Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas

[Ameer]

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

yes

All of them?

[RPB]

2 related articles/Reuters News Service

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 5, 2011 7:59pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... 5C20111005" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’
Posted by NewsEditor on October 6, 2011
http://www.westernjournalism.com/secret ... kill-list/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fulano]

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

yes

All of them?

Just the ones we want to. We are the USA....after all...and besides, they are our citizens.

[Keith B]

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

yes

All of them?

Just the ones we need to. We are the USA....after all...and besides, they are our citizens.

There, fixed it for ya.

[texanron]

AMEN!

[fulano]

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

yes

All of them?

Just the ones we need to. We are the USA....after all...and besides, they are our citizens.

There, fixed it for ya.

I've been spending too much time in the West. Justice was faster then.
BTW Only man ever hung for disturbing the peace....
http://www.youtube.com/user/skitshivets ... 45eaL0wrt8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, for anyone who thinks killing this guy was illegal...... Al Qaeda agrees with you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html.

As far as I am concerned, he forfeited his citizenship when he took up advocating the mass killing of his fellow citizens, with the help of foreign governments.

[Keith B]

More here http://www.theblaze.com/stories/secret- ... al-awlaki/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And, from the article

Finally, as for the Bill of Rights guarantee of due process of law and protection from unreasonable seizure, the memo concluded that al-Awlaki was different from a regular criminal, and cited court cases allowing American citizens who joined up with enemy forces to be detained or tried in military court just like noncitizen enemies.

[The Annoyed Man]

They'da been quite happy to arrest him 'steada killin' him, but he wouldn't turn hisself in.

Sucks to be him.

So what you're saying is that a predator firing a Hellfire missile at a terrorist's vehicle is essentially no different than throwing out the spike strips to give him a flat tire?

I think I'd be inclined to agree!

[The Annoyed Man]

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. In the Civil War, the federal government used cannons and rifles and gatling guns and mortars and any other implements of war you can think of to kill men who, just months before had been American citizens with all the rights thereof. One can call it the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression, whatever your particular poison is, but nobody is really arguing the morality or legality of the use of weapons of war against Americans who were at war with their former government.

Al-Awlaki is certainly as guilty or responsible (again, depending upon your interpretation of the "war which split the nation from 1861-1865") as any rebel who took up arms against the federal government. If either Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln had had cruise missiles or Hellfire-armed drones, they would have used them if they thought that doing so would bring the war to a faster, more favorable conclusion to their side's interests.

So why is anyone giving a rip about a solitary man, who may have been born here, but had abandoned this country TEN YEARS AGO to wage war against her? Not to mention that between 1993 and 2002, when he finally left for good, he had made several trips overseas to learn about Jihad in Afghanistan and Yemen. He wasn't a criminal. He was an enemy combatant. He got killed doing it. Why is anyone concerned? He would gut you like a fish in a heartbeat, your concern for him notwithstanding. This board's rules forbid me the use of the language I would use to describe this mutt. Personally? I would shoot him in cold blood if I had the chance. He was an enemy of my nation, who wanted me and mine dead. I would pee on his grave if I had half a chance.

[The Annoyed Man]

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

yes

All of them?

Depends. What did they do? This guy? Most definitely.

[Keith B]

They'da been quite happy to arrest him 'steada killin' him, but he wouldn't turn hisself in.

Sucks to be him.

So what you're saying is that a predator firing a Hellfire missile at a terrorist's vehicle is essentially no different than throwing out the spike strips to give him a flat tire?

I think I'd be inclined to agree!

They were aiming for the right front tire, but missed.

[Rex B]

This has been discussed over on Volokh Conspiracy (volokh.com), a blog site for (mostl) constitutional lawyers

Short discussion. The consensus was "When a citizen takes up arms against the United States, he becomes an enemy combatant like any other, and forfeits constitutional protects."
Established precedent going back to WW2 and prior.

[RoyGBiv]

"When a citizen takes up arms against the United States, he becomes an enemy combatant like any other, and forfeits constitutional protects."

I suppose in a Democracy it's good to ponder such things. For me, the issue is settled (see above quoted text).
IMO, I would like to resurrect him so we can kill him twice, more slowly this time.

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