AQ Leader Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen

Although it is used colloquially, "war" is a legal term. You can define Charles Manson and Tim McVeigh as "waging war" but that doesn't mean it legally applies.

You can't decide that a state of "war" means lessened due process rights and then precede to define a state of war vaguely and with no accountability as to who gets to define it.

Otherwise, the president might just say were always in a state of war against anyone that commits federal crimes and proceed to ignore due process entirely.

What is an "act of war"? How can you tell the difference between a crime and an act of war? All precedent suggests that wars differ from crimes because (1) they are conflicts between sovereign states and (2) they are officially declared by sovereign states against other sovereign states. That is why they have a different set of standards than crimes do.

We can't just let the president say something is a war, and therefore it's a war.

Well, isn't that conveeenient And why should we trust the government's claims then? It's not like it's never lied before. Whether it's true or not, it still needs to go through due process.

I guess the crux of the argument is whether or not it's war. You can't have a war in the legal sense but between two states that are officially declared belligerents. "Unlawful combatants" are unlawful precisely because they are getting involved in legal wars without being declared state belligerents.

Since Al Qaeda is a private institution is "declarations of war" are as meaningless as mine are. If I declared war on my neighbor that wouldn't make it a war. It would just make me a crazy murderer.

The AUMF is not a declaration of war. You can't declare war against a crime like "international terrorism," only against states. And it should be clear and explicit.

The Constitutional authority of the AUMF is not Congress's power to declare. Rather, it is Congress's power to "define and punish...offenses against the laws of nations." But, again, those are private crimes.

What I'd call this is a police action against private criminals. Terrorism is a felony.

Were this the case, any criminal outside the US would be considered a military combatant. No, this is entirely contrary to all historical precedent of war, which must be between states.

Awlaki never repudiated his citizenship in any way that the US government ever recognized. It does not make that claim. Even if he had, he'd still be entitled to due process rights, which apply to "people," not only citizens.

These all may be practical problems, but no practical problem justifies breaking the law. At best, it means that the law should change via Constitutional amendment.

I submit the precedent of allowing the president to be judge, jury, and executioner of everyone outside US soil is a far greater "complication" than any of these.

The Taliban represented a sovereign state. Even as far as that goes, it wasn't really a legal war because it was never officially declared. But had it been, it would have been a legal war because it was between states.

 

Okay, I apologize for using intemperate language. I do not apologize for arguing that this killing was illegal under national and international law and sets extremely dangerous precedent.

 

I agree, but I have different reasoning for opposing the killing of al-Alwaki. Supposedly, the United States planned this operation based upon months of Saudi Arabian and CIA intelligence. It included the movements of al-Alwaki throughout Yemen. Just based upon this information, we could have developed a sophisticated operation to have arrested al-Alwaki without loss of life. It amazes me that the CIA is not smart enough to implement a covert operation to capture a belligerent terrorist leader.

Furthermore, according to reports that I've seen, there's been no indication that the Yemeni government knew about this operation. If this is the case, the effort is a complete violation of Yemen's sovereignty. You cannot make the argument that Yemen is a failed state because President Abdul Saleh is still the head of state. Infringing upon a nation's sovereignty without their consent is unjustifiable.

 

Of course, it is also ridiculous to try to claim that following the law would be impractical. Just present the evidence to judge and get a warrant. Try to have Yemen extradite him and, if not, arrest him as you suggest. Try him and, if convicted, lock him up, just like they did with McVeigh and all those other thugs.

Why people think that's so outlandish, I can't fathom, but that's what the law says.

 

You are the one who has no idea of what he has done but its amazing how hard is is to reason with people who feel they are correct in an absolute way despite rules and laws saying otherwise.

 

CONGRESS has the full Constitutional authority to act as they did and the President to carry it out.

Article One, Section 8

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

The question is whether you think Congress gave the order to the President to carry out the operation. For all we know, the operation may have been ordered unilaterally by President Obama.

 

Oh and then go through what we have been going through with the ones we already hold. What would you do send him to Gitmo? We have found it is more practical and useful to just kill them and get rid of them.

The reports I've seen say they gave us valuable intelligence and aid in the operation. They were the first to report it, the CIA then confirmed it.

Has Yemen issued any such claim?

Prove there was an infringement and not that Saleh who just returned a week ago did not feed the US and the Saudi's information that led to the attack in order to show us he is still important to us.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-30/...anti-saleh-zinjibar-al-asiri?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

 

Well no that wasn't the question, the assertion was that Congress could not act as the judge and jury here, well yes they can.

