Hyperbolized like a true traitor, I'm speaking like a true patriot who's forefathers founded this great nation and who wants to prosecute 1/5 (70 million/350 million) of the country because they attempted a violent murderous coup, an overthrow of the American government by force, violence, and threats of violence, and around 60% of them think it was great and intend to try it again this week, not because they voted for a traitor, but because most still back him after the failed coup and intend to try again.

I would love to round you all up, put you on trial with exactly the same criteria members of ISIS/Daesh faced as members of a terrorist organization, and give you all the same treatment you all cheered on when it was done to brown skinned people. (Just one reason I shouldn't be appointed supreme leader) They/you are members of a violent, anti America terrorist organization and movement. Do you think Daesh members should be set free if you cannot prove they directly killed someone but can prove they are active Daesh members, including those who say clearly they support the anti American violence and terrorism and are just waiting for an opportunity to plan more attacks? A slap on the wrist is inappropriate. Letting it slide is not just inappropriate, it's incredibly dangerous and unpatriotic...indeed that would be giving comfort to enemies of the state, a crime itself.

Anyone that crossed police lines actively attacked America and democracy. That precludes them from being patriotic (unless you mean patriotic to Iran or some other foreign adversary), and it makes them enemy combatants. Those usually get the death penalty. When they are American citizens it's called treason. Does this describe you?

I'm not arguing the merits of either. I don't think Trump is a good man or President.

It's my firm opinion that Obama chose to play the long game, hoping that the anger over Garland not being confirmed would influence the upcoming election. He believed that they might take the Senate back and then either he or Hillary would then be able to get the nominee they wanted. Plus as @newtboy pointed out, there was no way any pick he chose was going to pass muster with the Republican controlled Senate. Picking another person would likely tarnish them and remove a good liberal pick from future selection.

I consider Obama a good person and a mediocre President. I voted for him the first time because I bought into his mantra of change. It didn't happen. He forced through the ACA on party line votes, fucking up my personal situation in regards to doctors and insurance. He further screwed up the situation with the middle east which directly led to the entire Syria/ISIS situation. He did authorize drone strikes that led to many non combatant deaths and some pretty reprehensible situations. That is including the fact that his administration considered any military aged male in strike zones to be enemy combatants UNLESS they could be verified otherwise after their death. So many of those were not counted. There are other issues I have with his Presidency, but those are some of the big ones.

He did kill Bin Laden. I will give him kudos for that. I also think that once he lost control of the Congress in his second term he had no way to get anything accomplished, so I can't say he wouldn't have done something I liked in his second term. He is also an amazing orator.

No, it's just not germane.

You are ignoring they clearly identified the ship before jamming emergency channels and attacking it and it's lifeboats, war crimes even if they hadn't identified it, war crimes even if it was Egyptian.

You are also ignoring that the American ship apparently never fired (it certainly would have if it were Egyptian)and was identified, and that specifically American and international radio frequencies (not all frequencies, the jamming was targeted) were jammed, so there's only evidence they knew it was not a combatant, and none to indicate they thought it was one.

Yes, if we didn't have the tapes that were hidden for decades, that lie that they thought it was an enemy combatant might still fly. (It would not excuse the war crimes) Because we do have the tapes and testimonies proving they knew it was American, or at the extreme least given every possible doubt had confusion as to who the ship belonged to, that long standing excuse no longer stands up and another explanation for why they secretly knowingly attacked their allies and hid that fact must be correct.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

You used the accusation that they advocate killing children to excuse us killing their children during our assassinations by drone.
EDIT: You strongly implied it's OK and smart to kill children as collateral damage because it "lowers the overall body count" and because we don't target the children specifically, but they do (but we don't not target them).
You don't have to say the exact words you put in quotes to mean it. I did not quote you saying those specific words, did I?

We aren't at war, war is between nations. This is an international police action at best.
And again, you aren't being honest to play a semantics game and conflate active attacks on a battlefield with supportive speeches. We aren't at war, and there's no American citizen filled battle group, and never has been one fighting Americans. (not since the civil war, that is)
EDIT: To be labeled and killed as an "enemy combatant", we should have to be able to prove they are actually engaged in combat, IMO.

