Anwar al-Awlaki killed

[econ21]

But what did he actually do to deserve a death sentence from the executive branch? ... To the best of my knowledge, the worst thing he might have done was to talk some poor Nigerian dude into setting his balls on fire while traveling one-way to Detroit.

So he might have been responsible for another civilian plane hurtling its passengers to their deaths? And that's not enough for you? I concede, the "might have" is important. But for the sake of argument, if he had, as the US claim, a "direct operational role" in planning the attack, then imo, he's as fair game for a drone strike as any operational commander of an enemy airforce in a time of war.

There is no open war, not in Yemen.

Well, terrorists are not usually known for waging "open war" but regardless, the situation in Yemen recently has verred close to that. Over a hundred people died in the most recently reported week of fighting. The President was badly wounded (40% burns) in a bombing in June at a time when two armored divisions of his army had turned against him. There have been attempts to broker a ceasefire, but my reading is that parts of Yemen currently make Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan appear under firm government control. I am not saying the conflict in Yemen is led by Al Qaeda, but they are active there. If I were to criticise the killing, it would be on pragmatic grounds of not forcing his tribe and the insurgents into bed with extreme Islamicists. But I don't have a problem with it on ethical grounds.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?

Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.

[drone]

So he might have been responsible for another civilian plane hurtling its passengers to their deaths? And that's not enough for you? I concede, the "might have" is important. But for the sake of argument, if he had, as the US claim, a "direct operational role" in planning the attack, then imo, he's as fair game for a drone strike as any operational commander of an enemy airforce in a time of war.

If he had a direct operational role in the Christmas Day attempt, all the more reason to keep him alive. Incompetence at high levels of your enemy should be nurtured, not eliminated. From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.

ACIN sums up my argument. Where does it stop? I don't trust the executive branch to make the right decision, there have been too many examples during this "war" on terror where they have screwed up. We have a "war" on drugs, might come in handy there! The ability to be judge/jury/executioner over US citizens is a power I do not want them to have.

[Hax]

Al-Awlaki was a religious figure first, then a recruiter and then he might have something to do with operational planning, afaik.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.

But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?

[PanzerJaeger]

What are the differences between al-Awlaki and a Confederate?

[a completely inoffensive name]

But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?

The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.

I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.

Does he you really not believe there are moral principles above what the law actually says might be pragmatic?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Vexing.

Legal fictions -- that this is a yemeni attack for example -- have been a hallmark of law for years. Thus, since this was a Yemeni attack, there are no Constitutional questions raised at all.

So much for the strict letter of the law.

In terms of the spirit of the law, this particular dirtbag had never been convicted of treason in open court -- that's straight out of section three, and had never been tried by any court on terrorism charges or the like.

In short, a U.S. citizen was murdered by U.S. citizens acting at the ostensible orders of the Yemeni government to eliminate a target considered dangerous but who was not actively engaged in anything criminal.


Actually, the whole thing is a crap sandwich catch 22.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand why people think the way we follow the Constitution should change because of these "new"/"21st century" terrorist individuals that are not located on any battle field. This kind of warfare has never been anything new.

It's as if the Founding Fathers had never heard of Guy Fawkes, the man who almost blew up Parliament just a little under two centuries before they got to writing. Terrorism is older than the Constitution.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.

I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.

Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.

Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.

It is not at all being isolationist for simply wanting a procedure before an assassination. The change as I have said is in what we expect from government and how we expect it. Do we follow the ideal of checks and balances between government authorities or are we going to toss aside that idea for the sake of having safer lives? A benevolent dictator with the strength and power of the US, can keep us very, very safe. Do we want to push down that road though and leave the Constitution behind? Government and society are symbiotic in my opinion. By accepting a change in how government operates, the culture and people change as well. Even if it is to a small degree.

Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).

