sarah Palin. We have to make sure we draw up the rules to allow the former but eliminate even the remotest possibility of the latter.

[Boz]

Oct 4, 2011 21:23:38 GMT -5 The Stig said:

So what would there have been to stop Obama from sending a Predator drone after Sarah Palin?

Because Sarah Palin can shoot down Predator drones from a helicopter! ;D

No, just kidding. While I - and I think most of us here - are very content that this guy was clearly a bad actor and don't have TOO much of a problem with taking him out specifically, I think most of us also have the same pause that you do, for the reasons that you detailed.

[TC]

Oct 4, 2011 21:23:38 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I'm a bit uncomfortable on this. There has to be some sort of check on the executive branch to make sure they don't abuse this power.

I don't know a ton about this case - the only things I know are from the Wikipedia article on al-Awlaki - but wasn't there a NSC review already to get his name on the list? I know the NSC is executive branch - but one of the alternatives being suggested here is decitizenizing al-Awlaki by means of the State department - isn't that basically under the executive branch as well and basically just a little more paperwork than what was actually done? Is there actually a distinction there that would make a difference in terms of vetting a clear and present danger from a retributive political threat?

I guess the problem I have with the counter argument here is the lack of a proposal that does things differently - and that isn't subject to politics or large delays.

[Cambridge]

Oct 4, 2011 21:23:38 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Oct 4, 2011 18:32:26 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Yes.

I'm a bit uncomfortable on this. There has to be some sort of check on the executive branch to make sure they don't abuse this power.

In this specific case, the executive judgment was good for the country. It was based on genuine national security threat and enabled the elimination of a genuine terrorist. All well and good. I'm certainly glad that Al-Awlaki is no longer among the living.

But let's think for a second about what Al-Awlaki's crime was. He was actively trying to bring down our government, he inspired others to kill Americans, and he used violent rhetoric against our country. The evidence that he actually planned and ordered attacks against the US is far from conclusive.

History has shown us that unscrupulous leaders tend to use national security as a cover to justify actions they take for personal political gain. Often times rules and precedents that help the country under judicious leaders can be absolutely disastrous under power-hungry leaders.

Let's use a ridiculous example to illustrate the point. Supposedly we had this precedent this past January, and suppose Obama was a power-hungry tyrant who was secretly determined to undermine our democracy. A US Member of Congress gets shot in Arizona. Evidence emerges that a popular opposition politician, one who actively opposed Obama's government, had used violent rhetoric and published advertisements that "advocated violence" against the Member of Congress who was shot. So we've got somebody who's trying to bring down our government and using violent rhetoric to inspire others to attack our country. With that twisted logic, it all the boxes we needed for Al-Awlaki, right?

So what would there have been to stop Obama from sending a Predator drone after Sarah Palin?

Like I said, a ridiculous example, but something worth thinking about. I think everybody here agrees that, in some form or another, the President should be able to send the Predator after Al-Awkali but shouldn't be able to use the same rules and precedents to take out Sarah Palin. We have to make sure we draw up the rules to allow the former but eliminate even the remotest possibility of the latter.

As an initial matter, SP is/was presumably in the United States and therefore can be apprehended by law enforcement.

Al-Awlaki was outside the borders of the United States and thus outside the reach of US law enforcement and/or military. In fact, Yemen is different from Pakistan, in that Pakistan at least tacitly allows US armed forces to enter its borders to track/capture/kill terrorists. We do not enjoy even that level of cooperation from Yemen.

[Boz]

No, Sarah Palin lives in the real United States. Not the same country as the President.

Sorry. I can't seem to help myself today. Maybe I shouldn't have "Irished up" my coffee so much.

;D

But back to pertinent question, which Cambridge's post raises. Set aside the citizenship for a minute. Are we concerned at all that we're pretty much sending Predator drones wherever we feel like it? What if Al-Awlaki was operating out of Syria?

Not trying to be leading, or snarky, or answering the question by asking it. Though, I suppose it's really no different in effect than launching Tomahawks from a destroyer in the Arabian Sea.

[Bando]

Oct 4, 2011 18:32:26 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Oct 4, 2011 14:14:23 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, to take the other side, everyone's fine with the executive branch determining that you are actually in combat against the United States?

Yes.

Hail Caesar!

[EasyEd]

In the United States we elect a president and give him/her lots of authority and we have the ability to impeach him/her or vote them out of office. We give him the authority to sue Boeing to try to keep them from opening an assembly line in South Carolina. We give him the authority to prioritize in how or if he's going to enforce the southern border. We give him the authority to fire drones into countries we are not at war with. We give him the authority to decide whether to prosecute enemy combatants in military or civil courts. etc., etc. We trust that he/she will exercise good judgement in using that authority. Again, we can impeach or vote them out of office. I trust President Obama did what is prudent and I don't want to see anyone hamstring him on his ability to react to an opportunity such as the one he just exercised in Yemen. That ain't Caesar, Bando, it's representative government.

[dense]

the problem is the Constitution is explict on how to charge and convict someone on treason....And I think thats the justification many are using. I dont want anyone to circumvent the law no matter how much they get "hamstrung" Look they say they have evidence that he was doing more than just making speech to kill Americans..(which for me personally isnt enough to go send a drone to kill someone) then lets see this evidence! I think Obama tooka big dump on the 5th and 6th amendements and I dont like it one bit. I am also a Libertarian and hate alot of things he does. This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach and the fact people are "okay" with it makes me sicker.
I'm skeptical about this guy anyway. They invite him to the pentagon to help with relations...10 years later he is dead...I'm sure like Manuel Noriega we will find out he was a CIA operative that went rogue. This time we didnt have to invade a country for it and kill 3,000 people so I guess thats a positive.

[Cambridge]

Oct 5, 2011 18:17:14 GMT -5 dense said:

the problem is the Constitution is explict on how to charge and convict someone on treason....And I think thats the justification many are using. I dont want anyone to circumvent the law no matter how much they get "hamstrung" Look they say they have evidence that he was doing more than just making speech to kill Americans..(which for me personally isnt enough to go send a drone to kill someone) then lets see this evidence! I think Obama tooka big dump on the 5th and 6th amendements and I dont like it one bit. I am also a Libertarian and hate alot of things he does. This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach and the fact people are "okay" with it makes me sicker.
I'm skeptical about this guy anyway. They invite him to the pentagon to help with relations...10 years later he is dead...I'm sure like Manuel Noriega we will find out he was a CIA operative that went rogue. This time we didnt have to invade a country for it and kill 3,000 people so I guess thats a positive.

I believe it's not based on treason, but on serving in military/taking up arms or serving in a governing capacity for another "nation" which is a separate means of revoking citizenship under the purview of the DOS. For example, if you are a US citizen and you are appointed ambassador by England, the United States could revoke your citizenship.

[dense]

Oh I meant treason is the reason people are saying this is okay. Sorry didnt explain that Cambridge...I didnt mean Obama's reasoning for why its ok under law