Apprehended for...what exactly? He was never even charged with a crime. There is no legal framework for arresting a US citizen on no charges.
>and evidence is presented as such
No evidence was ever presented. Which is obvious, since there were no charges and thus no court proceedings.
>there is legal maneuvering to carry out a targeted killing-which is a military matter-, against a combatant.
He was not a combatant because he was not killed on a battlefield or even in a country that we were at war with.
He had been directly tied to conspiring with terrorist groups to carry out attacks. Support, logistics, etc. He even publicly stated his support and affiliation. That is known. One of the arguments is that the US government was acting in self defense.
The logical justifications as outlined in the specifications for targeted killing in the target list is unknown, due to state secrets law. It’s impossible to say if the action was legal or not. As legal scholars have been able to make a legal case for targeted killings, it’s completely possible that it was legal. That’s why it’s relevant. But due to the law, we’ll probably never know. It’s probably a good indication too that the courts declined to pursue the case.
Have you taken the time to read what’s available of the actual memo? Heavily redacted: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/16firstolc...
“The conclusion draws further support from the fact that even, in domestic law enforcement, the operations the Supreme Court has noted that the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm , deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape and if, where feasible, some warning hasbeen given.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985), where a capture operation is infeasible and the targeted person is part of a dangerous enemy force and poses a continued and imminent threat to persons or interests, the use of lethal force would not violate the FourthAmendment.”
The Supreme Courts ruling, as cited, seemed to support this. No formal charges need to be brought against an armed civilian threatening others in the street, they would simply be given a warning, and shot dead.
Al-Awlaki was not some innocent American sitting in a Starbucks drinking a coffee when the US decided it was his time. He was an active participant, facilitator, and leader of a hostile enemy group that sought, and tried to carry out terrorist attacks against the US.
That is exactly what makes it unconstitutional. The AUMF doesn't trump the US Constitution. Using the "global war" terminology literally justifies assassinating some guy in Cleveland or Detroit or Seattle too. It was also written specifically to constrain its use to those who directly conspired against the US on 9/11. Anwar Al-Awlaki had nothing to do with planning or participating in 9/11. And that's not a defense of him as a good person, but that's why we have a judicial system.
>It’s impossible to say if the action was legal or not.
It's quite clearly unconstitutional. Rather than quoting the war criminals responsible for the assassination as proof that it's legal, why not show me which part of the Constitution you think justifies putting US citizens on a hit list and denying them their rights.
You keep on using the tired ass "whelp, we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" defense. It's circular logic, which you are well aware of. So dust off that torn US Constitution from your bookshelf and make a real case, or just be honest and say you don't care if it was constitutional.
This whole conversation began on the question of whether it was legal or not.
> Using the "global war" terminology literally justifies assassinating some guy in Cleveland or Detroit or Seattle too.
I literally just explained to you the difference.
> It was also written specifically to constrain its use to those who directly conspired against the US on 9/11. Anwar Al-Awlaki had nothing to do with planning or participating in 9/11.
No, that’s not true.
“ SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is Al-Awlaki falls under the umbrella as outlined in the actual document.
> It's quite clearly unconstitutional. Rather than quoting the war criminals responsible for the assassination as proof that it's legal, why not show me which part of the Constitution you think justifies putting US citizens on a hit list and denying them their rights.
I quite clearly outlined to you a situation in which constitutional rights would not be afforded in my comment above. A position supported by the supreme court.
But just to be clear:
First,
In Hamdi, A plurality of the Supreme Court use the Matthews V Eldridge bouncing test to analyze the fifth amendment due process rights of a US citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and detained in the United States who wish to challenge the governments assertion that he was a part of enemy forces, explaining that “the process do in any given instance is determined by Wayne the private interest that will be affected by the official action against the government certain interest including the function involved and the bird is the government with face and providing greater process.” [542 US at 529] [Mathews V. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 (1976).
Although the circumstances of war as the Hamdi plurality observed, the risk of erroneous deprivation of a citizens liberty the absence of sufficient process is… very real, 542 US at 530, the polarity also recognizes that the realities of combat render certain uses of force necessary in appropriate… including against US citizens who have become part of enemy forces in the due process analysis need not blink at those realities id. at 531.
realities of combat and the weight of the government's interest in using an authorized means of lethal force against this enemy are such that the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process to the U.S. person before using such force. Cf. Hamdi 542 U.S. at 535
Second,
The Supreme Court has made clear that the constitutionality of a seizure is determined by bouncing the nature in quality of the intrusion on the individuals fourth amendment interest against the importance of the governmental interest alleged to justify the intrusion [Tennessee V Gardner, 471 US 1, 8 (1985] accord Scott v. Harris, 550 US 372, 383 (2007).