It is a moral principle to uphold the ideals of the Constitution since they are the ideals that Americans subscribe to. If those principles clash with the principles of keeping us safe by going after the terrorists, the latter not the former are overruled. It is not up to the government to change the way it operates under such pretenses. The change should only come from when America as a whole has decided to rid itself of some of those ideals in order for the government to operate as it has done. But America has not done that. The responsibility of safety does not allow government a justification for radically changing itself without the support of the citizens.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is not at all being isolationist for simply wanting a procedure before an assassination. The change as I have said is in what we expect from government and how we expect it. Do we follow the ideal of checks and balances between government authorities or are we going to toss aside that idea for the sake of having safer lives? A benevolent dictator with the strength and power of the US, can keep us very, very safe. Do we want to push down that road though and leave the Constitution behind? Government and society are symbiotic in my opinion. By accepting a change in how government operates, the culture and people change as well. Even if it is to a small degree.

No, I don't see how you connect the dots here. If we do a few more of these over the next few years, and then the US gov't kills someone without trial who doesn't deserve it, that won't be accepted. Why would it be?

The only thing at stake here is how we treat people like this guy, and how we deal with the terrorism issue. There's no significant link back to anything else from this. Possibly the acceptance of this will lead to some foreign policy/what have you mistakes. But that's a different argument.

It is a moral principle to uphold the ideals of the Constitution since they are the ideals that Americans subscribe to.

That's a bad principle. Instead we should uphold the principles that the Constitution tries to approximate with laws. And the fact that Americans subscribe to them certainly doesn't make it a moral principle.

If those principles clash with the principles of keeping us safe by going after the terrorists, the latter not the former are overruled. It is not up to the government to change the way it operates under such pretenses. The change should only come from when America as a whole has decided to rid itself of some of those ideals in order for the government to operate as it has done. But America has not done that. The responsibility of safety does not allow government a justification for radically changing itself without the support of the citizens.

America as a whole couldn't decide it's way out a paper bag. That's why we're a republic, not a democracy...

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, I don't see how you connect the dots here. If we do a few more of these over the next few years, and then the US gov't kills someone without trial who doesn't deserve it, that won't be accepted. Why would it be?

Except it would be accepted, because it would be "collateral damage" just like every soldier's death in the War on Terror by now. By accepting the procedure all that will happen down the like when this becomes normalized is that people will ask the President to "double check his facts" next time and continue to go about their day sad that an innocent died, but accepting of the situation of "the world we live in" or some other horse**** that I hear people say all the time when deaths are reported.

The only thing at stake here is how we treat people like this guy, and how we deal with the terrorism issue. There's no significant link back to anything else from this. Possibly the acceptance of this will lead to some foreign policy/what have you mistakes. But that's a different argument.

Disagree. Acceptance of the ability for one man to be judge, jury and executioner over anybody, citizen or not, makes a big significant link to the ideas that the Constitution was based upon.

That's a bad principle. Instead we should uphold the principles that the Constitution tries to approximate with laws. And the fact that Americans subscribe to them certainly doesn't make it a moral principle.

What is the difference? Constitution tries to approximate the principle of checks and balances and yet, one man deciding to take a life whenever he feels prudent doesn't run contrary to this?

And yes, my reasoning does make it a moral principle. It is our government, the government works for us. It does not decide what values we place on certain ideas or principles. We do.

America as a whole couldn't decide it's way out a paper bag. That's why we're a republic, not a democracy...

This seems like a non sequitor. because I know you can't be saying, "People are too opinionated and stubborn. So just let the guys in charge handle everything and decide what is best all the time."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Except it would be accepted, because it would be "collateral damage" just like every soldier's death in the War on Terror by now. By accepting the procedure all that will happen down the like when this becomes normalized is that people will ask the President to "double check his facts" next time and continue to go about their day sad that an innocent died, but accepting of the situation of "the world we live in" or some other horse**** that I hear people say all the time when deaths are reported.

People are divided on THIS guy. You think they'll accept it if someone innocent is killed?

We tried to assassinate Bin Laden without trial too. If we'd succeeded, what would you have said?

Disagree. Acceptance of the ability for one man to be judge, jury and executioner over anybody, citizen or not, makes a big significant link to the ideas that the Constitution was based upon.

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,"

There's the judge and jury part...but intentional misreadings aside, the Constitution is written so that the president has the ability to act. It's the point of the executive branch. He can send men into battle. There's a long history for that.

What is the difference? Constitution tries to approximate the principle of checks and balances and yet, one man deciding to take a life whenever he feels prudent doesn't run contrary to this?

