Barack Obama, Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, And The 5th and 6th Amendments

I thought for sure I had posted a thread here about this subject a while back. I guess not.

The Incident In Question:

Originally Posted by FOX News

Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and another America-born militant were killed in Yemen early Friday morning by a CIA-led U.S. drone strike, marking the highest-profile takedown of terror leaders since the raid on Usama bin Laden's compound.

Fox News has learned that two Predator drones hovering above al-Awlaki's convoy fired the Hellfire missiles which killed the terror leader. According to a senior U.S. official, the operation was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA. A total of four people were killed in the attack.

President Obama called the strike a major "milestone" in the fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike | Fox News

What The Constitution Says:

Originally Posted by Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What The Obama Administration Has Said In Its Defense:

Originally Posted by nationaljournal

The attorney general said such strikes would only be carried out if three conditions were met. First, Holder said that the executive branch has to have determined that the U.S. citizen “poses an imminent threat of violent attack” against the U.S. Second, it has to involve a situation where it’s not “feasible” to capture the militant alive. Finally, the strike has to cause only minimal collateral damage and “use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering.”
“The unfortunate reality is that our nation will likely continue to face terrorist threats that, at times, originate with our own citizens,” Holder said. “When such individuals take up arms against this country and join al-Qaida in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response.”
Still, Holder gave no ground on one of the most contentious aspects of the policy: the administration’s insistence that it can decide which citizens to kill on its own and without needing any judicial review. The Constitution, he said, “guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Obama Administration Offers New Defense for Killing U.S. Citizens - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com

A Sampling Of What Critics Have Said In Response:

Originally Posted by pbs.org

“The government’s power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent,” Jaffer told Need to Know. “It’s a profound mistake to invest any president with the unreviewable power to kill any American citizen who he deems to present a threat to the country.”
...
Jaffer also expressed frustration that many Americans who would otherwise be uncomfortable with such an aggressive use of military power in the hands of Bush, for example, are assuaged by the fact that the power is somehow “safe in the hands of President Obama.” The danger in that complacency, Jaffer said, is that, with the precedent set by President Obama, the power to target Americans for killing will likely be used — and possibly abused — by future presidents.

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent | Need to Know | PBS

Originally Posted by abc.com

Writing in Salon today, Glenn Greenwald writes, “What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (‘No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law’), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists — criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.”

How Does the President Have the Right to Target for Killing a US Citizen? - ABC News

Originally Posted by nationaljournal

Many of the legal definitions for a strike against a U.S. citizen, meanwhile, are vague enough that they could be used to justify attacks against a wide range of Americans overseas, including some with arguably minimal ties to al-Qaida.
Awlaki, for instance, was an English-speaking cleric who was thought to have inspired militants like Nidal Hasan, the sole suspect in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Khan edited an al-Qaida propaganda magazine called “Inspire.” Neither one was an operational leader of al-Qaida or appears to have been involved in carrying out, or even directly planning, an imminent attack against U.S. targets.
“There’s no evidence that either of these guys directly participated in any hostilities,” Davis said. “It’s hate speech, but there are a lot of people who engage in hate speech who don’t get targeted for assassination.”

Obama Administration Offers New Defense for Killing U.S. Citizens - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com

Long story short,
the Obama Administration has decided it has the right to kill US Citizens, without a public trial, without going to a judge, without making public the crimes with which they are accused. But its okay. They're cool. They won't abuse this power or make any mistakes. Well. At least you probably won't learn about them.

I really don't have many problems with Obama. I don't doubt that he's a standup guy. He's probably got the best of intentions. I doubt he's just out to kill US Citizens. But there's a reason we have laws. There's a reason we have the Constitution. There's a reason we, as US Citizens have the guarantee of due process, which includes the right to a fair, public trial. Without those guarantees, what's to say Obama can't or won't order the death of someone who isn't doing anything nefarious? Should we really just trust the guy?

