The Blog
Politics RE: Chewing over al-Awlaki’s assasination
I’m with David Harsanyi and NRO’s Kevin Williamson on assasinating al Awlaki. We just set a precedent that the US president can murder his own citizens without due process based upon his judgement that someone is a bad guy…or a terrorist.
Awlaki was undoubtedly a bad guy…but he was also an American citizen. Maybe he “joined the enemy”, maybe he was “on the battlefield”, maybe he was “fighting”. Does giving speeches in Yemen satisfy all those criteria? I don’t know. I just know that the bar should be VERY high in giving the POTUS permission to kill American citizens without due process.
This is not a defense of al Awlaki. Rather this should just give us all pause. I hope we ask these questions. I hope we define those criteria. Because, I don’t care how immature and hypothetical it may sound, the possibilities here do not play out pretty.
Comments (13)
Comments are closed.
Popular Stories
- N.C. Teacher Tells Student He Could Be Arrested for Talking Badly About Obama 978 Comments
Man With 30 Kids — By 11 Different Mothers — Seeks Child Support Help 496 Comments
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: Dems Accuse GOP of Economic Sabotage — Again 303 Comments
‘Eat the Rich and Smash the State!’: Up to 1,000 Protesters March Through Chicago 291 Comments
Officials: Violent Chicago Restaurant Melee Appears to Have Been Protester Attack Against White Supremacist Gathering 251 Comments
Faith
More Than 40,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews Rally at Mets Stadium to Determine the Dangers of the Internet Read More- ‘Allah, Liberty, and Love’: Gay Muslim Activist Launches Book in Malaysia Despite Government Pressure Read More
This Map Shows the Most and Least Religious Counties in America 247 Comments
‘The Amateur’: Did Obama Book Author Violate Journalistic Ethics by Lying to Rev. Wright During Their Interview? 360 Comments
‘Stop the Lady Gaga!’: Filipino Christian Youths Protest Pop Star‘s ’Questionable’ Concert 126 Comments
Business
- Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: Dems Accuse GOP of Economic Sabotage — Again 303 Comments
‘Real News From The Blaze’ Discusses Facebook Co-Founder De-Friending USA Read More
Jon Lovitz to President Obama: Stop it With The Victim Mentality! Read More
Report: JPMorgan CEO Personally Involved in Multi-Billion Dollar Loss Read More
Why Did TED Talks Originally Refuse to Publish This Presentation on Taxing the Rich? 106 Comments
Technology
- More Than 40,000 Ultra-Orthodox Jews Rally at Mets Stadium to Determine the Dangers of the Internet Read More
- ‘Ring of Fire’: Millions Gather for Stunning Solar Eclipse Read More
‘Snooper’s Charter’: Proposed U.K. Surveillance Program Will Know Who, What, Where, When and Could Infer Why Read More
Rare Half-Ton Sturgeon Caught in China’s Black Dragon River Read More- Mark Zuckerberg Ends a Busy Week by Marrying Longtime Sweetheart 126 Comments
The Blog
Submitting your tip... please wait!
shutzy1
Posted on October 6, 2011 at 3:35pmI believe the killing was justified.
Report Post »dms2262
Posted on October 2, 2011 at 7:50pmThis is certainly an ethical dilemma, but one way to renounce your citizenship is to swear an oath to a foreign military. So do we consider Al-Queda a foreign military? It is not a country per se, but I think a case could be made.
It is a slippery slope.
Report Post »elphi43
Posted on October 2, 2011 at 1:45amAnd this were Ron Paul and I disagree. This American went “over the deep end,” plane and simple. I don’t need “The Supremes” to figure out if this nut job needs to die. My only question is, “could we have killed this clown sooner?”
Report Post »Daytripper
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:22pmWhen an American citizen takes a hostage or is randomly shooting at people and a police sniper kills him to save the hostage or protect the public, does anyone complain that a trial should have occurred first? Our country is at war – killing those who are seeking to murder our citizens is what is done in wars. He was no different than a sniper. He was not killed for an opinion, but for acts of war and murder against our citizens.
Report Post »Midwest Blonde
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 11:48amI firmly believe al-Awlaki was TREASONIST. (Isn’t there a provision in the Constitution for execution for Treason?)
The man encouraged attacks against his own country. If you or I did it, we would be comitting treason. Why can’t the same be said of this man??
Report Post »Torontian
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:49pmJust a technicality…BO did not kill him. Law enforcement, military did. If you can follow that chain of authority then no precedent here. John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald: Neither one was ever charged with a crime or convicted. Amazing that if you kill your president that due process does not need to be met, but if the death is “linked” to the President, it does. If innocent until proven guilty (and neither of these guys ever was charged – maybe it is time for a trial!) why does every school child in America know their names?
Report Post »This guy left US and was training terrorists. BTW you had to catch him before arresting him, and catch him before innocent lives were lost. I see no problem in this “collateral damage”
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:30pmWe didn’t just set a precedent. This is not the first time. Yeah, I‘m with you that we need to be CAREFUL about this when it’s a citizen, but it wasn’t just a whim of the POTUS that Al-Awlaki was on a terrorist list. The definition’s fuzzier than anyone would like, but the list is still remarkably short and it’s not easy to get on it. The problem is, when you start agreeing that Americans have due process, even if they’re terrorists on foreign soil having sworn allegiance publicly to Al-Qaeda, you start making moral equivalency arguments you would never make otherwise. This guy wasn’t assassinated for his free speech on the whim of the POTUS over morning coffee, folks. Believing that kind of naiveté turns one either into an Alex Jones-style paranoiac, or into a Paulistinian isolationist.
Report Post »theredsaint
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:23pmTsk tsk tsk. Fellow americans and patriots. Please think this through. When has the federal government EVER limited its legal precedence? Ever?! Now, ponder this question. I will high five anyone who can give me a metric-Based, federally defined definition of terrorist or terrorism. We see the language being shifted to include the Tea Party daily. What happens when those pesky christian nuts with guns ate suddenly called terrorist? Here we go……
Report Post »spudwhite
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:43pmYep, Ron Paul called it correctly and others are speaking out as well. Think it through, If Obama can kill these two American citizens, why not any others he so chooses, say Tea Party folk?
Report Post »JohnnyAuto757
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 4:27pmAwlaki was an enemy combatant actively waging war against the United States. We obviously could not just walk into his Yemeni hiding place, serve a warrant, and take him into custody; taking a giant crap on his head was the next best alternative.
Report Post »JustinTexas
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:56pmIt is true that the questions should be asked; however by US law your renounce your citizenship when you:
Report Post »A. Swear an oath of allegiance to another country, or
B. Serve in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force.
Also, will we ask Marines to stop shooting on the battlefield and ask their combatants their nationality? It should be well known, if you plot violence against others, you will die violently. Psalm 7:15 He has dug a pit and hollowed it out, and has fallen into the hole which he made.
gulph
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 1:34pmTreason by any other name.
Report Post »arlenebl
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:19pmI’m glad that another terrorist is dead but how can the administration want to trial Gitmo who are not Americans in court and then executed an American without a trial. Doesn’t make sense
Report Post »