And the evidence against him is? Oh right, That's been deemed a state secret. Convenient.

I don't think I should comment too much on this, not being a US citizen and all, but I did look up the US law on loss of citizenship to see if he has lost his citizenship by his actions.

You can read it yourself but these are the only ones that could be valid

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod ... -000-.html



The first does not really apply as Al Queda isn't a state as such, and the other is iffy due to the mention of conviction by a competent court. So it could be argued he still was a US citizen.

We are fighting groups that may have support from and sympathy for Al-Qaeda but that have no place in the Al-Qaeda organization. Some of them have not yet been declared to be terrorist organizations (e.g., the Haqqani network, see Haqqani network senior commander captured in a police operation undertaken by NATO military). Others include the despicable Afghan Taliban, who have not been declared to be a terrorist organization, although the Pakistani Taliban have been so declared. We are fighting some of the groups that have been declared to be terrorist organizations, while not fighting others. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been wound down much earlier if we were just fighting Al-Qaeda. We still award the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

For this set of efforts to be successful, we need to take some of the policy steps that Jenna Jordan mentioned. The RAND Corporation has offered a more thorough set of recommendations: How Terrorist Groups End: Implications for Countering al Qa'ida. Its analysis is based on history. One of the findings is

You left out the critical qualifying first paragraph (emphasis mine). It applies to each of the enumerated acts that make one eligible for loss of citizenship.

I think there are no grounds to be found in the law for debate that al Awlaki was still a U.S. citizen.

Where is the evidence here?


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... er-located

He wasn't indicted. No trial.

Again, his citizenship status is irrelevant. There is no sort of legal standard that exempts US citizens engaged in hostilities against the US from being targeted or killed. Nor is there anything in the US Constitution that in any way exempts non-citizens from due process requirements.

The only question is whether the US is at war with Al Qaeda. If so, then it can legitimately target those who are seen to be part of the operational command. The process of figuring out who to target is a matter for military intelligence, not an evidentiary standard to be met in court.

^^^^ THIS

I think al-Awlaki could clearly have been found guilty of treason. One must be a citizen, or have been a citizen, to be a traitor.

However, I think the intent to relinquish citizenship can be constructive, so long as it is clear and unequivocal. I can think of nothing more unequivocally indicative of intent to renounce loyalty to one's country than taking up arms against it in the service of a foreign enemy.

Who said he committed treason? Where's the actual evidence? Where's anything other than somebody in a office deciding another American needs to die without due process.

The hell with it, bring on the jack boots and throw out the rule of law because it damn sure doesn't seem to matter any more.

Ask Troy Davis.

So why wasn't there a trial in which he was convicted of treason? We have conducted trials in which the defendant was not present in the courtroom. We probably would easily have the requisite two witnesses to his treason without compromising security.

Al Awlaki and his father tried to preserve his rights as a U.S. citizen. Their suit was dismissed. Judge Dismisses al-Awlaki Suit

If aw-Awlaki had been captured, then one option would have been to charge him with crimes, including treason. The standard for bringing charges is probable cause, not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The fact that someone can be charged with a crime, or not, has nothing to do with whether their activities make them into a target of war. Presumably, had aw-Awlaki chosen to present himself peacefully at a US embassy, he would have triggered all sorts of due process.

But you don't get "due process" while you are at large, actively evading capture.

Troy Davis was the beneficiary of a great deal of "due process." More than 20 years' worth, to be exact.

"Due process" doesn't mean that you win. It just means the the requisite legal procedures are followed.

When "due process" leads to the state murdering one of its citizens, the process is broken.

The fact that the same strike that took him out also took out the guy who made the underwear bomb and Samir Khan strikes me as pretty strong evidence. What was he doing with those guys? Knitting? al-Awlaki also prolifically made videos urging and recruiting terrorists to kill as many Americans as possible. It is not as if he made any secret at all about his activities. He boasted about them. In fact, he even openly taunted us about how we couldn't get him. It's hard to imagine anyone more clearly guilty of treason who was more obviously and openly a terrorist.

I am far more concerned that we have established a general rule that such killings are acceptable than with this specific case.

Again, I'm not comfortable at all with the fact that apparently the President alone can make the decision to kill an American citizen. We can't see the evidence against him because its been deemed a state secret; we have to rely on what the government tells us. Based on the government's past performance of making up bullshit in order to support their agenda (see: WMD and Iraq), I refuse to take them at their word.

I'm not disrespecting your concern for the rule of law, but in this case, you really don't have to take the government at its word.

There are few people who have been as open and public about their advocacy of terrorism, which was intended to incite imminent lawless action, often actually did so and was likely to continue to do so into the future. al-Awlaki has been the U.S.-facing propagandist and recruiter for AQAP for years, and his crimes have been committed openly, in public, and with great publicity orchestrated by al-Awlaki himself.

He not only orchestrated the attempted underwear bombing after recruiting its perpetrator, but unsurprisingly, when he was hit by a drone, the guy who actually manufactured that bomb was close enough to be taken out too.

The ADL has an article on al-Awlaki's activities. There really isn't any question with this guy as to what he was all about and what he was doing.

I do trust this President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc. to have proceeded on the basis of ascertained facts, not on suspicions and rumors. I may well reduce that trust when this happens again in this Administration. As for the next Administration, I'm as fearful as Highlands of being lied to.

Much of the argument on this thread seems to me to have tried to establish the general rule about which A Legal Lohengrin is concerned.

One of the things that set me off on this thread is its title "Pres. Barack BadAss Does it Again." That makes this killing sound like a macho act, the great achievement of a tough guy. IMHO, there is no celebrating to be done here. The President is not due congratulations.

What we need as a nation is introspection, asking ourselves who we are, what we hope to achieve, and what we are willing to sacrifice to achieve that. We have already lost the lives of 4,477 American soldiers in Iraq (and a multiple of that in deaths of Iraqi civilians), the lives of 1,796 American soldiers in Afghanistan (and a multiple of that in deaths of Afghan civilians), the hundreds of deaths among our allies, perhaps three trillion dollars of our national wealth, and the respect of much of the world. That respect was not earned by being a military power with no equal in history; it was earned by such acts as the Marshall Plan and our kindness towards a destroyed Japan.

With apologies for quoting myself at great length, the next message (Hidden) is a document to which I have referred before, my letter to my grandchildren, written on 9/18/2001. Things have turned out very differently than I had hoped.

The President is the Commander in Chief of the military; therefore he is empowered by the Constitution to direct military actions.

I still don't get why you think the man's citizenship is relevant. I mean.. do you think there is some sort of exemption that Americans are afforded when it comes to waging war, and if so does it only apply to situations of being targeted by American forces, or is it some of unique thing about Americans being better than everyone else that gives them this special status? I mean.. if the government of Yemen had shot him, would that have been better, worse, or about the same?



Except for the part where he admitted his association in the magazine he put out.

Thank you for that, Tolland.

I wasn't aware that we had Congressionally-approved military operations in Yemen. My bad.

How do you declare war against a database?

Where's the declaration of war from congress?

Why should anyone be trusted to kill another human with no evidence?

We are at war with Al Qaeda. Again, its a war that Al Qaeda started. Al Qaeda has an operational wing located in Yemen, called al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

As I pointed out above, the framers of the Constitution used the word 'declare" war in the Constitution so as to preserve the power of the President to "make" war in response to an attack.

I seem to remember them managing to take down a couple of buildings in NYC and killing about 3,000 civilians, as well as blowing a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon. Looked like an act of war to me at the time.

Thank you, Tolland.