Assassination of US Citizens

[myrmaad]

They are still legally citizens. If you think they are not citizens in your eyes, then your mistaken.

 

If this is the crux of your argument, you can rest easy.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

[marharth]

Interesting link, but I want to ask and say a few things about it.

 

1. Does Al Qedua count as a foreign state?

 

2. Have these people renounced US citizenship in front of a diplomat?

 

3.. In order to lose citizenship based on treason, you still have to be charged with treason. You do not legally commit treason until the court charges you with it in the face of evidence.

[draconix]

I agree with Marharth. Maybe what people don't seem to "get" that "citizen" is a legally defined word, and that their interpretation of it doesn't mean anything. Citizenship is not something that can arbitrarily be declared or taken away when someone doesn't like you, unlike "American" or "Patriotic" is for example. Whether someone is or is not a citizen is not up for debate. If "citizenship" could be taken away just like that, we'd have one heck of a loophole for our government to abuse us with.

 

For example, "I think you murdered someone, therefore I think you aren't a citizen anymore, and therefore you get no trial." Or "I don't like the things you say, therefore you are not a citizen, and therefore you get no trial." How about the classic, "I think you are a terrorist, go directly to Guantanamo bay, do not stand trail, do not collect $200.00."

 

 

_{"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."}

Martin Niemöller Edited October 14, 2011 by draconix

[HeyYou]

Ok, so, let's turn this around? What SHOULD the US government have done? Send in a seal team to grab him? Ignore him, pretend he doesn't exist? Try and have him extradited, so he could stand trial? Throw up their hands in disgust, and say something to the affect of "We can't get him, so he stays free, to continue his efforts against us."??

 

In this particular instance, the government didn't specifically target HIM. He was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and was, in effect "collateral damage".

 

That said...... A terrorist, is a terrorist, regardless of nationality.

[Aurielius]

Ok, so, let's turn this around? What SHOULD the US government have done? Send in a seal team to grab him? Ignore him, pretend he doesn't exist? Try and have him extradited, so he could stand trial? Throw up their hands in disgust, and say something to the affect of "We can't get him, so he stays free, to continue his efforts against us."??

 

In this particular instance, the government didn't specifically target HIM. He was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and was, in effect "collateral damage".

 

That said...... A terrorist, is a terrorist, regardless of nationality.

It seems that some feel we should have subpoenaed him and waited patiently for his appearance in court. :facepalm:

[draconix]

So our rights are deniable when the government thinks it's too inconvenient to uphold them? That's the deciding factor now? :facepalm:

[HeyYou]

So our rights are deniable when the government thinks it's too inconvenient to uphold them? That's the deciding factor now? :facepalm:

 

You are missing a trick here. This guy was NOT the target. He was just there..... when the missile arrived. Should the government have verified that no american citizens were around before they fired?

 

What would you suggest they do instead?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

This "collateral damage" angle is a complete red herring and if anything is even more dangerous than the original concept of targeting Americans. Now they just have to target some guy next to you. Oops, sorry.

[draconix]

A news source I quoted in an earlier post stated that a US official indicated that Al-Awlaki was in fact a target. He had another US citizen in his car with him. Sure, I could make up a bad plan of what we could have done, but that doesn't matter because someone with real tactical experience and training could have made a better one that didn't involve blowing up two American citizens.

 

If a citizen's rights can be dashed away without a trial, or some sort of congressional act, then none of us are guaranteed our safety from our own government. We have laws that restrict our government, know what we don't have? Punishment for breaking those laws. How screwed are we! :down:

[HeyYou]

He was a terrorist, that was involved in several attacks on the US, and others. The yemeni government tried him in absentia, found him guilty, and wanted him brought in, dead or alive. There is a LOT of evidence linking him to Al Queda. According to popular theory, we are at war with terrorists, so, this wasn't simply an assassination, it was a targeted killing of an enemy commander. Doesn't matter that he was a US citizen. The fact that he had coordinated, planned, and was responsible for several attacks is the only thing that matters. The US killing him was a GOOD thing.

 

With events as they unfolded, we spent the cost of ONE Hellfire missile, to take out a couple of prime targets of our declared enemy. No danger to US ground troops at all. Justice has been served.