Err, it has a system of checks and balances. But the principle behind that system is to create a government that can function but has restraints on it. Limiting a function is something that has to be answered for. Restraints are not inherently better.

And yes, my reasoning does make it a moral principle. It is our government, the government works for us. It does not decide what values we place on certain ideas or principles. We do.

It's not important what values we place on things. What matters is what's actually valuable. The south may not have valued equality, but...

This seems like a non sequitor. because I know you can't be saying, "People are too opinionated and stubborn. So just let the guys in charge handle everything and decide what is best all the time."

No more than you're saying "the government shouldn't decide everything, they should do a poll everytime"

[a completely inoffensive name]

People are divided on THIS guy. You think they'll accept it if someone innocent is killed?

Like I said, how many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed, and how many soldiers. They are all "collateral damage", to be lamented but not dwelled upon because there is a "bigger problem" at stake. When innocent US citizens start getting killed, how do you know that they won't be "collateral damage" either? I could argue that we already treat our neighbors as such in the war on drugs. US prison population is enormous, but at least we are keeping the kids safe from the pot, all those posts that CR makes in the police abuse thread are unfortunate but accepted.

We tried to assassinate Bin Laden without trial too. If we'd succeeded, what would you have said?

Same thing I said here, same thing I said in the OBL thread. Is the bloodshed of those we hate worth the downside of the process we now subject ourselves to?

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,"

There's the judge and jury part...but intentional misreadings aside, the Constitution is written so that the president has the ability to act. It's the point of the executive branch. He can send men into battle. There's a long history for that.

He has the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for Offenses as determined by the judicial branch. Are you telling me that as long as we perceive threats, the president has full reign to do as he pleases? Why bother have a judicial branch if the president is the judge and jury? No, I'm sorry Sasaki, I'm just not getting it this time around.

Err, it has a system of checks and balances. But the principle behind that system is to create a government that can function but has restraints on it. Limiting a function is something that has to be answered for. Restraints are not inherently better.

And why wouldn't the government function by simply having some sort of procedure for the president to satisfy before sending the assassins? I disagree on what needs to be answered for. Removing restrictions is what needs to be answered for. We do not start with unlimited power granted and work our way down. We start with no power and then we grant more and more power for the government to use accordingly based on proper reasoning, justification, and common sense towards political blowback domestically and internationally.

It's not important what values we place on things. What matters is what's actually valuable. The south may not have valued equality, but...

I see your point. But ultimately how valuable is safety, and why should we let safety triumph over an emphasis on due process? For more or less, the values the people subscribe to, in regards to what they take from the Founding Fathers are good, valuable ideas. Not great, certainly not perfect, but for the most part, roughly on target. Bad values like slavery under the pretense of "states rights" have been slowly removed in part of because of a greater adherence to the more valuable ideals, all men created equal, and whatnot. I really don't think this is that kind of situation here however.

No more than you're saying "the government shouldn't decide everything, they should do a poll everytime"

Well of course not. No where would I say that the public needs to vouch for every action, but this is about the life and death of individuals, guilty or not. This is not something to completely bow out of.

[econ21]

From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.

For my part, I think a man who recruits ten terrorists is more dangeorous than the actual terrorist. Ten times more, in fact. Of course, if is just an imam or scholar, writing vile things in splendid isolation, then dropping a missile on his head may be an over-reaction. Arresting and prosecuting him may be more appropriate, although non-trivial when dealing with a fugitive in a war zone. But from what I've seen, his connection with the terrorist networks was more intimate and hands-on. It's not just the Nigerian he had close personal contact with - there's quite a list of such associations, if wikipedia or your government is anything to go by. The latest report was that the missile that killed al-Awlaki failed to kill an AQ bombmaker also targeted in the same party. It looks to me that he was not merely inciting mass murder, he was conspiring to commit it.

ACIN sums up my argument. Where does it stop? I don't trust the executive branch to make the right decision, there have been too many examples during this "war" on terror where they have screwed up. We have a "war" on drugs, might come in handy there! The ability to be judge/jury/executioner over US citizens is a power I do not want them to have.

