Forget for a moment who the target is and what he’s done. Consider the principles enumerated in the Constitution regarding citizens and if, despite what the reason, this is a direction the country should take. Don’t forget, IRS agents are now armed. I wonder how many tax cheats will end up ‘suicided’ after an audit?
There has been almost universal silence among Congressional Democrats on the Obama administration’s recently revealed decision to authorize the assassination of a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, has been accused of providing inspiration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged “underwear bomber,” and Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter. In recent weeks, there has been a dramatic surge in U.S. government chatter about the alleged threat posed by al-Awlaki, with anonymous U.S. officials accusing him of directly participating in terror “plots” (his family passionately disputes this).
Several Democrats refused, through spokespeople, to comment on the assassination plan when contacted by The Nation, including Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jan Schakowsky, both of whom serve on the Intelligence Committees. Representative Jane Harman, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee, said recently that Awlaki is “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”
One of the few Democrats to publicly address the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations is Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. “I don’t support it — period,” he said in an interview. “I think people in both parties that are concerned about the Constitution should be speaking out on this. I can’t account for what anyone else doesn’t do.”
Government assisted suicide.
Why yes, yes it does. It’s called private health care.
(Wait for it…)
No assassinations of U.S. Citizens by the gov.
If he happens to be at a legitimate military target, he can be collateral damage due to military action, but he cannot be singled out for elimination.
Fine line, I know, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Were assassinations legal during the Civil War? If not, then we can’t do them.
As a follow up, from Salon:
“A 1981 Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan provides: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Before the Geneva Conventions were first enacted, Abraham Lincoln — in the middle of the Civil War — directed Francis Lieber to articulate rules of conduct for war, and those were then incorporated into General Order 100, signed by Lincoln in April, 1863. Here is part of what it provided, in Section IX, entitled “Assassinations”:
The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.”
Once you can assassinate citizens without due process, the rule of law is abolished. Then the rule of man takes over and the strongest rule.
A very slippery slope to a very bad end.
But, full criminal/civil court protection, ala Holder, isn’t the answer either.
We need a better way to handle treason and war with Islamists who really only have allegiance to the theocracy of Islam, and not any one nation.
Ah, so this is the famous death panel? Seriously, America is not only monetarily bankrupt but morally as well. I really expected better of the Obama administration. The Nobel committee needs to repo his Peace Prize.
Ha, ha. Whats up Unc Dave???? Trying to turn this blog into a Tea Party of simplistic thinking?
Your post and most of the discussion so far shows the inability of too many to juggle inconsistent ideas, or to rank order consequences, or to deal between two bad alternatives, or to deal with reality.
Should American Citizens be targeted for assassinations? // In general, no.
Should enemy combatants in the theater of engagement be individually targeted? // In general, yes.
Did our Founding Fathers generally contemplate American Citizens to be those fighting against and killing uniformed American Troops on foreign soil? // In general, no.
Does it make sense to send in an army killing 100’s of citizens, fighters, our own troops and spending Millions of Dollars rather than single out the Provocateurs in Charge and decapitate them? // In general, no.
I would continue, but you get the drift. The rule against assassinations makes little sense when dealing with an enemy that dresses up 12 year old suicide bombers.
Reality, Check Please.
Why not? Cops do it every day.
I could say something, but then it could lead to my being terminated with extreme prejudice.
Of course it’s ok Obamas in charge. Totally different then if it were two years ago.
If they can’t arrest you because you are off shore and you are wanted for a capital offense…We’ll before the law you just died resisting arrest because you were.
I don’t think much has actually changed there other than formalizing it.
I don’t think they are allowed to do this state side unless you try to get away…Then it’s called resisting arrest.
Or they could just ask the British to do it for them. I’m sure they can spare an SAS team for a couple hours.
This is a big problem. It’s a lot harder to assassinate someone when you know you are being targeted. Israel announces it’s targeting with the death of the target.
MikeN….that’s the right way to do it.
It’s been happening forever, Reagan signed that order because it personally bothered him. Fair enough, but bobbo is right IMO.
We are at war. This individual is overseas actively engaged against us in this war. He needs to be eliminated for for strategic reasons.
If he surrenders, then he should not be assassinated. He could be taken into custody and tried for war crimes. If he does not surrender, then he is a legitimate war target.
His American passport (does he still have one?) does not exempt him as a military target.
This isn’t the first time the U.S. government has assassinated an American citizen, just the first time they’ve admitted it.
Only if it’s done by cute little kitties like the picture..
I wish they’d kill some Catholic priests.
Unless you change the Constitution or are happy living in a lawless military dictatorship, no, it is illegal.
Anyone who orders or commits this crime should be arrested and tried by a jury of their peers, but if you cannot arrest them you may not kill them, it is illegal. Funny how the law applies to everyone equally.
I do not necessarily object to killing an American terrorist assuming there is no other alternative, but I do believe in the rule of law, so if that is what people want, change the Constitution first.
As we are a nation of laws, I am in complete agreement with Civengine and LDA.
Bobbo, I’m impressed with your “flexible” morality!!!!
So what?
Dont commit a crime.. Dont get assassinated.
Wonder whats hard to understand in that logic..
Santa Maria, thanks for your 1 dimentional analysis.
I liked Reagan but I thought the no assassination edict was a bit naive. While I am generally not in favor of killing any human being, I can see how the world can be improved by eliminating certain inhabitants. I think carefully considered assassinations could save many lives. (Att CIA – we know you’re listening – No more exploding cigars, please.)
# 4 Civengine said, “A 1981 Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan…”
Exec Orders are easy to get by. You just need a new Exec Order.
# 12 sargasso said, “Or they could just ask the British to do it for them.”
Nah. Get the Israeli’s to do it. They’ll even do it on camera!
What! Hella No but at the same time if you have commited a heinous unspeakable act against our country then its questionable.
No, but I would support government going away. Leave people alone.
Once again Obama and co. fail to understand recent history.
**facepalm**
Assassination has no place in policy in the United States of America. There is no argument that could ever be valid no matter the person.
It is contrary to The Constitution of The Republic.
Cursor_
IRS agents have ALWAYS been armed with the force of the federal gov’t. This is not news.
They have always had what it takes to take what you have.
This is bad.
That it became public is even worse.
If you’re going to assassinate someone, at least be ashamed of it and keep it secret!
Yes. There are too many. Population cull is a good idea.