Al-Awlaki. Can anyone state exactly how it was an illegal kill?

[Xelaetaks]

Just looking to show on a forum how by rule of law Obama's assanation of Al-Awlaki was illegal.

Also in case anyone hasn't seen this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJwT-Va_DNA&feature


Thanks

[teacherone]

well since the constitution is the law of the land and recognizes each american's right to a speedy trial and due process assassinating one seems to violate the document no?

[bluesc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho99a0rIL2M

[1836]

The fifth amendment states that no citizen shall be deprived of life without due process of law. The Supreme Court has stated that even those who fight for a foreign enemy do not automatically lose their rights as American citizens. Traditionally, criminals and even those who have committed treason have always been brought before a court and charged with a crime. Al-Awlaki was an American citizen, and he was never charged with a crime. He was therefore deprived of his due process rights under the United States Constitution.

Therefore, the killing was illegal under the Constitution.

Furthermore, another American citizen, Samir Khan, was killed in addition to Al-Awlaki. Like Al-Awlaki, his due process rights were deprived him because he was never charged with a crime. In fact, his parents sought to have the DC Circuit Court force the executive branch to remove their son's name from the "kill list" that the executive branch illegally put together and illegally sought to act on.

Therefore, Khan's rights were also deprived him.

In short, this isn't about whether these were good guys -- they weren't. It is about if we, as a constitutional republic, apply the law justly to all our citizens regardless of their hatred for, and agitation against, the government. If our federal government, no less the president, can unilaterally declare our own citizens enemy combatants and kill them without respecting the rule of law, can we even pretend that we are any longer bound by our own Constitution? Or that it protects every citizen?

If we seek to have other peoples of the world have values of democracy and liberty such as we have, which is a stated policy of the federal government, then why should we not lead by example and treat even the most odious with the same respect for individual rights and the rule of law?

There you go. You just won the argument.

[Agorism]

Well the gov shouldn't be able to tax U.S. citizens let alone kill them.

[mrsat_98]

He was a terrorist, the war on terror is a fraud. Need I say more ?

[Agorism]

I've noticed how every group in every country is "Al Qaeda" because that sells on the CNN, Fox.

Al Qaeda in Iraq

Al Qaeda in Yemen

Al Qaeda in Somali, whatever.

I am willing to be most of these groups they are calling the "Al Qaeda" have little and probably nothing to do with the original group that was in Afghanistan.

[idiom]

Al Qaeda has a serious problem getting boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia...

[sailingaway]

No due process, no charges even, no tribunal, no grand jury indictment -- when they intercepted his EMAIL they had to get (and easily got) a FISA court ruling, but got no judicial review at all of evidence when they decided to kill him. And the concept that authorization to use force in Iraq authorizes a drone take out of a guy who makes videos in Yemen as part of the 'war' would be laughable if it weren't being said in seriousness by our government.

[No Free Beer]

The fifth amendment states that no citizen shall be deprived of life without due process of law. The Supreme Court has stated that even those who fight for a foreign enemy do not automatically lose their rights as American citizens. Traditionally, criminals and even those who have committed treason have always been brought before a court and charged with a crime. Al-Awlaki was an American citizen, and he was never charged with a crime. He was therefore deprived of his due process rights under the United States Constitution.

Therefore, the killing was illegal under the Constitution.

Furthermore, another American citizen, Samir Khan, was killed in addition to Al-Awlaki. Like Al-Awlaki, his due process rights were deprived him because he was never charged with a crime. In fact, his parents sought to have the DC Circuit Court force the executive branch to remove their son's name from the "kill list" that the executive branch illegally put together and illegally sought to act on.

Therefore, Khan's rights were also deprived him.

In short, this isn't about whether these were good guys -- they weren't. It is about if we, as a constitutional republic, apply the law justly to all our citizens regardless of their hatred for, and agitation against, the government. If our federal government, no less the president, can unilaterally declare our own citizens enemy combatants and kill them without respecting the rule of law, can we even pretend that we are any longer bound by our own Constitution? Or that it protects every citizen?

If we seek to have other peoples of the world have values of democracy and liberty such as we have, which is a stated policy of the federal government, then why should we not lead by example and treat even the most odious with the same respect for individual rights and the rule of law?

There you go. You just won the argument.

I couldn't have written it any better. I would like to add to what he stated though...

I got into a discussion with one of my friends from back home, who is a NeoCon, and he said, "when someone plans attacks against us, he automatically relinquishes his citizenship because of treason." While we all probably agree with his emotional statement, he is wrong. Awlaki must be PROVEN to have committed treason. That is just the point. He has to be PROVEN, regardless if we are in a war or not. One more thing, and this is just my opinion, but if President Obama would have AT LEAST attempted to capture him, I would have been okay with what eventually happened. The fact that he just sent in an unmanned aircraft makes me nervous. What makes our country great is that we are a nation of laws and not of men. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

One last thing,

Some people like to say, "we are at war, there are always going to be gray areas." IMO, whenever you are not sure on something, the best and safest thing you can do is stick to the rule of law.

[TheTexan]

Why was it an ILLEGAL kill?

The question should be, why was it a LEGAL kill. Every reason why it was a legal kill relies on two things:

a) We're at war
b) He's an enemy combatant

For a) we're not officially/constitutionally at war in the first place.
and b) I've seen no evidence he participated in combat