Al-Awlaki, Wanted Dead Or Dead

The Man Who Got Osama has now killed his first American.  From the Times:

SANA, Yemen — A missile fired from an American drone aircraft in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s affiliate in this country, according to an official in Washington.

The Times is pretty light on the civil liberties controversy:

The missile strike appeared to be the first time in the United States-led war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that an American citizen had been deliberately targeted and killed by American forces.

...The Obama administration has escalated military and intelligence operations in Yemen, and the White House decision to make Mr. Awlaki a top priority to be hunted down and killed was controversial, given his American citizenship.

ABC News managed a bit more background in their current report:

In early February 2010 – fewer than two months after failed Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Faruq Abdulmuttalab, who had links to Awlaki, tried to strike – the National Security Staff put out an early directive saying Awlaki is a valid target for killing. Since the cleric was an American citizen, administration lawyers vetted the argument, ultimately concluding that Awlaki was a viable target since he cannot be captured.

Let's have more on the controversy.  Yesterday, writing in the LA Times, Jonathan Turley declared President Obama to be "a disaster for civil liberties".  (Of course, others on the left are still furious that the Obama didn't push for single-payer healthcare and make the government everyone's doctor, so where is the progressive constancy on civil liberties, hmm?  But I digress).  Back to Mr. Turley:

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

Glenn Greenwald rages about Al-Awlaki at Salon.  Let me just pick up on this hyperbole:

When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.

Wait, Obama was the "executioner"?  Was our former community organizer also a Predator drone operator or CIA wetworks operator before moving into the White House?  Who knew?

Adam Serwer of TAP provides a similar example of slack thinking in this earlier denunciation of the Al-Awlaki case:

I can't get past the fact that what they add up to is the idea that the president can have someone executed on his say-so based on mere suspicion of a crime, as long as it declares doing so a state secret.

My emphasis.  Back in reality, President Obama can not simply wake up one morning, announce to his staff that he is fed up with Paul Krugman's criticism, order the Predator drones to commence circling Princeton, and see Krugman delivered on a platter (or more likely, as a splatter.)  Pentagon lawyers would study the hell out of such a order before proceeding; since military officers are only sworn to uphold lawful orders, Krugman would be safe until his case cleared an intensive internal review (which it never would).

Here is some of the back and forth on the legal side.  Kenneth Anderson, while reviewing a like-minded paper by Robert Chesney, says these executions can be legal, as does State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh.  (Let's recall that Mr. Koh was recently in the news as the leading Administration lawyer who thought the Libya operation was not covered by the War Powers Act.)

My concluding thought - I'll accept at face value that it might have been virtually impossible to arrest Al-Awlaki.  But let me add that the Administration would really rather not have arrested him, since that would have re-opened the whole controversy about where to imprison and try these Qaeda operatives.  Could the Administration have argued that Al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant subject to Gitmo and military commissions, or would they have been obliged to conduct a public trial in the States?  And wouldn't Eric Holder (who wanted to try non-citizen KSM in Manhattan) be obliged to offer Al-Awlaki a similar propaganda platform?

Al-Awlaki dead renders these questions moot and saves the Administaration a lot of schizophrenic voguing.

JUST THINKING OUT LOUD... It's a bit counter-intuitive that it would be illegal for the Administration to tap Al-Awlaki's phone calls without a FISA warrant but it's OK to wack him.  However, the phone tapping is illegal because of the Constitutionally questionable FISA signed by Jimmy Carter; one presumes that Congress could pass a law similar to FISA covering targeted assassinations and the President could sign it. But I don't see much push for that happening. The President would prefer to hold on to Executive authority (real or imagined) and the Congress would prefer to duck their own responsibility (as they did with Libya and the War Powers Act).

Comments

[Sue]

I know I should probably care, but I don't. As they say in Texas, he needed killing.

[centralcal]

Back in reality, President Obama can not simply wake up one morning, announce to his staff that he is fed up with Paul Krugman's criticism, order the Predator drones to commence circling Princeton, and see Krugman delivered on a platter (or more likely, as a splatter.)