Now to your question.

"On September 18, 2001, after negotiation with the president and significant debate, Congress authorized the president to

use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

There are several reasons why this Authorization for Use of Military Force deserves to be a more central part of the analysis.

“As a matter of both actual judicial practice and accepted constitutional theory, presidential wartime acts that are authorized by Congress carry a strong presumption of validity, even when they implicate civil liberties.” Curtis Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith "

http://www.law.duke.edu/magazine/2005spring/features/bradley.html?linker=2

That's all he needs, once Congress authorizes the CiC to act they do not vote to approve his operational actions.

 

Who cares? His worthless ass is dead. There was no other way available. He was not about to surrender to proper authority, and if we took your view, he would still be activily seeking ways to kill real Americans. His worthless murdering ass is dead, and thats a good thing, ney, a very good thing!

 

It is true that that power gives the president legal authority to go after Awlaki, but only as a criminal (and following all legal protocols that apply to going after criminals), not as an "unlawful combatant" in a war. Notice how it uses the terms "felonies" and "offenses." It doesn't use the term "acts of war."

 

You do realize that my argument that the United States may have infringed upon the nation sovereignty of Yemen was merely hypothetical, hence the word "if" in my post.

 

Spounds like straining nats and swallowing camels.

 

So are you refuting the claim he was the current head of al Qaeda and had participated in terrorist plots against us, was actively recruiting people to engage in such attacks and supported such acts? It's all made up?

Can you give me the basis of your claims.

 

Is there any basis to that argument, have you heard any official objects from the Yemen government?

 

And the basis of this assertion is what? They authorized MILITARY force, not legal force.

No following legal and Constitutional protocols this is war, and they are treated as combatants and in this case illegal combatants.

It is highly common in warfare that certain enemies are declared war criminals and face charges for felonies they commit in the conduct of that war and certainly the law of nations government what is an act of war and what isn't. High on that list is attacks on embassies, attacks on ships of the navy in international waters and friendly ports, unwarranted attacks on cities for the purpose of mass killings of the civilian population.

 

In other words, things that Islamo's do daily every where always and without mercy or compassion.

 

It makes all the difference in the world whether you're legally dealing with a war or a criminal pursuit, since totally different standards apply. That's precisely why war must be concretely and officially defined and declared.

When you try to half-@ss it and just say, "Eh, well, it seems like war to me, so I guess it's a war and therefore due process doesn't apply" you end up in a very dangerous realm, with the president, you know, having the power to order anyone killed with absolutely ZERO check, proof, or accountability.

And that seems like a pretty HUGE camel to me!

 

Because you can't have a war unless you declare it, and it can only be declared against another state.

Using the military is using the military, but it doesn't make it a war, anymore than using then national guard for riot control.

No, this isn't a war. It doesn't matter whether you, Obama, and Osama all claim it is. It is legally a war. Wars a officially declared between states. Period.

Again, under the law, war criminals can only exist if there is, under the law, a war. There isn't. Which means they're just regular old criminals whose crimes involved attacking embassies, etc.

 

Islam is at war with the USA, as is clear, plain, unambiguous, and without doubt. Political correctnes and other mediocratiy prevents us from saying so. I am not so constrained. This loser and his Islamo pals are dead, and I am glad. Islam sucks. Nothing halfed assed about that. Reality is always best.

 

Strawman have already cited the deliberative process we went through as accorded by the Constitution. Congress granted the Executive the authority to act as it did in accordance with it's Constitution powers and duties.

 

I guess that means we can justify complete suspicion and suspension of rights for Muslim-Americans living in the United States. Making a generalization such as that is what makes me wonder if we still beleive in freedom of speech and freedom of religion for all Americans.

 

Yep! Throw their asses out and do not let any in ever. Islam has nothing in common with liberty and freedom and a society of laws. We surrender our liberty and freedom to political correctness and the TSA and Homeland Security because of Islamonazism and allowing our enemies to roam free within our borders. Preaching sedition and treason from an Islamo pulpit is an act of war and treason.

 

I'm assuming you're refering to the Shari'a, right? Furthermore, if you looked at the revised version of my post, I included "suspension of rights" in regards to Muslim-Americans.

 

"Islam" is an belief and beliefs are even less able to declare war than private organizations. They aren't even tangible entities.

Only states can declare war. You are saying private non-state entities should have the power to create a state of legal war in which our due process rights do not apply. Sorry, I don't want Al Qaeda to have the legal power to abrogate my due process rights.