I can also understand that there absolutely are specific circumstances and situations where the right to due process can be ignored. If a cop sees a kidnapper raise a gun toward an innocent citizen, duh, they don't have to tackle and arrest the guy and give him a trial. A life is on the line. Shoot the crook. Save the girl. But by all reports, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were not planning any attacks. They were not on their way to an airport with bombs stuffed in their pants. They were not en route to shoot up a hospital. The actions that they were killed for are actions that you and I are guaranteed by the Constitution itself. They were exercising their right to free speech.

Yes. Their speech was deplorable. Yes. Their speech inspired men to kill US Citizens. Yes. They are probably both broiling in hell right now. But should we apply this to other US Citizens with whose speech we disagree? Can we bomb the KKK? What about the Westborough Baptists? Is this new power of the president's only limited to hate speech that inspires terrorism... or can it be stretched another inch to justify the killing of those we disagree with politically or religiously?

That scares the bejeezus out of me.

And beyond that, if the Obama Administration can send an elite Navy Seals team to personally capture Osama Bin Laden, I think they can send an elite Navy Seals team to personally capture al-Alwaki and Khan. They were following his convoy with drones anyway. I'd be more comfortable with drone-bombing Bin Laden's suspected house because he wasn't an American Citizen and is not guaranteed to a trial or due process at least not by the US Constitution, while al-Awlaki and Khan were.

So where do you guys stand on the issue?
Do you accept the Obama Administration's reasoning? What about the constitutional rights to due process and a fair, public trial? Do you see this as more shocking than anything Bush ever did, as some Liberals have? Do you fear for your life?

[edit]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

Currently I'm somewhere between "No" and "It's a tricky issue", but more towards "No"... but I haven't voted yet because I wanna see if this debate sways me either way.

This guy's got the right idea. If you've already looked into this discussion and have made up your mind, sure, go ahead and vote. But you should probably take a while to think about it first. The main reason I put a poll up there is to judge the general opinion of SD, not as some kind of contest, or to show your general support for Obama. In my research on this subject I came across plenty of people that seriously disagree with Obama on this subject, but still adamantly support him as president. Just make sure to think it through first and not spontaneously vote one way or another because Obama happens to be involved.

First off, kudos to your opening post. ^_^

On principle, I would prefer to take criminals or terrorists alive for the sake of a fair trial, if not the great public relations boost it would provide. This was part of the reason why I had lamented on Serious Discussion that Osama bin Laden was killed in the Pakistani raid; I understood that DEVGRU likely had little choice in the matter because they're trained to kill if there is an imminent threat towards themselves and should kill if that's the case, but I had been mildly discouraged to see that Americans were cheering about it, happy that someone had died instead of them being brought to justice.

But what I mentioned above was public perception, not the actions of the U.S. government, and my own opinion on the matter. The truth was that the killing of Osama bin Laden should raise far less eyebrows than the fact that the U.S. had violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation, an allied nation at that. Their borders, integrity, and sovereignty was disrespected, and the U.S. moved in as if their territory was their playground. This would be no different if Pakistan launched a strike team into the U.S. without ever telling Washington. But the justification given is that we are in a war against terrorism, which calls for extreme measures against a less tangible enemy that we've been prepared to counter over the centuries.

The problem with the Constitution was that its drafters could not have possibly imagined what our time would be like. Their weapon of a day was a single-fire musket that took twenty seconds to aim, fire, and reload; they could never have anticipated the days of suicide vests, IEDs, Boeing commercial jets, dirty bombs, biochemical weapons. They may or may not have anticipated that the massive discrepancy of strengths between nations would eventually generate a prevalence of terrorism that smaller countries employ against larger ones. As such, I'm not sure the Constitution remains the absolute best ethical guide by which we should conduct the war if the U.S. is truly committed to "winning" the War on Terror.

So, that said, I actually really am not bothered by Anwar al-Awlaki's death - given that he wasn't just making videos on YouTube, but also having ties with various attempts at terror plots, even if they constantly kept failing - than I am by the fact that Washington cleared Predator drones over Yemeni airspace without any cooperation from the Yemeni government. Drones have consistently been America's "screw you" asset for the last few years, and while I understand that what happened was safer than sending another DEVGRU team into Yemeni territory, I'm far more interested in discussing the ethics of sending UAVs into foreign territory than I am of al-Awlaki's death.