Why the hell not? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[Sue]

I admit to wondering what the headlines would be had Bush been the one to kill this bastard.

[lyle]

Articles of Impeachment would already be in the drawing phase if Bush had done this. In the newsrooms anyway.

[Threadkiller]

There is a good argument that anchor babies are not citizens. Obama should look into that.

[Ignatz]

The left chooses to blur the rather clear distinction between war and law enforcement.
Absent a war it would presumably be illegal to kill mass numbers of foreign nationals as well but, except for a few radical pacifists, I don't hear much whining about the concept of killing foreign combatants.
This guy had quite explicitly by his own words and actions declared himself a combatant in the war against us, which makes him an enemy regardless of where he was born and I have a hard time seeing the difference between killing him and killing Yamamoto.
The only cogent question I direct to TK; was Al-Alwaki eligible to be pres?

[Ignatz]

Didn't see yours until I posted TK. Heh.

[Captain Hate]

All the wailing on the left but they'd still vote for him again. I'm willing to concede that they're not "single issue" voters but wonder if there's any principle they'd feel is important to adhere to; other than abortion.

[Kill Americans]

Thank goodness that America finally has a President who's not afraid to flat-out order the murder of his fellow Americans (without wasting the time and effort that a trial or any of that tedious due process stuff would take).

[Appalled]

Al Qaeda declared war on the US (really, they did that formally). Al-Alwaki joined that war.

Hmm. I don't really have any issues here. Soldiers for other side get killed. (If we had caught him, though, he should be tried in the US, not Guantanamo.)

[MarkO]

"Thank goodness that America finally has a President who's not afraid to flat-out order the murder of his fellow Americans"

That didn't seem to trouble Mr. Lincoln. But, then, he started the Republican Party, the party of killing, with little machines, in far away places where the President doesn't see it.

[BB Key]

Who on the left will be the first to say "it was a gutsy call" ?

[Kill Americans]

Except my baby, of course. Because my baby has no right to my care and I get to kill him.

[narciso]

I don't get that, Appalled unless you are talking about his part in cultivating the
9/11 hijackers,

[rse]

Mel and I seem entranced by the same awful story on bribing the states to increase dependency and quickly

LUN

[Clarice]

As Obama's numbers tumble,AQ should be afraid. Real afraid. I mean if he's willing to have MO shlep out to target looking like a washerwoman what won't he do?

[Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign]

"The Man Who Got Osama has now killed his first American."

For some reason, US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry popped up in my head when I read that line.

[MarkO]

OMG. Obama was trying to tip off Awlaki when he sent his wife to a store named, get ready, Target. See? Wow. I could write for Salon.

[Danube of Thought]

I'm not sure whether it is possible to revoke the citizenship of someone who has taken up arms against the US, nor what the procedure is for doing so. I assume they would have done it if they could.

But look at it this way: if Awlaki had joined a foreign army, no one would dispute that he would be a legitimate target on the battlefield regardless of his citizenship. So yet again the "civil libertarians" are in the position of arguing that a terrorist who wears no uniform and deliberately targets civilians acquires greater rights than a soldier has.

Sell that shit somewhere else.

[Janet]

Martin Short's tribute song "Like a Bastard in the Sand"...for osama, but it's nice for al-awlaki too.

[Rob Crawford]

This guy had quite explicitly by his own words and actions declared himself a combatant in the war against us, which makes him an enemy regardless of where he was born and I have a hard time seeing the difference between killing him and killing Yamamoto.

There were plenty of US citizens, born in the US, who returned to Germany to fight for the Nazis. Many of them died in allied combat operations.

[Jim Ryan]

Perhaps Kill American's view of justice is that if it's impossible to catch the terrorist in Yemen, then Americans should be sitting ducks and let their cities get taken out one by one during the next couple of decades. Or maybe his view is that if it's possible to catch the terrorist in Yemen by sacrificing 250 troops, then we should do that.

