I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Put aside that I support completely the killing of al-Awlaki. Here at Ricochet we are smart enough to hold two thoughts in our head at the same time. So I ponder powers and legality (and wonder about the silence of the anti-Gitmo folks who insist on full civilian trials for terrorists).
Who is doing the killing here? Is it the Commander in Chief alone? Does Congress or the Judiciary hold a similar power to summarily kill?
If so, was the President acting in a purely military capacity, or is there a civilian power the President holds to order death extra-judicially?
Is there a standard the President must use before killing, or is he afforded a totally deferential standard?
Is there a standard of proof that must be met before the President acts, or is his subjective view of evidence controlling?
Is his action reviewable by the other branches of government. If so, is there a recourse against abuse of power?
If there is a limit to the President's power to order a killing with no trial, can limitations on that power be described by anyone?
- Comment (42)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Tommy, I think you are focused too much on the "executive order" thingy - it was a proper use of military power, engaged in on the battlefield.
We don't ask the nationality of each individual we kill when we wage war against them.
This was a military action, not a law enforcement action. Top enemy leaders are identified as High Value or High Payoff Targets. From the Army Field manual:
high-value target--An asset the enemy commander requires for the successful completion of his mission.
high-payoff target--A high-value target that must be acquired and successfully attacked for the success of the friendly commander's mission.
Yemen is part of the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terror and Anwar Al-Awlaki is an enemy leader (thereby a high payoff target) operating n a theater of that war.
Hypothetically, if John Walker Lindh (currently serving 20 years captured in a prision after an uprising) had been killed on the battlefield - would you have the same reservations?
Had we bombed the radio sation where Lord Haw-Haw (American William Joyce) worked for the Axis in WW2, would you care?
Oct '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Good questions all, Tommy.
I hope the Editors will bring this post to the attention of the honorable messrs Epstein and Yoo for their input.
I too am in favor of the results but am troubled by the method and the apparent hypocrisy of the current Democrat administration.
Aug '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
The war was authorized by Public Law 107-40 otherwise known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (dated Sep 18 2001).
Al Qaeda is one of the "such organizations" mentioned in the law above and Al Awalaki is undisputedly a member of Al Qaeda - thereby a legitimate target.
The executive order was more in the line of approval of his inclusion on the target list - again a use of military power.
There are three types of regions in play in the GWOT.
Operations in area 2 generally require more oversight and decisions on activities in those areas are generally double checked and clarified. Doesn't mean that the war isn't being fought there, just that there is a requirement for more oversight. The executive order is an example of that oversight.
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 4:52pmAug '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Who is doing the killing here? - the military
Is it the Commander in Chief alone? No - it is part of the GWOT, authorized by Congress via public law
Does Congress or the Judiciary hold a similar power to summarily kill? - No
If so, was the President acting in a purely military capacity, or is there a civilian power the President holds to order death extra-judicially? Yes and No respectively.
Is there a standard of proof that must be met before the President acts, or is his subjective view of evidence controlling? Huh? The Johnson Administration was the last to approve all targets for military action - we saw what that got us. al-Awlaki was a legitimate target as a leader of Al Qaeda, the executive order was CYA.
Is his action reviewable by the other branches of government. If so, is there a recourse against abuse of power? Standard checks and balances (funding the war, appointment of officials - Generals, impeachment)
If there is a limit to the President's power to order a killing with no trial, can limitations on that power be described by anyone? Warfare isn't Lawfare. This was warfare.
Jul '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
I thought this kind of navel gazing and nit-picking was restricted to the left.
May '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
I appreciate having Ricochet around to throw out a question like this. This did not change my unqualified support for the strike, but it did increase my knowledge on the topic. And as I tweeted this morning, it's just been reported that Ron Paul, citing Acts 12 verse 23, just accused God of a targeted assassination of Herod. (Now if DoD could figure out the worm effect therein, that'd be very cool.)
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 5:57pmAug '11
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Tommy De Seno:
If there is a limit to the President's power to order a killing with no trial, can limitations on that power be described by anyone? ·
This is the most troubling thing to me. Our president ordered the assassination of an American citizen without affording him due process. Conservatives have long championed a strong executive. But there's a reason we have separation of powers and a constitution. It's to prevent authoritarian governance.
I fear the GWOT-first with Bush and now with Obama-has cost us our liberties, irrevocably, for security. Congress has stood by and watched...certainly during this administration. Only Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul object.
Warfare inevitably reduces our liberties-but the GWOT is a war without end. It is truly a conflict of visions that will go on for centuries. Are we prepared to trust the State to protect our liberties for the duration?
As Ben Franklin warned us: "those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Jun '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Is any Iman anywhere in the world who preaches anti-American hateful and incidious sermans subject to a Drone Dropping? How about those kids in NYC doing anti-capitalism incitements? What about those anarchists in Seattle a few years back. I assume the AUMF referred to isolates our American in Yemen out of these other groups, in some peoples minds. Probably so, but what's the list of grievances against this guy? Surely there must be at least that much consideration given to an American citizen. Other than speech, where were his hands actually dirty? Or is that not important to many here? I am still a bit uncomfortable as my neck is getting a bit sore from peering up into the sky. I might be able to counter by taking Jerry's advise and begin naval gazing instead.
May '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
If someone joins the enemy, they become someone on the to hit list. I am not sure what the problem is. The bad guy got killed in the theater of war.