EDIT: Oh, and I voted "it's a tricky issue". ^_^;

My opinion doesn't really matter, because the Constitution, pointed out by mattj, says otherwise. It should have been upheld. We should have taken them prisoner and put them on trial instead. I find it scary that stuff like this is going on. We have the Constitution for a reason, so it's scary to see our leaders dancing around like it doesn't apply to them.

This is deplorable.

The government can, literally, arbitrarily decide who its enemies are. If they don't like a US citizen, they can simply pull something from their ass to justify slaughtering them. We're not talking if you happen to smoke a bit of pot or download some songs here and there and you might get a fine, we're talking a military murdering you.

It's uncomfortable to know that this goes on, and even more that people downplay it. While it's true that there will be cases of US citizens who are terrorists and should be brought to justice, killing with any jury and giving bull♥♥♥♥ reasons is horrible.

I'm against this. No human being should be murdered by another under any circumstances. Though I find it sorta amusing that people are saying they should be brought back to the States for a trial when it'd be a farce and you'd like kill them anyways.

You know, I actually don't believe at all that al Awlaki and Khan would have recieved the death penalty. In fact, according to every shred of evidence I've seen, they didn't commit any crimes whatsoever. Hate speech is protected speech in the United States. Maybe the Obama Administration has some new evidence that they did something patently worthy of the death penalty, but the thing that scares the literal crap out of me is that I don't see what those two American Citizens, who have rights according to the constitution, did that deserved the death penalty. One was a youtube video poster and the other was a magazine editor. There is no public proof that either of them plotted a single attack, fired a single shot, or built a single bomb. If the Obama Administration has some kind of evidence that they did something like that, I could see them getting life in prison, or deportation, or whatever, like most of the terrorism suspects so far (have we even sentenced one to death so far?). But as far as literally anyone anywhere outside of the upper echelons of the Obama Administration knows, those two men were just a vile and offensive youtube video poster and a vile and offensive magazine editor. I honestly don't think they deserved to die and I for one want to know why the Obama Administration ordered their death without the fair, public trial that the United States Constitution demands.

I apologize for what I said earlier. Truth is, I don't know a single thing about them. Just figured that if the government wasted millions of dollars to take them out with a UAV, they must have done something very very bad. But it's stupid, lemming-like thinking like that which can cause the fall of democracy.

Now, I'm not going to argue about taking the life of another amd wether or not it's murder. If I'm not mistaken, that's a strawman in this case. What gets me is how the Constitution was not upheld.

Obama overall is no good at foreign policy: Obama Administration | David Hoffman

Let him mingle at home where he at least hits 50-50. The man needs to keep true to his original campaign word abroad.

Well, in this one particular case, you can make a bit of a justification for it being ok, which the Obama administration has done. However, the problem is that if you allow this, then it sets a precedent. I doubt Obama would ever do it, but uture presidents could use Obama's actions as justification for a similar action. Except maybe this time there is slightly less of a justification. And the next time, there is a bit less than that. Eventually, it gets to the point where "The government doesn't like your views" is enough justification. That's the problem with violations of freedom; if you allow it to happen once and then rationalize it away, eventually the rationalization gets weaker and weaker until eventually they don't even need to justify it at all.

Good thread, it brings up a lot of interesting thought. I figure I'll get to this by looking at what you said in the other thread.

Originally Posted by Mattj

The ACLU has started one case. I've read and heard about, on NPR, others but I don't have time to link them atm. Because they are so recent though it'll be some time before they reach the Supreme Court. They've been asking for information on the Obama Administration killings of American Citizens for a while now, but they just keep ignoring or denying them.

They'll get the information eventually. Lawsuits with the freedom of information act take a while, but they work as far as I know.

