Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas

[mamabearCali]

I was talking with a family member this evening over dinner and was picking their brain about this situation. They are a little more knowledgeable about military type situations. When I said people were crying about his being an "American citizen" he laughed. He pointed out that even if that was a conceivable argument for not putting a hell-fire missal in their laps, that the person would be considered at minimum a spy and that we are not too choosy about ending those threats and have never been. So missal or sharp shooter we tend to execute spies when we can. If we can try them and then execute them here in the US--sure it would be nice--but otherwise stop the leak stop the threat.

[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.

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

I was about to argue that the presence of a training facility does not make an area a war zone but then I remembered parts of Fayetteville NC and reconsidered.

[jocat54]

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.

Why the small fonts?

Ask the crew of the Cole.

[apostate]

Why the small fonts?

It was an aside. I didn't want to take the discussion off track but that's probably a moot point now.

[MasterOfNone]

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.

By your reasoning, just about every bomb, rocket, or missile we have ever fired at a hostile enemy was unjustified. Every action that was ever taken that was not immediate defense was wrong. That would mean that everything we have ever done on foreign soil was wrong.

[jocat54]

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.

Sorry, not understanding what you are saying (red highlight)--I hope.

[E.Marquez]

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.

Once declared a combatant, none of the rest of this discussion on rights, fair, not being a threat at the instant he was killed matter, not one bit.. Never has, never will.

I'ts a single standard, has not changed.. If you are an enemy combatant, to which this dude was, your fair game. The only thing that still applies is, we will attempt to not kill others not so declared when we end your life.
Don't like that reality? don't do things that get on on the need to die list.

[speedsix]

...them that gets it...gets it...them that don't...don't...it's a good thing in this world today we've got some folks that gets it...or we'd all be sitting ducks...all through history there've been those who could recognize evil and deal with it decisively, and those who would give one more inch...well just one more...well maybe one more...till evil owns it all, instead of doing the dirty work of stopping evil cold...this argument won't be solved here...those who know will continue to do what must be done...those who don't will continue to criticise and second guess them...while enjoying the safety that's been provided them at great cost...

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP> As Yoda said, "he chose poorly."

Chas.

I thought it was this guy who said that.

[tbrown]

By your reasoning, just about every bomb, rocket, or missile we have ever fired at a hostile enemy was unjustified. Every action that was ever taken that was not immediate defense was wrong. That would mean that everything we have ever done on foreign soil was wrong.

I'm not so sure. His reasoning seems to be, in logical terms: A → B

It's possible that he believes what you assert above. However, it's also possible that he believes the missile attack was justified and that similar actions against criminals domestically are also justified.

[jocat54]

...them that gets it...gets it...them that don't...don't...it's a good thing in this world today we've got some folks that gets it...or we'd all be sitting ducks...all through history there've been those who could recognize evil and deal with it decisively, and those who would give one more inch...well just one more...well maybe one more...till evil owns it all, instead of doing the dirty work of stopping evil cold...this argument won't be solved here...those who know will continue to do what must be done...those who don't will continue to criticise and second guess them...while enjoying the safety that's been provided them at great cost...

[tbrown]

I'ts a single standard, has not changed.. If you are an enemy combatant, to which this dude was, your fair game. The only thing that still applies is, we will attempt to not kill others not so declared when we end your life.
Don't like that reality? don't do things that get on on the need to die list.

According to that single standard, Jerome Ersland should not have been prosecuted. Maybe he should even have gotten a medal instead. When Antwun Parker chose to rob the pharmacy, he became fair game. Following the "only thing that still applies" the DV pharmacist attempted (succeeded) to not harm innocents when he ended the robber's life. If violent criminals don't like that, they shouldn't do things that get them on the need to die list.

I like this single standard!

[Keith B]

"Look, I don't want to kill someone. But if you threaten my family [and] one of our lives is in danger, I'm doing all I can to kill you. No apologies."

-- CNN contributor Roland S. Martin, commenting via Facebook on the U.S.-led attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Islamic preacher turned propaganda chief for al-Qaida, in Yemen on Friday. Some had questioned whether the killing of an American citizen without due process was unconstitutional. Martin was apparently not one of them.

And all the people said, "AMEN!!!!"