Where high-level government officials have determined that a capture operation overseas in feasible at the target person is a dangerous enemy forces and engage in activities that post continued and eminent threat to US persons or interest the use of weeks of lethal force we’re not violate the fourth amendment and those that intrusion of any fourth amendment interest would be outweighed by the importance of the governmental interest that justified intrusion, [Garner, 471, US at 8].
Lastly-
“In applying this variant of the public authority justification to the contemplated operation, we note as an initial matter that DoD would undertake the operation pursuant to Executive war powers that Congress has expressly authorized. SeeYoungstown & Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.579,635 (1952) (Jackson, I., concurring) ( When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum , for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."). By authorizing the use of force against organizations” that planned, authorized, and committed the September 11th attacks, Congress clearly authorized the President's use of necessary and appropriate force against al- Qaida forces, because al-Qaida carried out the September attacks. See Authorization for Use ofMilitary Force ( . L.No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, 2 a) (2001) (providing that the President may use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States 27 And, as we have explained, supra at 9, a by such nations, organizations, or persons ) .decision-makercould reasonably conclude thatthis leaderofAQAP forces ispart ofal-Qaida forces. Alternatively, and as we have further explained supraat 10n.5,the AUMF applies with respect to forces associated with al Qaida that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners, and a decision-maker could reasonably conclude that the AQAP forces of a which al-Aulaqi is a leader are " with al Qaida forces for purposes of the AUMF. On associated either view, DoD would carry out its contemplated operation against a leader of an organization that is within the scope of the AUMF, and therefore would in that respect be operating inaccord with a grant of statutory authority.”
Due Process. Learn it.
>I literally just explained to you the difference.
No, you didn't. There is nothing in the AUMF that says a target can't be killed in the US, hence the "global" designation.
>This whole conversation began on the question of whether it was legal or not.
By definition, if a law does not pass constitutional muster, then it is not legitimate. The AUMF as implemented here was nothing more than an attempt to withhold Due Process from a US citizen. It's clear you think a text wall written by the guilty party will prevent me from pointing out that you are unable to show how assassinating a US citizen without Due Process is constitutional.
Show me how Al-Awlaki got his Constitutionally guaranteed right to Due Process. I'll wait.
I gave you two court settled situations in which the fourth and fifth amendment don’t apply in the context of imminent threat. The first, for example, law enforcements confrontation with a dangerous individual. Second, the impossible weight put on the govt to observe due process in the face of imminent threats. Please refer to the court cases above. They are cited for a reason. Those are not my words. They are not the words of the executive branch. Those cases/opinions are the words of the judiciary. Refer to them. If Al-awlaki hadn’t been a combatant in a foreign force targeting the US, this may not have applied. But he was.
If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable. Being in Yemen, and the fact that both the DOD and CIA said it was not possible to launch an operation (given they had attempted, which they said they had) for capture due to extraordinary circumstances, it was not in the govts court to provide due process in the face of imminent threat. In the case of Al-awlaki the self-defense justification holds merit when the United States' response to an armed attack is necessary and proportionate. The United States can invoke self-defense prior to an actual attack.
U.S. citizens who serve as soldiers for the enemy can be shot without trial during military operations but must be afforded a trial as traitors if they can be captured (Which the military apparatus deemed not possible).
For example, before the United States killed him, Al-Aulaqi should have been given notice that he was wanted for treason, or another crime, and that if he refused to return and stand trial, then he would be considered a military target. Functionally, A1-Aulaqi had notice that he was on a kill list. The media had been abuzz about killing him, and his father even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on his behalf.138 Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.
You can’t ‘assassinate’ an individual once they enter the throngs of a foreign force. They are considered a legitimate military target. targeted killing" denotes a state's intentional and premeditated use of lethal force through agents acting under color of law against a specific, reasonably unobtainable individual. Targeted killing and assassination are similar but distinct operations that commentators often conflate. assassinations are killings that are politically motivated and use subterfuge, while targeted killings are military strikes. This distinction is important because President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12,333 bans assassination.
Please, just read the documents. Thanks.
