Solved

Anwar Al-Awlaki

Posted on 2014-02-26
24
21 Views
Last Modified: 2014-04-21
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?
0
Comment
Question by:bergertime
  • 9
  • 7
  • 5
  • +2
24 Comments
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
I agree, so you are cool guys are cool with the POTUS ordering an American citizen to be excuted at his discretion?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
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?
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
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...
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"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.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
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."
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
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.
0
How your wiki can always stay up-to-date

Quip doubles as a “living” wiki and a project management tool that evolves with your organization. As you finish projects in Quip, the work remains, easily accessible to all team members, new and old.
- Increase transparency
- Onboard new hires faster
- Access from mobile/offline

 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>*****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!
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"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.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"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.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
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.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"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.
0
 
LVL 84

Expert Comment

by:ozo
Comment Utility
I believe Lincoln is often cited as a precedent, though I'm not sure if he was the first.
0
 
LVL 17

Accepted Solution

by:
Anthony Russo earned 50 total points
Comment Utility
You asked whether he was the first. You aren't asking anything about if Obama took him out and it being unconstitutional. IT doesn't matter if he was the first, which I'd be surprised if he was. What matters is Obama and his aides had enough reason to believe he was a threat and had to be taken out.

If another plane fell out of the sky or a skyscraper fell, would it have been better to worry about what the constitution said then? We have no idea why he was taken out, but it wasn't just because he Obama felt like it. That's a ridiculous thing to assume.

>>As an american citizen and voter, I need to know what my elected officials are doing.

And do you think that you know? Do you think you know anything more than what they let us know. Obama could come out with "This guy was a danger and had to be taken out due to classified info that we had" and that is enough. You don't need to know any more than that because it isn't your job. It's his job which is what he was elected for.

>>...if our elected officials have decided it's ok to kill american citizens that are NOT currently imminent threats...

Exactly. Obama said he was a threat. Imminent threat 200 years ago meant someone with a gun or bomb. Today it can be a million things someone can be doing from their kitchen table. Sorry but you don't get to see the evidence or the proof. Nobody does except those tasked with protecting this country. Not the general public.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:tliotta
Comment Utility
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
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:tliotta
Comment Utility
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
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
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.'
0

Featured Post

How to improve team productivity

Quip adds documents, spreadsheets, and tasklists to your Slack experience
- Elevate ideas to Quip docs
- Share Quip docs in Slack
- Get notified of changes to your docs
- Available on iOS/Android/Desktop/Web
- Online/Offline

Join & Write a Comment

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
It is a freely distributed piece of software for such tasks as photo retouching, image composition and image authoring. It works on many operating systems, in many languages.
This video discusses moving either the default database or any database to a new volume.

744 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

17 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now