It is not like the US military shot someone dead in the streets of Topeka.
Am I seeing this too simply. I think Yoo's post a bit down the page sums it up for me.
Oct '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Tommy... you appear to have difficulty coming to grips with tyranny. Get used to it for at least the next 15 months.
This is how it works.
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 6:39pmMay '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
I'd add one question, which I asked earlier on the Member Feed - will the Justice Department staff who wrote the memo justifying these killings be demonized as John Yoo was for supporting "torture?" After all, it seems killing someone is worse than torture - scare quotes or none!
May '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
How about we get an expert's opinion and ask Senator Lindsey Graham to weigh in one this. Have him on a Law Talk podcast. Through 2010 he was a senior instructor for the JAG Corps. In fact, I dare Ricochet to invite him.
Jun '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
This discussion reminds me of the Firefly quote mentioned on the recent podcast: "if I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed."
When our military kills enemies who are awake, facing them, and armed I stand up and cheer. Whether they are citizens or not makes no difference to me.
The trouble with Predator drone strikes is that it seems more like shooting an unarmed man in the back. It might be legal, it might even be the right thing to do, but it still makes me uneasy.
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Thank you all for the interesting answers!
There must be a slippery slope I'm missing somewhere.
How much support must one have for the enemy before summary execution is allowable?
For instance, what if I'm a dealer in clothes, and this year's fall line of camoflauge is sold directly to an al-Qeada member who wears it to infiltrate a base and blow up our troops.
Do I get killed sans any process at the President's direction?
Edited on October 2, 2011 at 2:33pmDec '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Joseph Stanko: .
The trouble with Predator drone strikes is that it seems more like shooting an unarmed man in the back. It might be legal, it might even be the right thing to do, but it still makes me uneasy. · Oct 1 at 1:11p
The Predator is a type of air power, how is it different from other forms of bombing, especially stealth bombers?
Dec '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Tommy De Seno: Thank you all for the interesting answers!
There must be a slippery slope I'm missing somewhere.
How much support must one have for the enemy before summary execution is allowable?
For instance, what if I'm a dealer in clothes, and this year's fall line of camoflauge is sold directly to an al-Qeada member who wheres it to infiltrate a base and blow up our troops.
Do I get killed sans any process at the President's direction? · Oct 1 at 1:20pm
How is that different from manufacturing ball bearings for our enemies weapons?
Aug '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Tommy De Seno:
How much support must one have for the enemy before summary execution is allowable?
For instance, what if I'm a dealer in clothes, and this year's fall line of camoflauge is sold directly to an al-Qeada member who wheres it to infiltrate a base and blow up our troops.
Do I get killed sans any process at the President's direction? · Oct 1 at 1:20pm
It wasn't a summary execution. A summary execution occurs when a person in custody is executed with a minimum of due process. It is generally illegal with Unlawful Combatants captured on the battlefield and pirates being two notable exceptions.
Do I get killed sans any process at the President's direction? No, even in the case of al-Awlaki there was a process followed, both to nominate him as a target and to pull the trigger once he was ID'd on the battlefield.
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 10:37pmOct '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Tommy De Seno: Thank you all for the interesting answers!
There must be a slippery slope I'm missing somewhere.
How much support must one have for the enemy before summary execution is allowable?
For instance, what if I'm a dealer in clothes, and this year's fall line of camoflauge is sold directly to an al-Qeada member who wheres it to infiltrate a base and blow up our troops.
Do I get killed sans any process at the President's direction? · Oct 1 at 1:20pm
Drudge is linking this AP article citing Ron Paul's reference to the killing as an "assassination". I detect a similarity in your views, and they are worthy of consideration.
May '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
Just to clarify for those wondering about military involvement (Tony), or outright stating that this was a military op (Instugator), rest assured that al-Awlaki was not killed by the military. Yes, it was not law enforcement, but it was also (for what it's worth) not an action of the U.S. military. Though it still was an action entirely within the executive branch.
CNN: "A U.S. administration official said the mission, codenamed Operation Troy, was similar to the one in May that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in that it was commanded by the CIA, in close coordination with Joint Special Operations Command.
The CIA and the special ops command had al-Awlaki under surveillance for at least two weeks, but were awaiting an opportunity to kill him without causing civilian casualties or damage, the administration official said.
U.S. military helped target al-Awlaki and manned American military aircraft were flying overhead ready to offer assistance. The drone was operated by the CIA, officials said."
As far as legality, I do think it would make for an excellent "Law Talk" discussion. I hope they would do that soon.
Oct '10
Re: I Need Clarification on the al-Awlaki Killing
I just remembered that I posted on this subject in the Member Feed back in May. This is what I said then:
Good Berean
Political Assassination and the Law of Nations· May. 5 at 11:12am
VDH has a new post on NRO entitled Rules for Killing Rogues. In the article he asks: “But what, exactly, are the moral, legal, or practical rules in going after terrorist leaders or the savage dictators of rogue regimes?” Good question, worthy of a Ricochet discussion.
My position is simple: According to Vattel, the Law of Nations is simply the Law of Nature applied to a nation, a nation being considered a moral “person” in relation to other nations. The Law of Nature prohibits the taking of innocent life and requires justice at the hand of man for doing so. Furthermore, those who choose to act outside of Law, have no protection under Law. Therefore, “rogues” , who are by definition outlaws, have no protection under the law and may be removed from this planet by whatever means necessary.