The involvement of the executive in this did initially suprise me - what is the President, a career politician with re-election in view, doing deciding the life and death of an individual? In the war analogy, which I still think valid, it would be an operational decision, not a political one. But then thinking about it, I find it oddly reassuring. The US takes the issue so seriously, it's passing it right up the chain of the command. No one below wants to take responsibility. It's when your black ops people starting killing people without any openness or reference to the politicians that you really ought to worry.

Where does it stop? The facetious answer is that it stops when armed groups stop planning to down your civilian airplanes. This is a fairly new thing (as in, post 9/11) for the US and most countries. We've had hijackings before, but the terrorists typically wanted to use the passengers as bargaining chips - that's what the 9/11 instigators were counting on, to keep their victims acquiescent. Past terrorist actions - say the IRA against my country - have been quite limited in scale by comparison. A bomb in a market is probably the grievest blow they struck. The IRA killed maybe 2000 people over 20 years; less than Al Qaeda killed in a day. I think it is quite a proportional response - restrained even - to use a drone to take out what appears to be a key AQ figure.

That's why I don't buy the analogies with the "war on drugs" or the Kremlin using radiation poisoning to kill off an irritating dissident in London. Defending yourself against mass murder is nothing like trying to reduce the use of illicit drugs or criticism of your regime.

For a country like the US, there is a real prospect this terrorist prospect will wilt and diminish, so that we go back to the scale of threat we saw prior to 9/11. For other countries like Israel, the terrorist threat looks more intractable and on ethical grounds I can't condemn them for fighting back against the people firing rockets at them. How to best to get people to stop firing rockets or your own planes against you - the pragmatic side of the argument - is an important one I would not claim to know how to answer with any certainty. Does assassinating terrorist leaders help or hinder your security? I don't know, but it's hard to see a priori that it is always a hindrance.

The less facetious answer is that such actions stop if the intelligence does not support them. You need to be fairly confident you are assassinating the right person. Some civilian oversight of the intelligence services and their operational decisions is probably admirable, although inevitably the details will have to be somewhat opaque to the public - you can't publicly reveal all your intelligence when fighting a covert enemy.

As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then.

[Greyblades]

As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then.

Ok can we scale back here? I cant help but see a brit verses america "who was in the right during the revoloution" fight derailing the thread in the near future, and as amusing as it might become I dont think the thread will last long that way.

[Nowake]

Mmmno, I don't see that happening. What he does is something completely different actually.

As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then.

Apologies for interrupting your argument, but if you’ll allow me a paranthesis You are presenting the situation by building the comparison as if it would be just any two countries with different perceptions. Yet that’s not the case, is it? Great Britain is not just a country with a different mindset from the United States, it’s a unique case of organical development. You are not A country with no written constitution, you are THE country with no written constitution. All the rest of us had to go through their watershed moments which left scars to last us centuries. You chaps began so very small and inconspicuous with the ever so mild containment of a ruler whose policy against the french crashed and burned at Bouvines – it almost appeared natural. And while it had its ups and downs, by the time you sealed Charles I’s fate a Preston you had made your point only to nail it down forever when you’ve done in James II’s hopes at Boyne. The perfect example for how this organic development eased your passage through time, you only have to look at the classic example of marxism and how it came into being in your courtyard because it was the only place where a predecessor movement like the Chartists could exist; and precisely due to the same reasons, the anarchist and communist insiders were marginalised in a span of decades only for the movement to evolve into a very civilised socialism. The only patch of dirt in Europe where this went the way it should have in an organic manner. Going through your history, democracy almost seems an inevitable development.

Indeed, the United States never suffered a dictatorship either, yet “a hundred miles is a long distance in England, a hundred years is a long time in the United States” correct? It is a very very young state and it is not ethnically defined, despite all the anti-immigration debate today. Constituted around principles, not blood, the ones who joined in did so in a dash of “I read your rules, should they stay in place I’m coming over”. Adaptation is key, yet americans will forever suffer of schizophrenia in regards to this type of initial rules set down by their “founding” fathers and they shall never escape this context.

The rest of Europe? None of us was untouched by oppression, dictatorship and revolution and the importance of an iron-clad, no wiggle room democratic Constitution is somewhat seared into our brains; European liberals not only will, but have to become hysterical about constitutional infringements.

[classical_hero]

From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.