So to know whether this is constitutional or not, if what you say is true, then your prediction is that the supreme court will rule it to be unconstitutional? That seems a good test.

I don't disagree with you that it's unconstitutional, but I really don't know yet. It's not up to me to decide, and I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't make an educated enough guess.

It's hard to say whether it's better or worse, I really don't know.

Well, I think that using drones to kill terrorist leaders in Al-Qaeda itself makes sense. Sending in soldiers to fight people that aren't afraid to die (otherwise why would they use suicide bombers? Maybe the leaders are afraid to die, but most of their underlings aren't.) is going to cause us more casualties than we want.

But using it on US Citizens crosses a line or two in my opinion.

The difference is that we're at war with Al-Qaeda in a sense, and while you could say that as Al-Qaeda's a group and not a nation that citizens of any country could join it.

But unless they're an active participant in the violence Al-Qaeda causes they'd basically be the closest thing to a civilian they have, and if they're a US Citizen too then we have a problem with the constitution (which, I guess we can't apply the basic human rights in that to humans that aren't US Citizens as a government, which bothers me a bit but whatever).

The free speech thing can be taken into the exception that we have in the US, though. If your speech endangers others or incites violence, it is not protected by the First Amendment.

I suppose they could apply that exception here probably.

I don't fear for my life though. If the government has no reason to target you, they won't. They won't just kill a random person for the fun of it.

The scary thing is that misinformation can lead to someone's death now, since there's no trial. But even there, it can too.

Being an isolationist I am against the killing or capture of any individual in a foreign country unless it is proven that he has attacked your home country or was caught trying to attack your country and his plan was foiled. No pre-emptive strikes and certainly no attacking a foreign land that you're not even at war with to attack people who have not been charged with or convicted of any American, Yemeni or international crime. That isn't to say that the US would even have the right to enforce US law in Yemen without an extradition agreement. The only situation I'd see the capture of these men as permissible is if they had an agreement with the Yemen government or if they were charged with these crimes by a UN tribunal and then were captured by UN (not American) soldiers.

From my point of view the constitution is more or less irrelevant in this case, this is an international issue and more about the sovereignty of individual countries. By this logic it would be perfectly acceptable on the international level if the Iranians were to assassinate Obama because they may believe him to be an imminent threat to Iran.

My first thought was that as active members of Al-Qaeda, these men were really soldiers in an enemy army, and so were fair game.

But then I remembered that this is illegal. It is execution without trial. In my opinion, leaders doing illegal things is a slippery slope that leads to 'if the president does it, it's not illegal.' Which is all kinds of wrong.

So I, the sole voter of 'Yes', would like to withdraw my vote. Despite the fact I think tha this instance was morally correct, and I only fear a dangerous precedent.

My friend and I were talking about this at work the other day. What if our government started applying this to the War on Drugs like it is the War on Terror? What if our government started drone bombing suspected drug dealers, who happen to be American Citizens, without a public trial? I don't think that its much of a stretch. Illegal drugs kill thousands more people than terrorism every year.

I've already made it clear in the past that Obama is just as bad--if not worse--than Bush (Seriously, aside from removing DADT, what has he achieved? Why is he worshipped by liberal democrats the world over?), easily making him among the worst Presidents of all time (Nobody believed me, though!), but with that aside, I think that with the populace becoming so aware of the Government's misuse of power in this age of rapid information (Along with the likes of Wikileaks and other good folks ensuring we, the people who allow our leaders to hold power to begin with, know everything the Government is up to), people are beginning to realize we don't need.the state to begin with, and soon, we'll do away with it entirely.

Due to their membership of Al-Qaeda, in my opinion they are enemy combatants and therefore fair game.
If, as mattj said above, the US government started bombing drug dealers then yes, that would be far more wrong due to their lack of membership of any military or paramilitary organisation.

Unless some foreign government started supporting the drug trade and started arming or paying US-born drug dealers, that is.

But basically, I do not see this as an execution, rather an act of war. Even if they where born in the US, that still does not make it an execution. Neither are they criminals. They are enemy combatants, where most likely armed, and also high ranking members of an organisation that likes to kill innocent civilians.

