Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas

[Rex B]

The only surprise in all this is how Obama has not yet found a way to spin "blame" for this on the GOP.

I'm sure he's already mentioned that the previous administration set the precedent.
He was right, but it was FDR, a DemocRat

[Ameer]

I would add this:

In the hypothetical event that there was a broad armed rebellion against the federal government in which the rebels (whatever their religious/social/political persuasion) sought to overthrow the sitting government by violent means, you can bet that this same government would use whatever means were at its disposal to kill the rebellion's leaders and instigators.

That sounds a lot like MS 13 and the Mexican drug cartels, except many of them are foreign invaders on US soil. They're killing Americans and the military should be used against these invaders, whether they're in uniform or unlawful combatants.

[tbrown]

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

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

Probably the Arizona Minutemen and similar groups.

[anygunanywhere]

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

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

Probably the Arizona Minutemen and similar groups.

After the latest report of the foiled terrorist plot involving the drug cartel being recruited as a hired assassin, we should use the same tactics across the border. I know that the individual that posed as the cartel member was an informant, but the door is now open to the fact that the drug cartels are not only criminals but terrorists too.

Anygunanywhere

[hpcatx]

Interesting follow-up to this discussion was posted yesterday. The context is a Forbes Magazine article saying Ron Paul was incorrect about the Fifth Amendment.

But we do have the exact opposite example from George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion. President Washington did order rebellious citizens to "disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes," and he did call out the militia to stop what he labeled "overt acts of levying war against the United States" during the Whiskey Rebellion. But that was only after Washington received permission to use force from Congress and had sent a delegation to meet with the violent insurgents in western Pennsylvania. And even after that, Washington used minimal force. He did not automatically try to "take out" any insurgents as Obama has done in the war on terror. After the Whiskey Rebellion ended, the U.S. Senate applauded Washington's "lenient and persuasive measures" that avoided unnecessary bloodshed.

In fact, when a man and a boy were killed by federal militia under Washington's command, Washington ordered both shooters arrested and handed them over to Pennsylvania state prosecutors. Washington did this even though the man had been killed while clearly resisting arrest. Judges later ruled that both shootings were accidental and set the militia members free, but Washington's example in the only two deaths under his command is a sharp contrast with Obama's assassination list today. As Thomas Slaughter noted in his book The Whiskey Rebellion, "Federal officials had hoped to instill fear among dissidents, but not necessarily to kill them; friends of order had no wish to open themselves to charges of oppression or to create martyrs useful to the political opposition."

Original thenewamerican.com article.

[Barbi Q]

After the latest report of the foiled terrorist plot involving the drug cartel being recruited as a hired assassin, we should use the same tactics across the border. I know that the individual that posed as the cartel member was an informant, but the door is now open to the fact that the drug cartels are not only criminals but terrorists too.

They're a bigger clear and present danger to the USA.

[Purplehood]

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.

The difference is simple:

The drive-by shooter has a high probability of being captured, tried and sentenced here in the US.

The "American Citizen" in Yemen does not. Do you really anticipate him coming back to the US? Would it be easier to risk another Seal Team and try to nab him and bring him back to the States? Are you okay with the hit on OBL?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Watching this thread for close to three weeks has been interesting. Here are the facts. An American born terrorist living in a foreign country hostile to the United States was killed by a U.S. military strike. He was killed because he had a key leadership role in a major terrorist organization that is engaged in a war against the United States and had killed thousands of innocent civilians, including American servicemen and citizens. He is directly responsible for major terrorist attacks against Americans. He was beyond the reach of the American criminal justice system making it impossible to bring him to the U.S. for trial or military prosecution as an enemy combatant.

The argument that it was unlawful/unconstitutional to kill a terrorist/murderer under these circumstances solely because he had and American passport in his pocket didn't begin until after perennial nut-job Ron Paul claimed that it was wrong to kill him; a claim he also made about Bin Laden who was not an American citizen. If there was any meat on this bone, experts in constitutional law would be all over this like white on rice. They are not. There is no hue and cry from them or reputable civil rights organizations, because killing a murdering terrorist under these conditions is not unlawful or unconstitutional.

Personally, I like it when he says things like killing Bin Laden and Al Awlaki was "wrong." It makes most people who have bought into the somewhat conservative fiscal ideas he promotes take a closer look at him and realize he a nut!

I may be mistaken, but it appears that most, if not all, people arguing the killing was "wrong" are Ron Paul supporters. I understand supporting a candidate, but how far will you go? Arguing that killing the guy was "wrong" is the political equivalent of walking off a cliff because Ron Paul jumped first.

Chas.

[unhappycamper]

I think the killing was hunky dory. We need a Commander in Chief with the integrity to use the same on the narco terrorists south of the border. They're a bigger threat to noncombatants peacefully living their lives on American soil. Directly or indirectly, they probably cause at least half the crime in border towns,

[fulano]

I may be mistaken, but it appears that most, if not all, people arguing the killing was "wrong" are Ron Paul supporters. I understand supporting a candidate, but how far will you go? Arguing that killing the guy was "wrong" is the political equivalent of walking off a cliff because Ron Paul jumped first.

Chas.

Could be that a reason to criticize or rationalize not supporting the action is because Obama authorized it. A common reaction has become to be to opposed to what ever he does no matter how logical.

Call me moderate or old fashion if you will, but I believe there is a time to support a Commander in Chief no matter what party he's from.

[atticus]

I don't think we have to re-invent the wheel on this one. I understand that Abraham Lincoln was faced with similar arguments during the War Between the States, and that Americans who chose to serve under the Confederate flag were determined NOT to be entitled to criminal court proceedings. They, like Anwar Not-so-lucky, had U. S. citizenship, but chose to fight against the U. S. Note that, when they were captured alive and if then charged with a crime, they were tried before military tribunals. But they were all fair targets of war when on the battlefield. After the war, President Johnson cleared the decks by ordering a general amnesty to those who had fought against the U. S. Even Robert E. Lee had to worry about charges of treason. But that's all post-war stuff. During the war, it's pretty clear that Americans, albeit Confederates, who were combatants against the U. S., did not have a right to a civil trial for their participation in the war. To me it means that the claims that we assassinated a U. S. citizen, and violated Anwar's rights, are meritless. He chose to take the field of battle against the country of his birth. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

[unhappycamper]

I don't think we have to re-invent the wheel on this one. I understand that Abraham Lincoln was faced with similar arguments during the War Between the States, and that Americans who chose to serve under the Confederate flag were determined NOT to be entitled to criminal court proceedings. They, like Anwar Not-so-lucky, had U. S. citizenship, but chose to fight against the U. S. Note that, when they were captured alive and if then charged with a crime, they were tried before military tribunals. But they were all fair targets of war when on the battlefield. After the war, President Johnson cleared the decks by ordering a general amnesty to those who had fought against the U. S. Even Robert E. Lee had to worry about charges of treason. But that's all post-war stuff. During the war, it's pretty clear that Americans, albeit Confederates, who were combatants against the U. S., did not have a right to a civil trial for their participation in the war. To me it means that the claims that we assassinated a U. S. citizen, and violated Anwar's rights, are meritless. He chose to take the field of battle against the country of his birth. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

We should apply the same standards to gang members waging war against Americans. Some of them aren't even US citizens, so there's no question they're foreign invaders and combatants that can be legally killed by any American in the name of homeland security. We should also send the military against them. Those foreign enemies have infiltrated our cities and are a bigger threat than men living in caves in Afghanistan.