You are being deliberately obtuse. It's NOT war, war as a legal concept only occurs between nations, not groups of individuals. That is not opinion, it's international law. It is war like, but that's a completely different legal situation, one that until recently would not allow us to kill Americans.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

Those daeshbags really know how to video edit. Too bad they don't know how to co-exist with the other 7.3 billion of us and we'll have to evaporate them.

I can't understand why we don't take a page from the fake book of Jack Black Pershing, and bury enemy combatants with pig carcasses, or better yet, the disgusting leftovers from pig carcasses, and put pigs blood in and on all their bullets. Taint the faithful so they don't 'go to heaven', and 50-75% will run away tomorrow. Only those fighting for something other than religion will be left, and they'll have lost their best recruitment method.

If we can't bring ourselves to do that, perhaps we can move to feeding all Daesh POW's only pork. Let them starve themselves to death if they don't want it. No problem for me at all.

Wow....Carson really meant a "moment" of silence for victims, didn't he.

Did Christie really just say that working with congress is going to make his eyes glaze over? He knows that that's a large part of the job he's trying to get, doesn't he?

"They don't need to be forced, they need to be asked." is about the worst, most uninformed, proof of a lack of understanding answer Fiorina could have given to the question..."They say they WONT help the FBI, now, crack encrypted communications from ISIS, should they be forced to?"

"You would carpet bomb where ISIS is...not a city, but the location of the troops."...I guess Cruz just doesn't know the ISIS troops are mainly in the cities.

"If you're an American citizen, and you decide to join up with ISIS, we're not going to read you your Miranda rights, you're going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country..." shows clearly that Rubio doesn't understand 'innocent until proven guilty', the basis of our legal system, and has decided that anyone ACCUSED of joining ISIS deserves illegal imprisonment without trial and without end. Marco Rubio has joined ISIS....go get him boys.

"Getting our smartest and getting our best to infiltrate their...internet." That's going to be fairly hard for Trump after he rounds up all the Muslims and deports them for being in the wrong religion, or executes them for something a family member did. I don't really think our best and smartest Muslims are going to want to work for him at that point.

I'm pretty sure that's the first time in history that Trump complained about being mentioned too often.

I'm stunned that I watched the whole thing. My brain hurts, and I just threw up in my mouth a little...but I did it.

How about we make spiked gun factories that make fruit instead of guns. And then we'd simply need to defend ourselves from bananas and kiwis and other semi-dangerous fruit types. That way we don't kill enemy combatants, we capture them; and when our own soldiers find these fruit in their own armories, they can consume them as nourishment.

Come on! It's brilliant, AND I know of the perfect training instructor for the job. Though he may actually kill you upon defending your fruit attack. Due to this risk, it's probably best to simply let enemy combatants find and distribute these arms without training in the operation of them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^SDGundamX:
I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.
As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.
>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.
I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.
But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.
For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".
You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.
A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.
But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.
The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.


The trouble is it doesn't quite work to lump things as either law enforcement or uniformed soldiers at war. That works only in as far as it makes sense to pursue criminals through domestic and foreign law enforcement, or to make war on foreign nations refusing to enforce the rule of law. Due to myriad political bramble bushes, there are many nations like Pakistan and Yemen who claim much broader borders than those in which their actual loyal police officers can safely operate. When criminals hide in the tribal regions of Yemen and Pakistan, even willing and co-operative governments in Pakistan and Yemen are unable to enforce the law on the criminals we want prosecuted. Do we just leave those criminals be then? Do we declare uniformed soldier on soldier war against the governments in Pakistan and Yemen? Do we demand they restart the aborted civil wars that have left their tribal regions effectively autonomous independent nations?

