Anwar al-Awlaki Slain!

[jordan179]

Courtesy of Ahmad al-Haj, AP, who is probably sobbing into his coffee over this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-strike-kills-american-al-qaida-cleric-yemen-122527842.html

In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in

Comments

[headnoises]

I really wish they'd gone through the process to legally declare him a traitor first....

[jordan179]

Agreed.

[cutelildrow]

(I hope you don't mind, but you're actually helping me piece together what I'm finding confusing about this! ^^; Also, giving me a more defined direction where to direct my reading-up of this.)

Is it necessary to have an American-Citizen terrorist legally declared a traitor? From what I am aware of, even Major Hassan was not stripped of his citizenship, but is being tried as an American Citizen for the crimes of premeditated murder, not terrorism, despite what he had actually done.

Similarly, the naturalized US Citizen who did the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt is still being TRIED as a US citizen despite the fact that he himself stated that he falsely swore on the oath of allegiance (one would think that he would have lost his citizenship and the privileges thereof for having lied under oath! BUT HE DIDN'T LOSE IT!)

Every case I've looked up so far seems to show that every American citizen who has been part of a terrorist attack has been tried for murder, not terrorism. There is also a noted reluctance in rescinding the

[oronoda]

Yes it is necessary if only because it opens up a dangerous back door. Like let's say a person in power is Jordan's friend "Vincent" who determines anyone who is conservative an "enemy of the state" and uses Al-Awlaki's death as a means to carry out assassinations when Jordan went abroad to see... IDK... Big Ben in London.

I understand where you're coming from but sometimes a rubber stamp IS a big deal and is a simple safety net to prevent tyranny. It is to prevent the precedent of it being used against people's rights in the future who are not entirely in the same situation.

As for those who aren't being convicted with acts of terrorism, I'm not really sure why. Perhaps because it is a bigger sentence and I could be wrong but it could be a charge only used in war zones. As long as they're put away for a long time, it's okay with me B)

[cutelildrow]

I understand where you're coming from but sometimes a rubber stamp IS a big deal and is a simple safety net to prevent tyranny. It is to prevent the precedent of it being used against people's rights in the future who are not entirely in the same situation.

Making the question as to why someone who has been doing acts which are defined as treasonous wasn't given that trial, or why they refused to step over that line, but the other was the 'preferable' alternative.

Mind, I do see why the rubber stamp is very important; and I do agree that there should have been a declaration of him as a non-citizen, but at the same time I can see why they're hesitant to do that, and also see that Awlaki was a military target. (All in all, this is a very interesting problem, with no easy solution, and is making for interesting discussion! Thank you.)

The thing is, Awlaki's actions were very much harmful to America - both it's security, and it's people - and he actively aligned himself and is working with a group that the US is carrying out military

[headnoises]

#6 here would probably be the angle taken in the theoretical charge against Jordan.

Awlaki wasn't killed for being a traitor-- if he were, that would be a different complaint, since he also didn't get a trial for that. #3, I'd guess, though I'm no expert. It's not cool that he was a military target, because there was an assassination--or whatever-- order out on him. (There's a difference between someone being killed because of what they're doing and being killed because of who they are; I have no issue with those who happen to be US citizens being killed in the course of normal military ops, just a problem with a military op aimed at getting a US citizen.)

Revoking citizenship is a big deal-- or it's supposed to be. OTOH, the current administration has been pretty iffy about the whole citizenship-is-important thing. (Like the administration guy who told a room full of illegals that there might be a future president among them...more horrifying than there being that many criminals in one spot without response.)

[jordan179]

The reason it was ok to kill Al-Awlaki is because he was enlisted in and serving with an enemy armed force at the time of the attack. This was a matter of public knowledge: in fact of his proud boasting. It is also noteworthy that at least two other hardcore A-Q's, including at least one other American traitor, were killed with him at the time.

Mind you, the Obama Administration is doing a very poor job of explaining why they had the right to do this. So much for their constitutional scholarship.

[headnoises]

I hope you don't mind, but you're actually helping me piece together what I'm finding confusing about this!

Never, for you! I know that you're not screwing with me, and heaven knows that I pick at things until I understand them, too.

The Hassan case has every military related person I know banging their heads against a wall; we have no freaking clue what the blank they think they're doing, since it should've been an open-and-shut case of military treason, and the blanker should be dead by now. Ditto the Time Square bomber.

When we get done banging our heads, though, we start to get worried-- it looks like a systematic attempt to devalue US Citizenship. First by doing nothing to exploit it when it should be (Hassan, etc) and then by ignoring the protections granted by it.