So if you hire someone to kill someone, then you are not guilty?

[econ21]

I suspect the real issue here is not about a constitution or not but about the law. As I said in the OBL case, there's a sliding scale between say the UK bombing a Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 and the police assassinating a suspect in their own country. Neither pole of the spectrum poses particular legal challenges: the former is lawful, the latter not. But then we have cases like OBL and Al-Awlaki that fall somewhere imbetween those two poles on the spectrum of lethal use of state force. My moral intuition is that they are closer to Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 than the police abuse case, but others believe the opposite. That's a fair enough. But I am just not convinced that legal frameworks are sufficiently clear on this grey area to be the main consideration. I would rather rely on ethical and practical issues to decide the debate, giving time for the lawyers to catch up, than make the argument a legalistic/constitutional one. But I admit the legal/constitutional issues are interesting and do need to be debated.

[Ronin]

to me it comes down to this: if you do not trust your government to do this kind of decision, then you should not trust your government to run a war.
and you should use your time to stop said war instead of bemoaning every little incident along the way that constitutes that war.

A war is by it's very definition an abandonment of normal "polite" society rules......to expect that every decision along it's course will follow said rules seems bizarre to me to say the least.

[Nowake]

I suspect the real issue here is not about a constitution or not but about the law. As I said in the OBL case, there's a sliding scale between say the UK bombing a Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 and the police assassinating a suspect in their own country. Neither pole of the spectrum poses particular legal challenges: the former is lawful, the latter not. But then we have cases like OBL and Al-Awlaki that fall somewhere imbetween those two poles on the spectrum of lethal use of state force. My moral intuition is that they are closer to Luftwaffe HQ in 1941 than the police abuse case, but others believe the opposite. That's a fair enough. But I am just not convinced that legal frameworks are sufficiently clear on this grey area to be the main consideration. I would rather rely on ethical and practical issues to decide the debate, giving time for the lawyers to catch up, than make the argument a legalistic/constitutional one. But I admit the legal/constitutional issues are interesting and do need to be debated.

I understand, yet I do believe finding these issues to be "grey" signals a certain innocent uprightness when separating the notions in question
Constitution:

the fundamental legal and political principles on which a state is governed, esp. when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state

The Constitution is the law and the law in this case is clear. The legal punishment for incitement to violence is not death. The chap ought to have been brought to justice.
Intuition:

direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

Conscience:

the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.

Law:

any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.

Please, do not misunderstand me. This case has no stakes for me and I am not a person to put much passion in my convictions, however, intuition and conscience are to be distilled a hundred fold in the public forum before they can be set into law and only then followed, else they are the death of said law. The president of the United States following an intuition under the premise that the law will catch up would mean he is abdicating from his role as a warranter of the Constitution.

[econ21]

Pursuing the legal aspect a bit more, after I tried to dismiss it, some of Law of Armed Conflict as understood by the US military seems surprisingly well developed:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm

Relevant sections appear to be:

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

To my mind, the issues are (a) was al-Awlaki an unlawful combatant, i.e. directly involved in hostilities? (b) who should determine his status?

I've been arguing under the assumption that the answer to (a) is yes; he was actively part of a terrorist organisation - recruiting and planning, even if not wielding an AK-47 in combat. Maybe I am wrong, but nothing I have read so far makes me suspect that.

So the trickier issue seems to be (b): who decides whether he is an unlawful combatant? In a shoot-out, it would be the soldiers on the ground. For an manhunt style operation, a more measured process is possible. In the current case, that seemed to end up with Obama personally sanctioning it. That seems somewhat like overkill, although as I said, I find it rather admirable that the US takes it so seriously as to push it up to such a level. Ultimately, I think it probably should be some intelligence/military decision, subject to political oversight but not full disclosure or "beyond reasonable doubt" type legal burden of proof.

[econ21]

The legal punishment for incitement to violence is not death. The chap ought to have been brought to justice.