In my opinion the tribal regions in places like Yemen and Pakistan are effectively not sovereign parts of those nations. It's not politically expedient to declare that, but it is the way Pakistani and Yemeni governments have been handling and treating the regions all along. They are for all intents and purposes independent nations, which merely pay lip service to being a part of Pakistan or Yemen while jockeying internally for a stronger position for themselves. I see American policy as effectively stepping in and treating those tribal regions as independent nations, rather than as Yemeni or Pakistani territory. Thus America is at open war with these tribal regions for their support of Al-Qaida jihadists.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.

As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.

>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.

But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.

For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".

You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.

A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.

But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.

The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.

@NetRunner

"In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court."

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court. As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

As far as what is defined as a battlefield, clearly the government grossly abuses the term. See for instance: http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf If the family does sue, I'm sure as you implied that the government will claim al-Awlaki was killed on the field of battle, but I think they'd have a tough time convincing a judge of this--last I checked we weren't at war with Yemen. Unless the government could show that he was in car equipped with a bomb headed towards an embassy or something like that. However that would, of course, force the government to actually disclose the details of the killing and the factual reasons for it.

>> ^criticalthud:

"Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

I'm the one who used the name Al Qaeda. The AUMF says this:

That the President is authorized 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.

Not incidentally, that is also the AUMF for the war in Afghanistan as well.

>> ^SDGundamX:

The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court.

In the Jose Pedilla case, they arrested him when he came onto American soil, and then held him without trial on the basis that he was a prisoner of war, and not a criminal.

In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court.

That does not mean that the government has to try all enemy combatants before killing them.

It means that people who get taken prisoner under some sort of wartime doctrine have the right to a day in court to challenge their status as being a participant in war.

>> ^SDGundamX:
He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.

What's the definition of "battlefield" and "during combat"? Are soldiers in war never legally allowed to attack first? And what's the battlefield mean when we're talking about a non-state entity engaging in guerrilla warfare from strongholds located in many countries?

Again, I say all this not because I think it's right, but because it's where we're at now.

Obama didn't create this legal precedent. Obama isn't violating the law by using this to go after terrorists. I wish Obama was fighting it rather than using it, but wishing doesn't make it so any more than wishing it was illegal makes it illegal.

Obama deserves some shit for this, but I think Tapper's got exactly the right tack on the type of shit he deserves -- make the administration come out and explain a) what exactly they claim they have the right to do, b) explain why they think they have the right to do it, and c) explain whether their answers to a and b jives with their own view of American legal traditions.

The people who want to make this into "Obama committed a crime" aren't helping fix this, they're just helping Republicans win the next election.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@NetRunner
@bcglorf
I think it might be useful to look at the case of Jose Padilla. Remember him? Accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack in the U.S., later classified by Bush as an enemy combatant, later again return to the criminal court system (and subsequently convicted of conspiring to engage in terrorist activity).
The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court. In other words, although the AUMF grants the President wide powers in determining who is associated with the attacks on 9/11 (or future attacks), those powers don't trump the Constitution.
As far as I can tell in this case, al-Awlaki was never given the chance to challenge his status in court. He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.
BUT, as @NetRunner point out, in the current judicial climate, if this were ever to make it before the courts (it never will), it is a crap shoot as to which way the cards will fall on the issue. The courts seem to be leaning more towards strengthening Presidential authority than weakening it, in particular when it comes to the area of National Security.
EDIT: Originally typed "civil court" when I meant "criminal court."


I think all of us that don't outright oppose the death here are ALL agreed a court hearing and prosecution would have been infinitely preferable. We are saying the reality is that was NEVER going to happen, ever. In that reality, what do you do about a man supporting the murder of people from the safety of a lawless region of a country where anyone even suspected of sympathizing with our idea of law and order would be killed?

As was pointed out up thread, if you oppose this, propose an alternative?

Presumably not killing him, no? That means owning and accepting that he can act from Yemen's fringes with impunity trying to murder innocent civilians abroad, and the right course of action for us is not to act, even though we have the ability to stop him with a drone attack. Own that and we at least have a disagreement on the principles and not the fundamental facts and nature of the problem.