The operative principle here seems to be either "Americans should die" or a juvenile and fetishistic interpretation of the right to due process as a suicide pact.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

July 10, 2010:

Bill strips al-Qaida cleric's citizenship
Lawmakers demand fugitive terrorist Awlaki lose nationality

[centralcal]

Jay Carney daily briefing (via Politico):

The death of Awlaki reflects the United States' coordination with Yemen, Carney says. He says it's like working with Pakistan -- "complicated" but important. "There is no question he was engaged in inspirational efforts or that he was a recruiter for Al Qaeda," Carney says of Awlaki.

Carney declines to say whether Obama ordered the attack on Awlaki. "I'm going to go back to what I said to Jim. Circumstances of his death, I'm not going to address," Carney says. "And what I will say is what I said to Jim about who he was, the threat he posed."

[Ranger]

I'm not sure whether it is possible to revoke the citizenship of someone who has taken up arms against the US, nor what the procedure is for doing so. I assume they would have done it if they could.

Well, it must be possible, because its written into the constitution that serving a foreign power is grounds for revocation.

On a pratical level though, I don't know how you could enforce it, since its been ignored for so long. As far as I know, there was never any effort to revoke the citizenship of those who faught in the Lincoln Brigade during the SCW. And I know that there was never any effort to revoke the citizenship of those who went to Canada and signed up to serve in the British military before the US entered WWII. And the US government actually organized the AVG (Flying Tigers) in China in 1941.

In theory, any US citizen convicted of espionage could have their citizenship revoked as well, but as far as I know, its never done.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Al-Awlaki dead renders these questions moot and saves the Administaration a lot of schizophrenic voguing.
That's a formidable legal argument you've got there, Tom.

So, since you approve of the assassination, which you obviously do, I don't know what your point is with the bit about Glenn Greenwald's "hyperbole" or Adam Serwer's "slack thinking." It's "hyperbole" to say that Obama acted as al-Awlaki's judge, jury, and executioner because he didn't actually drop the bomb? And Adam Serwer is guilty of "slack thinking" for saying that al-Awlaki was assassinated "on Obama's say-so"? You mean, he wasn't? Who ordered the assassination then? I would think that person will surely lose his job for acting on his own without a direct order from the President.

I mean, you approve of what Obama did, but it's hyperbole to say that he did it? What's your point there?

[Appalled]

Narciso:

It was back in the 90s. See Osama's rant in the LUN.

[Benjamin Franklin]

"Who on the left will be the first to say "it was a gutsy call" "

I don't know about 'gutsy', as remote=controlled warfare has an antiseptic quality to it. When you drop bombs from 20,000 feet it is very impersonal. I would say it was 'gutsy' if Obama had cut his 'windgate' with a knife. Up close and personal makes it 'gutsy'.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Going from memory on windgate....scarmble the mudulla.

[Captain Hate]

Carney declines to say whether Obama ordered the attack on Awlaki.

What a weasel. He makes Scott McClellan a straight shooter by comparison.

[centralcal]

OMG. Obama was trying to tip off Awlaki when he sent his wife to a store named, get ready, Target. See? Wow. I could write for Salon.

lol, MarkO - looks like IOTW discovered a photo that perfectly meshes with your theory!

[Danube of Thought]

KathyK, tell us whether Americans engaging in murderous plots against American civilians have greater due-process rights than soldiers in foreign armies. If so, why? And what do you think are the policy implications of granting them those greater rights?

[Benjamin Franklin]

holy moly---'scramble'.

[Danube of Thought]

Ranger, I don't know wher revokation is addressed in the constitution.

This is from a May 14, 2010 column by a Yale Law prof in the WSJ:

"Revoking the citizenship of Awlaki and the Fort Hood killer, both U.S.-born, presents a more complicated constitutional question. Under a 1940 statute that is still in force, the government can de-nationalize citizens who serve in a foreign military; vote in a foreign election; swear allegiance to, hold office, or naturalize in a foreign state; expressly renounce their citizenship before certain U.S. officials; or conspire to make war against the nation.

