Kevin, respectfully I’d suggest that your “assassination” rhetoric is without foundation in the laws of war and our own domestic law. Any individual — American citizen or not — who joins a declared hostile military force in hostilities against the United States becomes a member of that force and a legitimate target. The only distinction between al-Awlaki and, say, someone who decided to join the SS in World War II is that the SS at least complied with the laws of war enough to wear uniforms while committing their unspeakable atrocities.
Those who call this action an assassination are buying the radical Left’s foundational premise about our war: that it is not a war at all but instead a global police action against a particularly dangerous version of the mafia. Under such a formulation, even the bin Laden strike is unlawful (as indeed are all of our kill/capture raids). Yet this law-enforcement model is directly contradicted by the congressional authorization for the use of military force to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Al-Qaeda and all its members are military targets, al-Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda, and the strike that killed him was entirely justified and appropriate.
Add Mr. French to the list of people that KDW troll-punked.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the killing of Al-Awlaki was an assassination, I think that a great many books on the US Civil War will need to be rewritten.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you Mr. French for putting Kevin what's his name in his rightful place. I'm afraid posts like his do nothing to burnish NRO's claim to be a conservative voice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHas Mr. Williamson announced the day on which he will be joining Ron Paul's campaign? Because it doesn't get any more "Paul" than this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgree with every word here. Williamson is generally a sharp writer. How could he really not see that it is possible for an "American Citizen" (which, extra-Constitutionally, means someone whose mother happened to have snuck onto American soil to deliver him) to join a foreign military force fighting against the United States and thus make himself an enemy combatant?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see no evidence that KDW's posting wasn't pure satire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKinda like Deb Perdue's joke/sarcasm, right? Just like her, he's just too deadpan for us to get it, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's written seriously and at length about how the AUMF is not a legit exercise of government power.
I don't buy his analysis, but it's not satire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. French, the question remains: as a U.S. citizen, was al Awlaki entitled to Constitutional due process, or not? Can you name any other time, even in time of war, that a U.S. citizen was targeted for death?
You cannot legitimately compare this to a U.S. citizen who dons the uniform of a foreign nation to fight in a war against the U.S. Al Awlaki was not considered a soldier, but an unlawful enemy combatant. And comparing ObL to al Awlaki is apples and oranges. ObL was NOT a U.S. citizen.
If your premise holds true, then Andy McCarthy spend a lot of wasted time prosecuting the Blind Sheik. We should have just shot him, no trial expenses necessary. Same with Richard Reed, Nidal Hassan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut I thought Mr. McCarthy's point has been that "spending a lot of time prosecuting the Blind Sheik" was perhaps not a waste of time since they ultimately got him, but that it would have been better handled as a military manner. At least, that's my reading of "Willfull Blindness."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUS Citizens are entitled to as much Constitutional due process as we can reasonably give them. But there are times when people make that impossible. We don't fault a cop for killing someone who is trying to kill the cop - even though the cop doesn't hold a trial before pulling the trigger.
Was it possible to give Al Awlaki due process? I would look at two criteria:
1. Did we ask the local authorities - the government of Yemen - to arrest him and extradite?
2. Did we notify Al Awlaki that he was being sought and allow him a chance to surrender?
I think the answer to both those questions is "yes". The Yemeni government simply wasn't capable of arresting him (in the example of a US Citizen working for the SS it would be that the German government refused - same difference). Al Awlaki's name was all in the news and the fact that he was being sought was well publicized. If you wanted to make a case I suppose you could argue about whether he had reason to believe he could surrender, but the US has a pretty good reputation for taking prisoners.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are conflating killing an American citizen, who we do not even know if he was armed, or not, and a cop killing a perp in self defense.
I suggest you read the Constitution, and the Geneva convention that the U.S. signed on to.
And I suggest you read the paper released in 2009 or 2010 by the Department of Homeland Security that labeled militia members, former veterans, people with right-to-life and Ron Paul bumper stickers as those who should be "monitored" by local and state law enforcement agencies.
What is to prevent a POTUS, who has already shown he has no respect for the U.S. Constitution, going after you because he deems some group you belong to as a national "threat?"
You cannot violate and erode one right without violating and eroding ALL rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
And no where in the Constitution does it say that we are entitled to due process only if it is "reasonable."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would be in the providing for the common defense part. You wage war, you pay the price. Why is this even in question? Have we become such a nation of pantywastes that we can't comprehend the nature of who is and is not an enemy, even when they self declare it? There is no reasonableness issue here. There is no slippery slope argument here. al Alwaki joined an organization that has been at war with the United States for over fifteen years. He participated in the planning, logistics and operational activities of said organization. The fact that he was an American citizen changes nothing, Due process is NOT something owed to an enemy combatant. And even if it was, he had his due process when he became aware he was wanted and put on the kill/capture list. Don't tell me he wasn't aware, hell, the whole world knew he was on the list. He had his right to be heard. He exercised it right up to the moment the hellfire missile blew him into tiny, bite-sized chunks certain to invalidate his entry into Jihadi heaven.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseretire05.
Al Queda. NRA. Both equal threats to the government? Both have declared war on the United States? Have you become completely unhinged and unable to differentiate between a siamese kitten and a bengal tiger?
No reasonable person would agree that the Crips or the Bloods have 'declared war on the United States'. Bad actors though they are. Only a deranged person would consider a militia member an 'illegal combatant'. Do we have deranged persons in the government? Yeah, and we should remove them. Why does government misbehavior in Ruby Ridge or Waco invalidate justified military action against operatives of an organization which considers itself a state (the Caliphate, you know) and has declared war on us?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan I name a time when american citizens have been targetted for death in wartime? Most certainly. While perhaps not actually named, any and all american citizen deutchvolke who returned to Germany in the 30's and ultimately ended up in either the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS were certainly targetted for death upon German's December 10, 1941 declaration of war on the United States. And make no mistake about it, had any names been known, especially if they were providing such propaganda and material aid as al Awlaki did (such as Tokyo Rose), would have been targetted if such targetting was practicable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a clear difference between being a member of the SS and being a member of a non nation terrorist organization. this is a matter that any conservative should be as vigilant about as we are about gun control, life issues, etc.
If Awlaki had engaged in anything more than speech, it could certainly have been proved via a trial. as a US citizen, he has that right.
People understand that this is a war like no kind we've ever fought, but they should be wary of the state using a crisis as an opportunity, Rahm Emmanuel style.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we are going to kill unlawful enemy combatants that are U.S. citizens, and who are guaranteed due process by the very Constitution we live by, then I see no reason not to drop a JDAM on the Falls Church, Virginia mosque where so many of these terrorists have stemmed from, Constitution be damned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference is simple: Al Awlaki had placed himself in a situation that made arrest extremely dangerous or perhaps impossible. The mosque in Falls Church on the other hand is in US territory and could be surrounded and besieged at very little risk to law enforcement personnel.
On the other hand if the members of the mosque raised an army like the Confederates did, then arrests would be more difficult and more warlike treatment necessary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy was a more warlike treatement necessary. The South was just excercising it's right to leave a govt that no longer treated it as an equal. The North had no right or reason to raise an army in order to enforce it's will on the South.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, the South exercised what it thought was the right to leave the Union, and the North respectfully disagreed. And since the Constitution was mute on the subject, the issue was dealt with via the political process, as extended by other means... As von Clausewitz would understand it, in any case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse