Quote:

---

"Given questions surrounding the legality of the practice under both U.S. and international law, notable legal scholars, human rights activists, and current and former government officials have called for the government to disclose its legal analysis justifying the use of targeted lethal force, especially as it applies to American Citizens," the lawsuit contends.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Anwar al-Awlaki seems, from most reports, to have been a member of al-Qaeda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Trial by jury is supposed to give American citizens the right to defend themselves against "most reports."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Nothing I can find in laws of war precludes attacking folks who've declared war against you and are actively prosecuting that war. If you can find such, let me know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
It wasn't like he was in the middle of a terrorist attack or a hostage situation and they had to shoot him down to save lives.

---

Quote:

---

Operation Vengeance was the name given to the military operation to kill Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto on April 18, 1943, during the Solomon Islands campaign in the Pacific Theater of World War II. Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the Combined Fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy, was killed on Bougainville Island when his transport bomber aircraft was shot down by U.S. Army fighter aircraft operating from Henderson Field on Guadalcanal.

The mission of the U.S. aircraft was specifically to kill Yamamoto and was based on United States Navy intelligence on Yamamoto's travel plans in the Solomon Islands area. The death of Yamamoto reportedly damaged the morale of Japanese naval personnel (described by Samuel Eliot Morison as being considered the equivalent of a major defeat in battle), aided the morale of members of the Allied forces, and may have been intended as an act of revenge by U.S. leaders who blamed Yamamoto for the Pearl Harbor attack which initiated the formal state of war between Imperial Japan and the U.S.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So you'd disagree with the killing of Admiral Yamamoto, then.

---

Quote:

---

U.S. officials said Aulaqi was a member of al-Qaeda and has been moving up the ranks, having recently been promoted to regional commander. But the officials described him less as an operational leader than an inspirational one, whose contacts with members took place largely online.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Two big differences:

1. Yamamoto was not a US citizen.

---

Quote:

---

Al-Awlaki was a US citizen with the constitutional right to free speech.

---

Quote:

---

The strongest evidence against him was his anti-American rhetoric, for which he is accused of "inspiring" the enemy. Unless he claimed to be and accepted the title of "regional commander," he should have been able to defend himself against accusations that he was ever part of the "military" echelon of foreign military structure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
There are limits to the right to free speech. In civil law, "I'll pay you to kill him" is criminal conspiracy, not protected free speech. In the laws of war, "Attack the enemy" is an act of war, not protected speech.

---

Quote:

---

The U.N. Security council, no particular friend of U.S. interests, "...placed al-Awlaki on its UN Security Council Resolution 1267 list of individuals associated with al-Qaeda, saying in its summary of reasons that he is a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was involved in recruiting and training camps."

---

Quote:

---

Omaha Beach. June 6, 1944.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Whether or not he crossed these limits should have been determined in court.

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter who made the accusations. Evidence is what matters. He should have been tried for treason. Emphasis on the word, "tried."

---

Quote:

---

Strawman. None of this applies. As I said before, it wasn't like they killed him in combat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
...there's no reasonable doubt under the rules of war that al-Awlaki was a combatant...

---

Quote:

---

Rules of evidence that apply in civil and criminal cases do not apply to determining who is the enemy in an armed conflict.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
When the "enemy" increasingly becomes the American citizenry, we need new rules of evidence that incorporate constitutional rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
...there's no reasonable doubt under the rules of war that al-Awlaki was a combatant...

---

Therein lies our dispute. *YOU* have decided there is no reasonable doubt and he deserves to be executed. The US govt has decided there is no reasonable doubt and he deserves to be executed.

I still believe in innocence until proven guilty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When the "enemy" becomes the very people it's supposed to be protecting, it's time to put a fucking bullet through the skull of your guard dog, cause it's obviously gone rabid.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So we're back to the 'alleged' German soldiers again.

---

Quote:

---

So if you knew where he was in Germany, at a conference along with other Nazi military leaders, you would refrain from bombing that location because you might kill an American citizen?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When the "enemy" becomes the very people it's supposed to be protecting, it's time to put a fucking bullet through the skull of your guard dog, cause it's obviously gone rabid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
No, no, Frem. Innocent until proven guilty, per CTS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
No, YOU are back to the alleged German soldiers, which has nothing to do with anything. It is a strawman with no relationship to Awlaki whatsoever. You are taking foreign soldiers in uniform in active combat and comparing it to an American citizen civilian who is NOT in active combat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
If you can show that al-Qaeda has a particular uniform and that al-Awlaki wasn't wearing it, I'll concede that point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Not okay with me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Uniform is a symbol of self-identity as a combatant. If you can prove that Al Awlaki identifies himself as an enemy *combatant* (not just enemy spokesperson) of the USA, then I'll say you might have a legal basis for assassinating him.

Besides, innocent until proven guilty means the burden of proof is on those who executed him. It is not on me to prove he was innocent and not wearing a uniform and therefore didn't deserve to die.

---