"But a 1967 Supreme Court decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, held that Congress cannot revoke citizenship without the citizen's consent. Thus, in the case of the Times Square bomber, the government would have to prove that when he committed any of the actions listed in the statute, he intended to relinquish his citizenship.

"In a 1980 case, Vance v. Terrazas, the Court reaffirmed this 'intent to relinquish' requirement, but allowed the government to prove it by a mere 'preponderance of the evidence.' Afroyim and Terrazas, which were both 5-4 decisions, accepted that a jury might infer intent to relinquish citizenship based on conduct—that is, even if the individual didn't utter the magic words 'I intend to renounce my citizenship'—so long as he had fair opportunity to show otherwise. "

[Extraneus]

Linky no worky, cc.

[centralcal]

oops! Thank you Extraneus!

Target and Targets

[Benjamin Franklin]

CBS

"Republican leaders on Friday praised the dealth of al-Awlaki and Mr. Obama's leadership. GOP presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry called al-Awlaki's death "an important victory in the war on terror."

"I want to congratulate the United States military and intelligence communities - and President Obama for sticking with the government's longstanding and aggressive anti-terror policies - for getting another key international terrorist," Perry said in a statement."

[narciso]

In practical terms, it's a rather foolish objection, although coming from the defender
of a a native analogue of Awlaki, Matt Hale, it strikes me as very ironic.

[MayBee]

Are we sure we didn't kill any American citizens who went to wage jihad in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Sue]

I know, let's prosecute Obama so people like Kathy will feel better. Get's 2 birds with one stone...Kathy feels better, Obama is impeached.

[narciso]

And they wonder why they sound so ridiculous:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/09/30/american-citizen-anwar-al-awlaki-assassinated-in-yemen/

[Ranger]

DoT, sorry, I was wrong. Its not the constitution, its:

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

Apparently, under current law, you can actually do essentially anything as long as you didn't specificly intend to give up your citizenship by doing them. Seems kind of crazy to me, but that's the current law.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

KathyK, tell us whether Americans engaging in murderous plots against American civilians have greater due-process rights than soldiers in foreign armies. If so, why? And what do you think are the policy implications of granting them those greater rights?

DoT, the entire idea behind the concept of due process is that you do not get to assume the guilt of an individual who has not received that due process. That's what is meant by saying that Obama acted as judge, jury, and executioner.

In other words,your reference to al-Awlaki as one of a group you describe as "Americans engaging in murderous plots against American civilians" begs the question of how you can assume that he did those things when he was not charged, tried, and convicted according to the rules of due process.

[Jane]

That picture is hysterical.

[Threadkiller]

The Founding Fathers master plan was to make it easy to become a citizen, and difficult to lose citizenship. If they cared about allegiance, things would be different. What a bunch of dopes.

[Sue]

Simple solution. The target was not al-Awlaki. It was the terrorists we are at war with. If he just happened to be where they were...sayonara.

[Sue]

Mike Huckabee has been approached by Republican and conservative activists unhappy with the current crop of presidential hopefuls and he is considering entering the fray, two sources who have spoken with Huckabee told Reuters…

Oh. My. Gawd. My worst nightmare.

[centralcal]

Sounds good to me Sue. So glad I caught you here, cuz I just know you will love seeing this article from Reuters about your least favorite Presidential candidate of all time (and I don't mean Ron Paul)!

All I can say is, Oh Schmuck!

[Jim Ryan]

The right to kill enemy combatants, especially irregulars, conflicts with the right to due process. By what principle could one decide that the latter consideration outweighs the former?

How many who champion the right of Alwaki to due process would send their sons to die in the attempt to arrest and mirandize a terrorist in Yemen? How many would be willing to sit like ducks when he announces that he will soon put ten nukes in ten American cities?

