Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of bergertime
bergertime

asked on

Anwar Al-Awlaki

Not that I miss him, but Obama ordered for him to be a killed by a drone attack.  Is he the first american citizen to be put to death by and american president with out due process?
Avatar of Anthony Russo
Anthony Russo
Flag of United States of America image

No idea. Then again none of us know, or should know, exactly the dealings of what is going on with the terrorist hunts. That's not our jobs and the reason we vote to elect people to handle that for us.
Avatar of Dave Baldwin
Probably not since we've had 'free' Americans fighting for the other side in just about every 'foreign' war I can think of.  I figure that if you fight for the 'other side', you have effectively revoked your citizenship.  You have at the very least shown that it didn't mean very much to you.
Avatar of bergertime
bergertime

ASKER

I agree, so you are cool guys are cool with the POTUS ordering an American citizen to be excuted at his discretion?
I'm cool with a POTUS taking care of the country since he has info we don't. Do you really think this was the first time?
Dear bergertime... did you not read what I wrote?  If an American citizen attacked him in person, should the POTUS be allowed to defend himself?  I think the answer is obviously yes... and he should probably fire the Secret Service detail that let someone get that close.

I frankly think it is a bogus question because of all of the important details that are Intentionally left out of the question.  Should we hang you for killing a child?  Never mind that the child was 17 years old and trying to kill your children.  Details be hanged, right?  He was still a 'poor' child...
Anwar Al-Awlaki was asleep in his house at the time.  So due process for an American citizen means nothing?  

"Dear bergertime... did you not read what I wrote?  If an American citizen attacked him in person, should the POTUS be allowed to defend himself?  I think the answer is obviously yes... and he should probably fire the Secret Service detail that let someone get that close."

How does the relate to booming a house with an American citizen, women and children in another country?  Pleas point out the relationship, as I can't see any.  

"I frankly think it is a bogus question because of all of the important details that are Intentionally left out of the question."

Do tell...what details?  That's why I asked the question.
I guess you skipped your reading lessons and proceeded straight to whine.  If a Marine patrol encountered Anwar Al-Awlaki pointing a gun at them, they would not ask if he was a US citizen.  The fact that POTUS is involved is only because the selection of drone targets has been reserved for him.  Which is possibly unfortunate.  Maybe the military should just select military drone targets (which would include Anwar Al-Awlaki) and blow them up without telling us.

You asked the question so you could whine about your beloved POTUS.
"If a Marine patrol encountered Anwar Al-Awlaki pointing a gun at them, they would not ask if he was a US citizen. "

Dave I'm confused again.  Oh, wait I see....IF Anwar Al-Awlaki were on Mars and the rover ran over his toe, would he be eligible for compensation?  Cool, I now understand you guys are ok with a president that can kill at will american citizen without due process.
See?  You keep trying to force your answer into our mouths and it just isn't working.  I repeat...
You asked the question so you could whine about your beloved POTUS.
Here's Obama's take:

"I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.
"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

From whitehouse.gov

So he himself is saying he is breaking the constitution?  First part says he can't but then he says he'll do it anyway.  ?????  Wow.
Dave,

"See?  You keep trying to force your answer into our mouths and it just isn't working.  I repeat...
You asked the question so you could whine about your beloved POTUS."

And you answered to try and defend the indefensible.  "Yeah, I know it goes against the constitution and everything we stand for, but to hell with it, I'm gonna do it anyway."
I'm surprised you are acting like this is the first time this has happened. You also seem to forget that we have no idea what this guy was into and the Prez has that info, just like all the other Presidents did when they took out bad guys without due process.

It would be nice if everything just went according to the rules, but we elect officials to act in our best interests based on the information they have...not the information we have. He might have saved 100 lives or a million or none taking out that guy, or a corporation's profits. Who knows?

The attitude that Obama is sitting there pulling names of citizens out of a hat to see who he can arbitrarily kill next is ridiculous.
AR, it is the first time it has happened that I can come up with, at least in the last 50 years.  Show me when another president dropped a bomb on an american citizen who was getting into his car after eating breakfast.  (that's what he was doing at the time he was killed).  Of course you can kill people on the battlefield or while being attacked.  

Obama is the president, his duty is to uphold the constitution, yet in the above he acknowledges it breaks the constitution, yet he will do it anyway.  Quite the leader we have here.
>>*****that I can come up with*******

Key phrase here. Are you all knowing? Did you know exactly what the guy was up to and into and his connections. Do you know that he wasn't about to blow up a building? Do you know that it was just an inside job because he cut off Michelle on the way to the mall?

You know nothing about what happened except what the media tells you or the government tells you. You also don't NEED to know any more about what happened. It's not your job to protect the country from terrorists. It is Obama's job. If you want it to be your job, run for President or join the military. As president you will know everything you need to know. As military you will still know nothing but will be defending this country directly.

He broke the constitution and I'm sure he is the first and only one to ever do it. Taft I'm sure never had anyone killed because he had to, or maybe wanted to. There was no CNN or Internet then though so who really knows. It would be nice if the rules of the constitution were perfect and we could be safe following them to the letter. 9/11 happened. We don't work that way anymore. We elect officials to make the best decisions for us. Don't like his decisions, than rally more people to vote your guy into office. When he breaks the constitution (and he will since you cant hide anything anymore like 50 years ago, but bad stuff still happens) then we can all yell at him because WE KNEW BETTER!
"Key phrase here. Are you all knowing?"

