Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?

NBC News ^ | September 3,.2011 | Pete Williams

[John 3_19-21]

“Yes We Can!”

[Blado]

Yes, we Khan!

[ErnBatavia]

He renounced his citizenship...even if/though he probably didn't go through the legal motions to do so.

Therefore, phock him. Rest easy, for crying out loud.

[SeaHawkFan]

I agree with Ron Paul on about 80% of his issues, but boy, that other 20% is something else.

[BatGuano]

Agree to that! If a citizen has betrayed his country, he is an enemy soldier and does not warrant justice other than his death.

Bat

[MDspinboyredux]

Police have the authority to use lethal force against a citizen if he is actively posing a danger to public safety.

In my opinion, this is no different.

/I have no problem with this.

[GreenLanternCorps]

If you engage in unlawful rebellion and treason, yes.

He waged war against the government of the United States with the intended purpose of overthrowing it and imposing in it’s place an Islamic state, an act unlawful rebellion. It is not relevant how remote the chance of him succeeding was, he clearly committed the act.

He also committed treason per Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

Had he been captured he would have been remanded to the civilian court system to face a charge of treason, but since he was killed by the United States Air Force in battle, he is a casualty of war.

[Ranger Warrior]

Mr. Anwar al-Awlaki pretty much was no longer an American citizen, since he gave up that privilege when he took up arms against the U.S. and became an enemy combatant. As an enemy, he was fair game, and at least he is no longer game!

[muawiyah]

But moreso, he wasn’t ever an American citizen. When he was born his student parents added his name to their family visa as required by law.

Note that American citizens don’t need visas.

[muawiyah]

We may not be in a state of war with any country but if, for example, North Korea invades South Korea we will destroy them utterly.

The issue here is that whether we are at war or not, the other guys are at war with us. They want to kill you. I am sorry they did not get around to try it so you could be personally convinced of that, but that's what they do.

We had them in this neighborhood. On 9/11 they were the ground support team for the air attack on the Pentagon and Capitol Hill.

For the most part they failed but should they have been killed on sight?

SURE.

They should still be shot down like the dogs they are ON SIGHT. This guy was their leader. He could have arranged to surrender and begun negotiations to cease hostilities.

He didn't do that.

[Pilsner]

The USA are not in a state of war with any country on this planet.

Was any country in Western Europe at war with Norway/Denmark during the centuries they were being pillaged, plundered, murdered and enslaved by the Vikings? Was England or France at war with Morocco during the centuries Barbary Corsairs raided their coasts, and enslaved their people?

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

#4. regarding your question, “Can we? Yes.”

In the words of our immortal president, “Yes we can”.

That’s good enough for me.

Bombs away!

[Chode]

when Anwar al-Awlaki came to study in the US, he came on a foreign student visa. You see, even though al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, his parents were not American citizens. In fact, after his father completed his studies here, the family returned to Yemen. Anwar would not even be considered a 14th Amendment citizen, which states "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Anwar's parents were never US citizens, nor did they intend to become citizens; neither did his parents have "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,"  which is the standard according to the Supreme court decision in United States vs Wong Kim Ark.

According to the State Department, there are different rules, and, since al-Awlaki came to the US on a scholarship from Yemen, we can assume that he renounced his US citizenship, because Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. Furthermore, his father was the Agriculture Minister in Yemen. Otherwise, why would al-Awlaki have come on a foreign student visa to study in Colorado in 1991?

when Anwar al-Awlaki came to study in the US, he came on a foreign student visa. You see, even though al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, his parents were not American citizens. In fact, after his father completed his studies here, the family returned to Yemen. Anwar would not even be considered a 14th Amendment citizen, which states "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Anwar's parents were never US citizens, nor did they intend to become citizens; neither did his parents have "a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,"  which is the standard according to the Supreme court decision in United States vs Wong Kim Ark.

According to the State Department, there are different rules, and, since al-Awlaki came to the US on a scholarship from Yemen, we can assume that he renounced his US citizenship, because Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. Furthermore, his father was the Agriculture Minister in Yemen. Otherwise, why would al-Awlaki have come on a foreign student visa to study in Colorado in 1991?

[JRandomFreeper]

War isn't about who is correct. It's about who survives.

Yes. We did kill him, therefore we can.

Was is lawful? Probably, given United States Codes.

Was it just? He was waging war against us, and had forfeited rights based on point #2. I believe it was just.

Would I do it? ...... It would suck, but yes. I would wade into that hog pen and use my carver to do that. Fortunately, the US Govt has higher tech than I'm willing to develop/use.

/johnny

[Busywhiskers]

Obviously we can...we have the capability. The question is, should we? Sure. Why not. In al-whacky’s case it was probably kind of fun.

[FlingWingFlyer]

If only Barry’s NASA Muslim Self-Esteem Team could have gotten to this poor, misguided “citizen” before those Hellfire missiles did. Sometimes hope and change comes up a day late and a dollar short. “Adios Amigo”.

[Victor]

"....So, let's say a bunch of German Americans in 1939 went to Germany and become Nazi soldiers...should we shoot the hell out of 'em just like the rest of the Nazis? Weird that anyone even has to ask the question......"

You, sir, have just crystallized the question and the answer.

Brilliant clarity...

[sean327]

Your argument has more holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese.
Alwaki was an enemy combatant commander, who made documented statements that he wanted to kill as many Americans as he could. He sent people out with the intent to kill Americans. The minute he became an Al Qiada commander is the minute he gave up all rights afforded to Americans. Alwaki may have been born here, but he was never an American. I for one am very happy knowing he is roasting in hell alongside Bin Laden.

[isthisnickcool]

He was a moslem so he was not an American. No moslem is...

[antceecee]

Agree. Why would a scumbag who is killing and attacking innocent Americans and others on foreign soil get better treatment than some gang-banger shooting it up on American soil? Actively attacking and plotting to kill others ....you get a bead on them and eliminate the problem.