[centralcal]

lol - you have excellent radar! You beat me to it.

[Sue]

c-cal,

I just about dropped dead when I read it.

[narciso]

He's like the Zombies in the WAlking Dead, he doesn't go away.

[Sue]

Jim,

I know. Let's deputize Kathy and send her over with the arrest warrant.

[Sue]

I really hate it when liberals put me in the position of defending the man-child we call president.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I'm 100% in favor of capital punishment of Americans who make YouTube videos, as long as it's a Democrat ordering the killing and there's no due process involved.

But any Republican who doesn't break the law to stop the execution of a convicted murderer after 20 years of trials, appeals, and judicial review is a barbarian. What if we accidentally execute an innocent man?!

[Benjamin Franklin]

And Kathy Kattenburg is a racist. She's only criticizing Obama because he's black.

[narciso]

Of course, Ron Paul had to beclown himself further,

[Jim Ryan]

Sue, is Obama a GOP plant? He's going to get the ACLU-lovers amongst his base to sit out the next election. After all, he is a murderer and war criminal by their lights.

[Sue]

Jim,

I don't think he is a GOP plant but potted plant works for me.

[Danube of Thought]

KathyK, you avoided my questions altogether. If Awlaki had joined a foreign army at war with the US, would he be entitled to due process in determining whether or not we could shoot him, or could we just shoot him outright? If his wearing of a foreign uniform is demmed sufficient warrant to shoot him, would you contend that he should nevertheless be allowed to explain himself before we shoot him. Should the fact that Awlaki is not in uniform (which deprives him of certain Geneva Convention rights) afford him greater rights under American law?

Would you risk American lives to capture him?

[Ignatz]

--DoT, the entire idea behind the concept of due process...--

Constitutional due process and rules of evidence do not legally apply to the battlefield, especially a foreign one. They are even subject to certain limitations and modifications for our own soldiers fighting on our side.
Do you not understand this at all or do you understand but wish to change it?

[Clarice]

Kathy avoided it because so very like Sylvia she refuses to join the issues at hand. It's like debating jello. Women like her make me angry---all along the line in her life no one held her to fair standards , including the standards of debate. In the process she has been weakened. She always comes out looking like an idiot.

Where's that stalker Hit when we need him?

[centralcal]

It wasn't for SHOW it was for BO!!!!
Via Politico:

What did first lady Michelle Obama pick up on her trip to Target on Thursday? Dog stuff!

"The Today Show" reported on Friday that Obama "bought dog food and treats for Bo" during her 40 minutes at the store, adding that she was recognized only by a cashier and the AP photographer who took her picture.

The first lady was wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses and accompanied by Secret Service agents in plain clothes.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Silence would be the only means of preventing the revelation of idiocy in this instance.

I'd like to comment regarding the Awlaki matter but TM's suggestion re Drones over Princeton is just too distracting. How far is it from Princeton to Cambridge?

[Jane]

Kathy avoided it because so very like Sylvia she refuses to join the issues at hand.

I can't figure out why she doesn't take it up with Obama. He could read her letter before bedtime.

How far is it from Princeton to Cambridge?

Less than 200 miles.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

you avoided my questions altogether. If Awlaki had joined a foreign army at war with the US, would he be entitled to due process in determining whether or not we could shoot him, or could we just shoot him outright?

DoT, I did not avoid your questions at all. Your question was this: "KathyK, tell us whether Americans engaging in murderous plots against American civilians have greater due-process rights than soldiers in foreign armies."

I made the assumption that "Americans engaging in murderous plots against American civilians" referred to al-Awlaki. That seems a reasonable assumption, given that al-Awlaki was not a soldier in a foreign army.

If you are asking me whether it's legally permissible to kill foreign soldiers on the battlefield who are engaged in combat against American soldiers, no it doesn't as long as they are carrying weapons and engaged in active combat. Obviously, everyone knows that the laws of war permit soldiers to kill each other if they are engaged in active combat on a battlefield.

