Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas

[anygunanywhere]

and a bit of America died with him.

Not seeing this. No part of America died.

This all boils down to actions have consequences.

You do the deed you deserve what you get.


Anygunanywhere

[Cobra Medic]

I consider it a combat-related death.

In the same way a lynch mob or vigilante is acting in self defense.

[Keith B]

I consider it a combat-related death.

In the same way a lynch mob or vigilante is acting in self defense.

That is a totally unrealistic comparison. al-Awlaki was not targeted for being a Muslim. He had pledged allegiance to military force who is an enemy of the United States (aka al-Queda) with which war has been declared against. Once that has happened, the person is an enemy combatant and not an unlawful combatant (i.e. no longer a civilian, but a soldier of al-Queda) as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3.

What gets me is how many people feel they need to carry a gun to protect themselves from those that would look to do them or others harm, but don't feel this guy was a threat and needed to be eliminated to prevent him from directing or leading attacks against the U.S.

[Cobra Medic]

I consider it a combat-related death.

In the same way a lynch mob or vigilante is acting in self defense.

That is a totally unrealistic comparison. al-Awlaki was not targeted for being a Muslim.

A vigilante killing the gang member who murdered his kid in a drive-by is not targeting the criminal because of religion or race, but because of what the criminal personally did. It's a very realistic and fair comparison, In both cases, legal/court justice is difficult, so street justice comes into play.

[Cobra Medic]

What gets me is how many people feel they need to carry a gun to protect themselves from those that would look to do them or others harm, but don't feel this guy was a threat and needed to be eliminated to prevent him from directing or leading attacks against the U.S.

We're taught there's a difference between shooting a gang member who is attaching you RIGHT NOW and shooting a gang member who is a future threat. Or shooting a gang member who runs away after attacking you and is no longer an immediate threat.

If the killings in Yemen are moral, so is shooting the mugger in the back as he flees. Or that pharmacist in OKC killing the robber on the scene who was no longer an immediate threat.

[mamabearCali]

We're taught there's a difference between shooting a gang member who is attaching you RIGHT NOW and shooting a gang member who is a future threat. Or shooting a gang member who runs away after attacking you and is no longer an immediate threat.

If the killings in Yemen are moral, so is shooting the mugger in the back as he flees. Or that pharmacist in OKC killing the robber on the scene who was no longer an immediate threat.

So this guy was on a mountain top just twiddling his thumbs minding his own business? No, he was planning and plotting and trying to find any way to kill more Americans--that makes him an immediate threat. Just as much as the mugger who is down on the ground but still shooting at you.

[Cobra Medic]

We're taught there's a difference between shooting a gang member who is attaching you RIGHT NOW and shooting a gang member who is a future threat. Or shooting a gang member who runs away after attacking you and is no longer an immediate threat.

If the killings in Yemen are moral, so is shooting the mugger in the back as he flees. Or that pharmacist in OKC killing the robber on the scene who was no longer an immediate threat.

So this guy was on a mountain top just twiddling his thumbs minding his own business? No, he was planning and plotting and trying to find any way to kill more Americans--that makes him an immediate threat. Just as much as the mugger who is down on the ground but still shooting at you.

I think you mean just as much as the mugger who is planning and plotting his next mugging. HTH

[mamabearCali]

Hmmm you know if a mugger is standing in front of me and has already killed my neighbors and is now me telling me "I am going to kill you, your husband, your children, your parents" with a gun outstretched to do what he has just said he would do, then I am permitted to end the threat to my family. He was doing precisely that on a national level. I cry no tears for him, he was a snake in the grass and earned the hell-fire missal he got in his lap.

[Cobra Medic]

Hmmm you know if a mugger is standing in front of me and has already killed my neighbors and is now me telling me "I am going to kill you, your husband, your children, your parents" with a gun outstretched to do what he has just said he would do, then I am permitted to end the threat to my family. He was doing precisely that on a national level. I cry no tears for him, he was a snake in the grass and earned the hell-fire missal he got in his lap.

Oh, please. At the moment he was killed he was riding in a car. He wasn't pointing a weapon at the Americans who fired the missiles. He was a probable future threat, no argument there, but he was not an immediate threat. A more realistic domestic example is the gang leader who is connected to the thugs who killed your neighbor but he's miles away from you. So you go to his territory and gun him down because you reasonably believe he might be planning to kill you at some time in the future. That's essentially what America did in Yemen last week.

I'm not denying both the al Qaeda member and the gang member are dirt bags. What I am saying is if the killing in Yemen was moral, then it's moral for American citizens to hunt down and kill violent gang members. It's right for those guys in NM and AZ to ambush drug runners coming in from Mexico. It's good for a parent to go after a pedophile who molested her kid but got off on a technicality. In summary, it's moral to be a vigilante when due process can't (or won't) give you justice.

No double standards.

[mamabearCali]

No double standards.

If you don't' think double standards exists in this world I have got a nice pier overlooking the ocean in Oklahoma to sell you.

There is a HUGE legal difference between a civilian and a military combatant. He became that the moment he joined Al-Queida, and certainly fell into that category when he became a leader in Al-Queida. He had every choice to come back here and face trial as a civilian, instead he chose to be an enemy combatant and got what comes to the leaders of our enemies.

[hpcatx]

This may be a moot issue, as he may not be dead... according to the Underwear Bomber.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/04/de ... -is-alive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sarcasm aside, Keith B has the most insightful comment.

He had pledged allegiance to military force who is an enemy of the United States (aka al-Queda) with which war has been declared against. Once that has happened, the person is an enemy combatant and not an unlawful combatant (i.e. no longer a civilian, but a soldier of al-Queda) as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3.

The real question at the heart of this debate is at what point does this shift occur and does it need judicial, or other official, certification given that he was originally a US citizen.

[jocat54]

I have been really surprised by some of the comments. I'm guessing most have never been in combat or a combat zone. Vietnam turned into a politicians war--don't shoot unless your shot at, dump those bombs in a harmless area, ect. list goes on and on.

The guy was in a war zone, doing things against the U.S.--maybe not at the very moment he was killed--but still a traitor. He made his choice and it was a bad one. War is not fair, as any fight is not fair, if your in a fight of any kind it would be in your best interest to win no matter where you are.

[apostate]

The guy was in a war zone

When did the United States invade Yemen?

Heck, last time I checked a map, it din't even share a border with Iraq or Afghanistan. So there goes the Cambodia or Laos anaolgy from the Viet Nam war.

[Keith B]

The guy was in a war zone

When did the United States invade Yemen?

Heck, last time I checked a map, it din't even share a border with Iraq or Afghanistan. So there goes the Cambodia or Laos anaolgy from the Viet Nam war.

Yemen is full of training camps for al-Queda, so that makes it a war zone IMO.

[fulano]

Should U.S. kill citizens overseas without affording them due process?

yes