>>A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.
Super handy that the US Government can kill people now without a trial or due process of any kind.
Super handy that the US Government can kill people now without a trial or due process of any kind.
First, no, it doesn't. It gives Congress the power to declare war. It neither explicitly requires nor has ever been understood to implicitly require a war be declared to be prosecuted in all circumstance, particularly not in the event of a war initiated by an enemy attack.
Second, as with every other Congressional power, exercising the power to declare war doesn't require any kind of magic words. All of the controversial drone attacks on al-Qaeda targets have been as part of action specifically authorized by Congress in Public Law 107-40 [1].
Whatever problems there are with the War on Terrorism, the absence of Congressional declaration of war certainly isn't one of them.
[1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
Even in wartime (if this is indeed war), rules apply, so if you want to apply the rules of war assassinations of enemies who are unarmed and not on any battlefield are not permitted. Awlaki, and later his teenage son, and the innocents killed with them, were not killed on any battlefield or as part of any war, unless you redefine war to mean any killing outside the judicial process, as Bush and then Obama have done.
But I think it's more useful to consider the methods used rather than arguing about semantics - the US president now claims the right to kill citizens, and anyone else, without trial or justification. That is a huge shift in policy and also has implications at home. If they can kill at will abroad, why not at home?
Second, "due process" does not mean "trial." The word "due" is used synonymously with the word "warranted" or "appropriate." What is the appropriate amount of procedural protection for someone who evaded attempts to capture him for a decade by hiding in the deserts of Yemen and inciting acts of war against the U.S. during that time? It's debatable, but it's not clear that Al Awlaki didn't get all of the process he was due.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
It's a good paper (you should read it), but the answer to the title question is a pretty clear "yes".
I wish there was another, less controversial candidate to debate USA's killing of its citizens.
I don't condone the US's actions, but I sure as hell understand the reasoning for doing it.
ALSO, don't forget that he renounced his citizenship and Yemen tried him in-absentia.
The principle remains the same regardless of who Awlaki was, or what the administration has told you he was - the state should not be allowed to assassinate unarmed citizens or anyone else without trial, due process, etc. if he was guilty they should have tried him in absentia.
What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?
I've seen no evidence that he was travelling with a targeted individual, or even that the targeting was justified, the statement was I believe 'he was not specifically targeted'. That's because there was no trial, and no evidence presented. Have you seen any evidence, or merely the assurances of gov. officials? Does proximity to a criminal while eating now warrant instant death?
As to the Yemen trial, that applies to Awlaki, not his son, and you have a remarkable faith in the Yemeni justice system. If the US is to assassinate people, I do think they owe them at least a trial in their own courts.
Personally I think this policy is wrongheaded and damaging to US interests in the long term, given all the innocents inevitably killed by drone or missiles in civilian areas. However it's also a sign of declining respect for the law in the US. According to Obama, and yourself if you accept these assassinations, his will is law.
A trial in absentia would be wildly more unconstitutional and also a much more dangerous precedent. The right of sovereign nations to kill foreigners on foreign soil is well-established, and a bright-line distinction: either someone is a foreigner and on foreign soil, in which case due process rights do not apply, or they are not either of these things, in which case due process rights do apply. Awalki's case is complicated by the fact that he was technically a U.S. citizen, but you can justify the assassination on the basis that his decade of evading attempts to apprehend him in Yemen amount to an implied renunciation of his citizenship.
Trials in abstentia are much more dangerous precedent. There, you're basically acknowledging that Awlaki was not only entitled to due process rights, but that the "process due" was a full trial. The Constitutional rights applicable to criminal trials are deeply established, and they do not allow trials in abstentia. If you proceed with one anyway, you're creating this whole new class of exception to Constitutional rights in cases of terrorism.
> What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?
Only in times of war and with carefully described conditions (Geneva conventions). Declaring an eternal war on civilians everywhere will not end well, and claiming the right to assassinate worldwide will rapidly erode US power and allies worldwide.
I disagree that a trial in absentia is worse or more dangerous than killing on suspicion, without trial or appeal.
I don't really know what the right answer is here, if, as claimed, it was indeed impossible to capture al-Awlaki safely. But here you are asserting that he was a foreign national. It seems to me that at the very least, that claim deserved judicial review.
BUT on the same token, would you have been ok with an in-absentia trial, even if just a sham/show-trial?