However, and just as obviously, the al-Awlaki was not a soldier in a foreign army engaged in active combat on a battlefield. Killing him simply because the government claims he is plotting terrorist acts with Al Qaeda, without any due process to provide evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is doing such, is not legally permissible. It's an extrajudicial killing, and it violates both domestic and international norms, laws, and legal protocols.

If this does not answer your question, ask it again, because I assure you that I am sincerely answering the question that I understand you to have asked me. I am not deliberately ignoring anything.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

I just wrote, "If you are asking me whether it's legally permissible to kill foreign soldiers on the battlefield who are engaged in combat against American soldiers, no it doesn't ...."

I wrote this wrong. I should have used Preview before posting.

What I intended to write was, ""If you are asking me whether it's legally permissible to kill foreign soldiers on the battlefield who are engaged in combat against American soldiers, YES IT IS...." and then the rest as I wrote it.

Sorry.

What I intended to write was

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Damn it all to hell. I used Preview for that correction, and STILL missed that fragment line at the end. Pretend it's not there.

I *hate* when I do stuff like that.

[Clarice]

Maybe in a hundred years you'll be able to redo that post so it makes logical sense.

[Ben Franklin]

It disgusts me that racists like Kathy Kattenburg are going around and perpetuating the myth that because Obama is a black man he must be a murderer.

Go back to the KKK, Kathy, you're late for a lynching.

[daddy]

Just thought I'd mention that our convert Weatherman from King Salmon Alaska, who was convicted last year of plotting to murder innocent Americans, had converted to Islam at that Virginia Mosque, and according to the ADN "...gradually became radicalized, becoming an adherent of the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born jihadist..."

Good riddance.

Too bad our convicted Weatherman wasn't in that jeep with Awlaki.

[Kill Americans]

I hope Obama sends in some drones to kill all the terrorists that have declared war and claim to now "occupy" New York.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

And don't give me any of that "they're just Americans who haven't actually committed any violence" bullshit. If a foreign army had invaded New York and declared that they were occupying the city, our brave Commander in Chief wouldn't hesitate to butcher them in the streets. These people deserve the same fate as Al-Awlaki

[Barbara]

Kathy,

Please define "engaged in active combat on a battlefield" in terms of a war that uses terrorism as it's primary mode of attack.

[Appalled]

Clarice:

Women like her make me angry---all along the line in her life no one held her to fair standards , including the standards of debate. In the process she has been weakened. She always comes out looking like an idiot.

The leftys who choose to post here do so in full knowledge that at least 5-10 people are going to pounce on them, and it is pretty rough to answer all of them coherently. Those who stick it our deserve some credit for undertaking something difficult. (Provided they aren't just trolling.)

And, honest, I don't see anything from KK suggesting sylvian oddballery...

[Danube of Thought]

"Killing him simply because the government claims he is plotting terrorist acts with Al Qaeda, without any due process to provide evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is doing such, is not legally permissible."

I take it you are assuming that the "government claims" arise out of whole cloth, and are unsubstantiated by any written, videotape or eyewitness evidence. Or do you acknowledge the existence of such evidence, but contend that it cannot be acted upon unless it is authenticated in court and weighed by a jury?

And, inescapably, you are arguing that Awlaki, because he is not in uniform, has greater rights than those who are.

Pious lectures about due process do not advance discussion of the issue; no one is opposed to due process. The point is that the administration of due process to combatants in wartime is the responsibility of the executive rather than the judiciary, and it takes an entirely different form owing to the exigencies of war.

[fdcol63]

KathyK is dangerously and naively ignorant about asymmetrical warfare and the reciprocal obligations and conduct of war that was sought by the signatories to the Geneva Conventions, which our current Islamist enemies have refused to sign or observe.

[fdcol63]

The rest of feel that plotting and actually carrying out attacks against American citizens here at home is "impermissable".

[fdcol63]

rest of us

[Ranger]

If you are asking me whether it's legally permissible to kill foreign soldiers on the battlefield who are engaged in combat against American soldiers, YES IT IS....