Hello McFly!!  I submitted this thread under 'Ask'.  Did I miss something? No, I don't, hence the reason I 'asked'.

"You also don't NEED to know any more about what happened"

AR, I totally disagree with you on that.  As an american citizen and voter, I need to know what my elected officials are doing.  I may not have the right to all the details of every action,   but I not only have the need, but I have the right to know if our elected officials have decided it's ok to kill american citizens that are not currently imminent threats without due process, even if it is totally unconstitutional.
If Anwar Al-Awlaki was in Florida or New York or California, the police and/or the FBI would take him out.  No single fact like citizenship or a driver's license or a VISA card is more important than the actions of the person involved.  Which is what the Prez said in your quote above.  Or maybe you don't actually read what you post?

Him sitting at breakfast also has nothing to do with anything.  The underwear bomber he sent on the airplane to Detroit was trying to kill people just sitting there on the airplane.  When you take up arms against us, it really doesn't matter what you're doing when we find you.  

It also has Nothing to do with the Constitution.  It has everything to do with Anwar Al-Awlaki becoming an enemy of the rest of the citizens of the US.
"If Anwar Al-Awlaki was in Florida or New York or California, the police and/or the FBI would take him out. "

No they wouldn't, they would arrest him and let due process follow.  If he resisted, deadly force could be used.

"Which is what the Prez said in your quote above. "
Maybe I got stuck on the part where he clearly states it is unconstitutional.  

"Him sitting at breakfast also has nothing to do with anything."

Yes it does, he was not an imminent threat to any american citizen.

"When you take up arms against us, it really doesn't matter what you're doing when we find you. " 
Kill first ask questions later....nice.

"It also has Nothing to do with the Constitution."
I'll let your words speak for themselves.
Thank you, I think they should.  I certainly like my words a lot better than I do yours.

He was probably planning his next shoe-bomb attack on American citizens so he was acting as an imminent threat.

The FBI and the police would volunteer to arrest and when he refused, they would take him out like they have so many others like him.  Anwar Al-Awlaki knew he was wanted by the country of his citizenship and he could have surrendered and been arrested.  He had no interest in doing that.  So we took him out.

I honestly don't see where the Constitution is important here.  If the Prez ordered a murder without any other considerations, that would be against the law just about everywhere.  But that was never the case.  Anwar Al-Awlaki was a criminal and a terrorist and the Constitution was not going to save him from anything.
"He was probably planning his next shoe-bomb attack on American citizens so he was acting as an imminent threat."

Or he was planning on how to turn himself in and give the authorities all the info he had to help bring about peace as he had seen enough suffering to last ten lifetimes....guess we'll never know since we decided to do something unconstitutional and drop a bomb on him while he was eating breakfast.

"The FBI and the police would volunteer to arrest and when he refused, they would take him out like they have so many others like him."
I would say that falls right in line with the law.

"I honestly don't see where the Constitution is important here. "

Good question, I guess we would have to ask Obama, since he is the one that linked the two by saying what he did was unconstitutional.  

"Anwar Al-Awlaki was a criminal and a terrorist and the Constitution was not going to save him from anything."

Bill Ayers is lucky Obama wasn't president back in the 70's.
I believe Lincoln is often cited as a precedent, though I'm not sure if he was the first.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Anthony Russo
Anthony Russo
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Anwar Al-Awlaki was asleep in his house at the time.
...and...
...an american citizen who was getting into his car after eating breakfast.  (that's what he was doing at the time he was killed).

Interesting guy.

Tom
The question of the Constitutionality of the Anwar Al-Awlaki drone strike has some conflicting elements. At its simplest level, it's obvious that the action was Constitutional. It was carried out under War Powers laws that were passed by Congress. Since those laws have not been struck down as being un-Constitutional, the specific action was clearly "legal" and in fact Constitutional.

Now, whether or not those laws should be allowed to continue as being Constitutional is a bigger question. Interestingly, much of the recent opposition to some of those War Powers laws, as with the original opposition, has come from Democratic Congress members. (The rise in recent Republican opposition is possibly due to not having a Republican President exercising those powers.)

The original question included "american citizen" and "due process". It should be noted the the "due process" restriction does not only apply to "american citizens". There is no special exemption for "american citizens". If it applies to "american citizens", it applies equally to any other "person". So, if we're to say that it's un-Constitutional specifically because an "american citizen" was the target, we have to extend it to everyone.

The Constitution makes very few distinctions over "Citizens" and non-citizens. You can't be a Representative, Senator nor President if you're not a "Citizen" (natural-born for President). The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over various cases involving "Citizens". And States can't infringe on rights of "Citizens". (Oddly perhaps, it doesn't hold States to the same restrictions over non-citizens.) But "due process" and other enumerated rights hold for everyone equally.

A subsequent question might be about how to handle someone like Anwar Al-Awlaki if it is eventually decided that the current process is un-Constitutional.

Tom
Anwar Al-Awlaki was acting as a criminal and a terrorist.  I don't see what the Constitution has to do with it.  I would hope that any elected official would tell the authorities to go get someone who "was acting as a criminal and a terrorist."  Being a citizen (or non-citizen) does not shield you from prosecution when you 'act as a criminal and a terrorist.'