There was no imminent threat. He was not on a battlefield. He was not in the active process of causing harm. Nobody would care if we were killed on an battlefield having taken up arms against US soldiers. But that isn't what happened. And the people who killed him can't just change the definition of the battlefield to "the world" and call it justifiable. I mean, they can and they did because neocons are gonna neocon. But it's very clearly and obviously unconstitutional.
>If he had been in the US the govt couldn't have said that they were unable to attempt to apprehend him—-it wouldn't have been believable.
That's not true, and in fact the correct interpretation of the "active threat" requirement can be found in numerous police shootings or barricaded gunman situations. An oft cited example is the BLM activist who murdered 5 cops in Dallas from a barricaded nest in a parking garage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police.... Authorities sent in a robot with explosives to kill him, and it can be justified with very few people arguing against. An anti-US dissident saying provocative things in a blog or on youtube videos, is not the same.
>Nonetheless, he did not return to the United States for trial.
On what charge? He was never charged with a crime. That was the entire point of the lawsuit, so why are you being dishonest?
Irrelevant example. Imminent. Not active.
He held the rank of ‘regional commander’ within Al-Qaeda. The government’s actions are consistent with the DPC because al-Awlaki was located, purposefully, in a place where neither the host-state government nor the United States had a plausible opportunity to capture him, and because of his asserted operational role and the resultant premise that he posed an imminent threat to life.
And the court case ruled what? Nothing. It was dismissed.
>Charged with what?
He had notice that the US was after him and, if he wanted, he could have submitted to the court system. The Supreme Court has consistently held, most notably in Matthews v. Eldridge, that the amount of process due is context dependent.
>Hamid only applies to those in custody. It is dictating what due process is required to those people who are already in custody.
No portion of the constitution requires that you capture enemies in a war, and neither does any norm of international law.
Al-Awlaki was not captured. It was not possible to capture Al-Awlaki. It is not required that Al-Awlaki be captured.
Your fancy document could be introduced as an attempt at a defense in the trial of the perps, and they could try to persuade a jury it justifies the murder, provided the judge allowed it. That is all the legal value it legitimately has.
The laws of war apply under the AUMF.
>It was not possible to capture Al-Awlaki.
We know this is a lie. The fact that his family offered to have him turn himself in as soon as he was charged with a crime, proves that there was zero attempt to capture him. The Al-Awlaki family was begging the US Government for over a year to charge him with something so that he would get his constitutionally guaranteed rights.
And that is exactly why the US Government refused to charge him, because doing so would have afforded him his rights in court, which the US Government specifically wanted to avoid. That shows clear intent to deprive a US citizen of his guaranteed rights.
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki under the 2001 AUMF was constitutional.
Under the 2001 AUMF it would have only been legal if he had planned or participated in 9/11, which he didn't. Read the text of the law.
There was never a justification to not charge him with a crime, especially knowing that he would have turned himself in if they had. But we both know why they didn't, don't we..?
The long list of historical supreme court decisions provide evidence enough that due process under the war powers is not relevant.
Charles Evan Hughe (former chief justice) said, that the power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully in the defense of the republic.
Here are all the cases I’ve cited during this discussion.
Prize Cases -> Milligan Case -> Ex parte Quirin -> Mathews -> Hamdi -> Al-Awlaki
The bill of rights does not apply to the legitimate exercises of military power by the government. Therefore the due process clause and the bill of rights wasn’t even relevant in this target killing. That doesn’t mean there weren’t restrictions.
There’s nothing new about targeted killings (non indiscriminate killing). They were conducted in the George Washington era-the battle of Saratoga during the revolutionary war. They were conducted in World War II (Yamamoto). Targeted killing has been an aspect of every single American war to date.
Under the a AUMF there is no prohibition grounded under the bill of rights. This can be grounded in the Civil War cases where American citizens were directly targeted.
No one is reading the due process clause literally. As it doesn’t distinguish citizens and noncitizens.
The weight of judicial authority rest with a proposition, the due process clause of the fifth amendment and the Bill of Rights generally, simply doesn’t apply to exercise a military force under the War Power. A long line of Supreme Court cases that have their roots in the Marshall Court era, lots of cases that came out of the Civil War, the WWII case Ex parte Quirin is another example (the 1942 decision by the supreme court that upheld the legality of president Roosevelt’s Military commissions of 8 Nazi saboteurs and at least one American.)