Actually, the law of war is much more broad on legal killing. The only requirement is that they are an active member of a military organization that is enganged in war. They don't have to be engaging in combat. They can be legally killed while sleeping peacefully in their beds hundreds of miles from combat, if they happen to still be will participants in the military organization when they go to sleep. And civilans sleeping nearby peacefully in their beds can be legally killed as well, provided they were not the intended target of the attack, and the attack made is done using force and means proportional to the threat/value of the target being attacked.

[daddy]

Can't wait to read the New York Times opinion on the ethics and leglity of firing on American citizens:

Here's a bit of Old Gray Lady History from 1863:

"an interesting story exists about Gatling guns being used to defend the New York Times building during the Draft Riots of July 13-16, 1863, during which the mob of 50,000 people caused 1,000 deaths and $2,000,000 in property damage.
“While others cowered in fear of mob violence, Henry Jarvis Raymond, editor of the New York Times and a prominent Republican politician, was prepared to fight. Daily, he blasted the mob in flaming editorials in the Times. Brightly illuminated by night, its plate glass windows gleaming a challenge to the mob, the imposing Times Building, an arrogant symbol of wealth, seemed to dare the rioters to attack. Raymond, who advised ‘Give them grape (shot), and plenty of it.’ was quite ready to do so. Inside the two northern windows, commanding the most likely avenues of attack were mounted Gatling Guns, manned by Raymond himself and Leonard Walter Jerome, a major stockholder of the New York Times (and future grandfather of Winston Churchill). A third Gatling was on the roof of the building, in position to sweep the streets below. The entire staff of the newspaper had been equipped with rifles and stood ready for the attack that might have come at any moment. The Times was waited for the mob-Messrs. Raymond and Jerome probably would have like nothing better than a chance to play Gatling music for the rioters’ edification-but the attack never came. Learning that the Timesmen were well armed, the mob directed its attentions elsewhere. As it was to do many times in future years, the Gatling Gun had served well-without firing a shot.”4
It is unknown where the Gatling Guns used to defend the New York Times could have come from. The rumor at the Times is that President Lincoln, a friend of Mr. Raymond, made the guns available. This story is unlikely because at the time the government had no Gatling Guns. It is more likely that Dr. Gatling or an associate was in New York for demonstrations and made them available. It is believed that at this time the only Gatling Gun that existed was the original prototype." Link.

And here:

"The New York Times was defended by its staff, who wielded several Gatling guns borrowed from the Army. Manning one of the Gatling guns was millionaire speculator Leonard Walter Jerome, Winston Churchill’s maternal grandfather and a major investor in the paper." Link

Plenty of similar stuff available.

[Kill Americans]

I hope the U.S. Army lends a few modern-day Gatling Guns to the companies on Wall Street to use against the current invaders who have declared they are now "occupying" New York City.

We'd do it to a foreign army, so we should do it to American citizens too.

[Sue]

OMG...less than one hour...

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Constitutional due process and rules of evidence do not legally apply to the battlefield, especially a foreign one.
There is no battlefield here. al-Awlaki was not killed on a battlefield.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Go back to the KKK, Kathy, you're late for a lynching.

I am assuming that "Ben Franklin" is a different person from "Benjamin Franklin."

[Sue]

Kathy,

Who knows? Cleo/Leo/Ben/Dana is known to impersonate himself impersonating a right winger. My advice is to ignore the poster, no matter who it is.

[centralcal]

Kathy: Cleo/Dana was Ben Franklin for weeks, before he became Benjamin Franklin.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Please define "engaged in active combat on a battlefield" in terms of a war that uses terrorism as it's primary mode of attack.

You have just pinpointed the central problem with the entire concept of a "war on terror" where war is meant literally and not rhetorically as in "war on poverty" or "war against drugs."

And you don't even know you've done that, obviously.