This may be the crux of the issue. I am seeing al-Awlaki, just like OBL, as an unlawful participant in an armed conflict[1]. In an armed conflict, the state is not primarily implementing legal punishments. It is fighting to subdue and defeat the enemy combatants. If a combatant surrenders, then yes, you ought to take them prisoner. But you are under no legal or constitutional obligation to make your servicemen take greater risks with their lives to solicit such surrenders. Chaps shooting at you, launching rockets at you, trying to make your civilian airlines fall from the sky, should not feel aggrieved if you shoot back. It rather sounds like justice to me.

As I said, I think I am buying into a least part of Bush's "War on Terror" mantra and viewing this in war time terms (combatants in armed conflict). Others are viewing it in peace time terms (suspected lawbreakers). It's an uncomfortable position for a leftie like me, so I am open to attempts at dislodgement.

[1]Maybe I am wrong in that - it seems many people here regard him just as a loud mouth who ranted in mosques and youtube. I believe he was an active member of a terror organisation, involved in many actual and attempted attacks.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Like I said, how many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed, and how many soldiers. They are all "collateral damage", to be lamented but not dwelled upon because there is a "bigger problem" at stake. When innocent US citizens start getting killed, how do you know that they won't be "collateral damage" either? I could argue that we already treat our neighbors as such in the war on drugs. US prison population is enormous, but at least we are keeping the kids safe from the pot, all those posts that CR makes in the police abuse thread are unfortunate but accepted.

But these are like my example, where I said this was at worst the war on terror being run badly and could at worst be criticized on those grounds. The same way you can criticize the war on drugs for targeting marijuana users. But the analogy to this case is the government busting a cocaine dealer overseas and you saying "Where will it end?"

Same thing I said here, same thing I said in the OBL thread. Is the bloodshed of those we hate worth the downside of the process we now subject ourselves to?

I don't see how you can see at as anything other than a huge positive.

Oh man, I was going to reply to the rest but I'll just stop at this one, there's too many quotes after all. You just said that if we'd killed Bin Laden back in the 90's, preventing 9/11, you would have said that his bloodshed was not worth the "downside of the process" that we subjected ourselves too.

You're trying to talk these downsides up into some giant proportions. You're being too abstract to think about it with any clarity. Try to describe things in realistic terms.

Don't say "safety" instead of "preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people". Don't say "bloodshed of those we hate" instead of "killing a terrorist leader who caused the deaths of thousands". Don't talk in wild terms about the president being allowed to do anything when what's at stake is a modest expansion of his powers to run a war.

There's a reason these things are done openly and talked about in speeches by the president you know

[Vladimir]

Pursuing the legal aspect a bit more, after I tried to dismiss it, some of Law of Armed Conflict as understood by the US military seems surprisingly well developed.

Well that was a bit insulting. What did you expect?

[econ21]

Well that was a bit insulting. What did you expect?

I expected the area of law and war to be underdeveloped. Somehow this topic makes me think of Pompey the Great:

"Don't quote law. We carry swords!"

[Nowake]

While I cannot speak directly in his name of course -- considering the legal confusion over the pond, he expected, with good reason, for a rather feeble set of rules As an outsider reading up on the controversy, wouldn't you?
Of course, the problem is that the action proceeded in spite of the law, not according to it.

EDIT: bah, that was supposed to go in before your own reply. And it's even witty(er), buggar!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see how you can see at as anything other than a huge positive. Oh man, I was going to reply to the rest but I'll just stop at this one, there's too many quotes after all. You just said that if we'd killed Bin Laden back in the 90's, preventing 9/11, you would have said that his bloodshed was not worth the "downside of the process" that we subjected ourselves too. You're trying to talk these downsides up into some giant proportions. You're being too abstract to think about it with any clarity. Try to describe things in realistic terms.Don't say "safety" instead of "preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people". Don't say "bloodshed of those we hate" instead of "killing a terrorist leader who caused the deaths of thousands". Don't talk in wild terms about the president being allowed to do anything when what's at stake is a modest expansion of his powers to run a war. There's a reason these things are done openly and talked about in speeches by the president you know

After looking back on my posts, I see that my terms are not the best or most accurate. I will re-evaluate what I have been saying later tonight, with the terms you are suggesting I use.

[Brenus]

“The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern.” Interesting reading…

So when UK was protecting the financial man involved in the attack in France (1995, Network of Khaled Khelkal), France would have been allowed to selective killing in the UK territory, or drone attack?