When the government is acting not as a government governing people, but rather as the defender of the republic, although there are legal limitations on what it may do, those limitations do not include Bill of Rights protections. The Civil War being the most app example of this. The United States government deprived thousands of citizens of their lives without giving any of them due process. It deprived thousands of other US citizens of their liberty, without giving due process. The seizure of private property as well, without due process.
The US government position was that these US citizens forced war upon the United States. Before they were the lawful objects of the war powers, being used not to govern but rather to defend the republic.
Hamdi is not in contradiction to this because the Hamdi case was under the power of governance and not under the power of war.
It’s in this very specific position where an American citizen is the lawful target of military force under the exercising of war powers, under the long line of Supreme Court decisions that have been cited, Government doesn’t have the ability to choose to use the war powers as opposed to using the ordinary powers of governance.
This argument, an even more strongly supported one on the back of supreme court ruling, invalidates your entire position.
Not a single one references specifically targeting a US citizen who isn't actively engaged on a battlefield and who wishes to turn themselves in to face charges, charges which the government refused to bring.
So no, none of your citations are relevant. All the government had to do was charge him with a crime. The refused to specifically because they needed to deprive him of his Constitutional rights in order to keep their secrets secret. .
And you have refused to answer the question posed numerous times - why wouldn't the US Government just charge him with a crime? We're expected to go with "just trust us bro"?
“ to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
You see the word future there, don’t you? It’s right there. Read it. “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Al-Awlaki was an AQ cheif propagandist and recruiter. It’s entirely applicable. But I guess calling for the death of Americans as part of AQ is totally irrelevant, right? https://imgur.com/a/g97JUa7
And since terrorist qualify as combatants…voila!
And just to reiterate, so it sticks with you this time!
Such killings have occurred in contexts as varied as the Civil War and the Cold War, based on powers vested in Article II of the Constitution (which makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces) and upheld by the 1866 Supreme Court decision Ex Parte Milligan (which confirms that “command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns” rests with the president).
You have absolutely no understanding of application of case. You don’t seem to be able differentiate between powers of governance and war powers.
In this context, your same tired statement is completely irrelevant, as the situation doesn’t ever arrive at, or need to ask such questions.
Ah yes, the wording used to permanently deprive Constitutional rights because "I said so". That seems legit to you?
>And since terrorist qualify as combatants…voila!
This then applies to Antifa, Proud Boys, BLM, Communists & Qtards too, just as the founders intended. How convenient.
>You have absolutely no understanding of application of case. You don’t seem to be able differentiate between powers of governance and war powers.
YEs you have said clearly that the Constitution is literally irrelevant if the government wants you dead. And you think that sounds correct.
>Such killings have occurred in contexts as varied as the Civil War and the Cold War, based on powers vested in Article II of the Constitution
Name another US citizen put on a "Kill List", and denied Due Process while begging to be charged for 18 months with a crime. You can't, because it's never happened before.
Now about that question you absolutely refuse to answer, let's try it again shall we? Give me a legitimate reason why the government wouldn't charge him with a crime. They talked to the family countless times over that 18 months and received repeated assurance he would turn himself in as soon as he was charged, since it would guarantee his safety. So why didn't the government charge him?
Have a nice day.
The Constitution doesn't refer to battlefields at all. It does give Congress the power to declare war, which it exercised via the AUMF. There are numerous cases establishing that, in war, US citizens who are combatants of the enemy are not entitled to special treatment.
Congress did, in fact, declare war. It is well established in law that the Cobstitutional power to declare war doesn't require using any particular words, and that it may be conditional on either external events or executive determinations. The AUMF is, Constitutionally, a conditional declaration of war.
It's not, but that actually isn't relevant and doesn't matter in the Al-Awlaki case anyway.
The text of the AUMF specifically references those who participated in or planned 9/11, which means it's not relevant to Al-Awlaki. Also, Al-Awlaki's family offered to have him turn himself in the second he was charged with a crime but the US Government refused to charge him since that would immediately guarantee him Due Process which they specifically sought to avoid.
Also, as has already been said in other posts, the Al-Awlaki family begged the US Government for over a year to charge him with a crime, ANY CRIME, so that he could turn himself in and have his day in court. The US Government refused to ever charge him with a crime specifically so they could deny him his rights.
You guys need to stop pretending this was some American killed on a battlefield while shooting at US soldiers. All it does is make you look dishonest, so what is the point?
Now, are you ever going to answer why the US Government never bothered to charge him with a crime?