While not under the payroll of a foreign governments, I think that by working for Al Qaeda they sacrifice their rights as a non combatant and also as a US citizen. They deserve exactly the same rights as a German solder in the Second World War- and the US government has the right to kill them whenever necessary.

I recently saw a wonderful little documentary about the American government's use of drones in the Middle East and Central Asia, and how commonly and arguably recklessly these robots are deployed.

According to Wired.com, 29 people were killed in just over a week in Yemen, all by US drones flown by "pilots" nine thousand miles away. Very troubling, though, is the fact that 10 of the dead are now suspected to be civilians. In this year alone, 200 suspected combatants have been killed by these machines.

While I think the way drone warfare is executed right now is deplorable, I believe that in the long term it will seriously benefit the world. Even now, the use of drones means that the lives of soldiers aren't at stake. However, because of this, I'm guessing that drones are used in situations that ground troops never would find themselves in.

And as for the killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi, I'm kind of ambivalent towards that. The man was a traitor and was responsible (at least in part) for dozens of American deaths. Therefore, he should have been punished. Should he have been executed from miles away without trial? No. However, this isn't a terribly unique situation. Suspected criminals, for example, are shot to death by police on a weekly basis without outcry.

It should be noted, though, that in the al-Aulaqi case the government of Yemen requested the United States (or their own citizens) to capture the man "dear or alive". Had he not been killed, it's likely that he could have influenced dozens of young men to commit acts of violence, and may have encouraged thousands of other people to side against the United States in the ongoing Afghan conflict.

All I can say is if you somehow think Mitt Romney would stop these wanton executions, you're deluding yourself big time. If anything he'd step it up and we'd end up seeing a whole lot of it happening on U.S. soil.

Originally Posted by Super Dude

All I can say is if you somehow think Mitt Romney would stop these wanton executions, you're deluding yourself big time. If anything he'd step it up and we'd end up seeing a whole lot of it happening on U.S. soil.

While I certainly believe that he would up the use of drones in the Mideast, do you really think that he'd deploy them in the United States? I could only really see combative drones being used in the Southwest, along the Mexican border, in an attempt to prevent drug violence from spreading.

And as for the killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi, I'm kind of ambivalent towards that. The man was a traitor and was responsible (at least in part) for dozens of American deaths. Therefore, he should have been punished. Should he have been executed from miles away without trial? No. However, this isn't a terribly unique situation. Suspected criminals, for example, are shot to death by police on a weekly basis without outcry.

The difference is that the first goal of the police is to capture the suspect. They're only allowed to shoot the suspect if his apprehension alive is impossible. In this case apprehension wasn't even a after thought. There was one and only one goal, to kill him. Also the police require permission from the judiciary branch to arrest someone (getting evidence and using that evidence to seek an arrest warrant from a judge). Unless of course the dude is just shooting people in the presence of a cop in which case he doesn't need such permission. In the case of the extra-judiciary killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi there was no consultation with the judiciary branch. It was simply the ruler wanted this American citizen dead so he made it so.

Anwar may not be a sympathetic character being brown and all the way in Yemen (which btw attacking and killing someone in a foreign country without their permission is an act of war, and they'd be 100% justified in killing Americans now), but this killing sets a terrible precedent, should Obama be allowed to order the killing of Julian Assange in the Ecuador embassy? After all he's an imminent threat to America, releasing classified documents and all and Bradley Manning, he helped Assange the terrorist and therefore is a terrorist, no trial take him out back and shoot him in the head. Such a disregard for rights and the rule of law is the stuff autocratic regimes are made of.

This, I agree. This guy gave up his US citizenship and became fair game the minute he joined the Al-Qaeda and wanted to kill innocent Americans. We know he wanted to kill innocent people and was part of a terrorist group. Why give this guy a trial when he is obviously guilty and admitted on video to wanting to kill people. Obama was in the right by doing this.

Because everyone has a right to a trial, simple as that.