The answer to your "Please define 'engaged in active combat on a battlefield' in terms of a war that uses terrorism as it's primary mode of attack." is that there IS no such definition that makes any sense.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

They don't have to be engaging in combat. They can be legally killed while sleeping peacefully in their beds hundreds of miles from combat, if they happen to still be will participants in the military organization when they go to sleep.

I see no evidence or textual support offered for the above claim, and to the best of my knowledge and understanding, it is not true -- except in the sense that the Bush administration took it upon itself to create that redefinition and the Obama administration has chosen to continue the fiction. But that doesn't make it valid or true.

[Rick Ballard]

Think of something very, very, very thick... impenetrably thick.

You're not even close.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

My advice is to ignore the poster, no matter who it is.

Good advice, Sue. And thank you. :-)

[narciso]

Right, the administration invented it, tell me another one:

http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

[Threadkiller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

[narciso]

Hey, TK it seems we were of like mind, on this point. Meanwhile, denial is a river:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/09/30/awlakis-dc-mosque-aq-cleric-was-known-for-interfaith-outreach-tolerance-and-civic-engagement/#comments

[Ignatz]

--I see no evidence or textual support offered for the above claim, and to the best of my knowledge and understanding, it is not true -- except in the sense that the Bush administration took it upon itself to create that redefinition and the Obama administration has chosen to continue the fiction. But that doesn't make it valid or true.--

Then FDR should have been impeached and tried as a war criminal for the bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.

[Ignatz]

--There is no battlefield here. al-Awlaki was not killed on a battlefield.--

"War is an extension of Olley Olley Oxenfree by other means";
Kattenberg on War

[Barbara]

You have just pinpointed the central problem with the entire concept of a "war on terror" where war is meant literally and not rhetorically as in "war on poverty" or "war against drugs."

Hogwash! I didn't ask you to define the term "War on Terror." I asked you to define the battlefield and you provided political slogans.

Terrorism as a weapon of warfare is neither new or unusual. It has been and must be dealt with at its source. That is the "battlefield" that you refuse to acknowledge.

[Appalled]

Kathy:

Osama, back in 1998, preached:

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

The result, you know.

What are we to do with those to subscribe to such a creed, and who have proven that they can do an awful lot of destruction here? Rely on the Yemenis to arrest them and extradite them? I agree that War on Terror was an inapt phrase -- it's like declaring War on blitzreig, or war on mustard gas. But Al Qaeda essentially declared war on us, and sort of obliged the government -- whose first duty is to protect its citizenry -- to wage war right back at them.

[Clarice]

At PJ Tatler, Patrick Poole has a series of posts about al-Awlaki--how the NYT and NPR touted him as a moderate; how he conducted lectures at the Pentagon after 9/11 and prayers in the US Congress. It wouldn't hurt to refresh your recollection.

[narciso]

I just posted one of them, Clarice.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Hogwash! I didn't ask you to define the term "War on Terror."

Sure you did, Barbara. Asking me to "Please define 'engaged in active combat on a battlefield' in terms of a war that uses terrorism as it's primary mode of attack." is obviously asking me to define war in the context of a war on terrorism. Why would you be asking me to define words like "active combat" and "battlefield" if you had traditional combat and battlefields in mind? Why would you have asked me to define these words, which we all know the traditional meaning of, "in terms of a war that uses terrorism as it's primary mode of attack." if you were not asking me how I would define a war on terrorism?

"Terrorism as a weapon of warfare is neither new or unusual. It has been and must be dealt with at its source. That is the 'battlefield' that you refuse to acknowledge."

Hogwash, Barbara. We both know what a battlefield is. It's the Union and Confederate armies at Gettysburg. It's Allied soldiers and the German army on the beaches of Normandy.

It's not a cafe or a street corner or a private home.

You are the one who is refusing to acknowledge the implications of your own question -- namely, that what you call "the battlefield" is anywhere the government says it is and that it has nothing to do with what the words "combat" and "battlefield" mean when you look them up in the dictionary.