Replies

Very poor analogy.

Benedict Arnold was never a U.S. citizen. The raid on Richmond took place in the winter of 1780-81, which was seven years before the U.S. constitution was ratified. He was a British subject and later a resident of Canada until the day he died.

I've got no love lost for this al-Awlaki guy, but if he was a U.S. citizen (I'm still not sure he was, in light of the fact that he attended college here in the U.S. on a student visa) then the manner of his demise should be disturbing to any self-proclaimed conservative on this site. I have yet to see anything in any media outlet that indicates exactly what rendered him a legitimate military target in a country that is not involved in a military campaign against the U.S.

Even aside from the lack of any due process in this case, what exactly were the charges against this guy?

U.S. citizenship starts with the Declaration of Independence, not the ratification of the U.S. constitution. You would turn all the American patriots who died in the battles of the Revolutionary War into non-citizens. If Arnold had not been a citizen of the United States, he couldn’t have been guilty of treason against the United States—any more than Major Andre was.

Very poor analogy. Benedict Arnold was never a U.S. citizen. The raid on Richmond took place in the winter of 1780-81, which was seven years before the U.S. constitution was ratified. He was a British subject and later a resident of Canada until the day he died.

My analogy was a universal principle that has held true throughout every war in human History:

"Enemy combatants, in direct physical combat or in command and control, are legitimate targets of opportunity regardless of citizenship, past or present."

Did the Senatorial Legions of Pompey meet the Legions of Caesar in war in order to "arrest Roman citizens"?

But, if you insist on being so concrete as to insist upon only examples in the United States after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, fine.

Did the Army of the Potomac meet the Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburg in war to "arrest American citizens"?

Do you really believe that Robert E. Lee, or any Confederate Colonel, Major, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant or Corporal was not a legitimate target of opportunity of any Union sniper that was within range of them?

Does the 14th Amendment not specifically state that "The validity of the public debt of the United States ... for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."?

Were those "services" not the intentional killing, when and where the opportunity arose, of the 94,000 American citizens directly killed by Union forces during "The Great Rebellion" (as was the popular term at the time) who were waging war against the United States?

It cannot be claimed that the wording of the Constitution referred to foreign citizens of a sovereign nation called the "Confederate States of America" since, by definition, a foreign nation cannot be in "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.

The U.S. Constitution clearly accepts the fact that 94,000 "American citizens" were deliberately and legally killed by the U.S. Government when they waged war against the United States on behalf of the Confederacy. It is ludicrous to claim that an American citizen in 2011, waging war against the United States, in a command and control capability, as an officer al Qaeda, somehow has more constitutional protection when waging war against the U.S. than an American citizen in 1863 had while waging war against the United States, in a command and control capability, as an officer of the Confederate States Army.

Even aside from the lack of any due process in this case, what exactly were the charges against this guy?

What were the "charges" against, say, Major John Pelham, Confederate States Army?

WAR WAS BEING ACTIVELY WAGED IN A COMMAND AND CONTROL CAPACITY.

If you do not believe me, go to Post 69 and listen to al-Awlaki yourself.

He is in direct contact with Muslims in the U.S. military instructing them to kill their fellow soldiers ..... And one of them does it.

Through videos meant to be distributed to Muslims in the U.S., he is instructing them to kill U.S. civilians including YOU.

That is called "Command and Control" and it qualifies as an act of war. In war, it makes you as legitimate a target of opportunity as any Confederate Lieutenant that was unfortunate enough to ride within range of any Union sniper.

==================

Anwar al-Awlaki May 2010 Interview Video

This video of an interview with Anwar al-Awlaki was released on May 23, 2010 by Al-Malahem Media, a reported propaganda unit of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. It was posted to YouTube, but was quickly removed due to “terms of use” violations. According to the Associated Press, the American-born al-Awlaki tells his followers to “kill U.S. civillians” . It is presented here for research purposes.

"Nidal Hasan is a student of mine, and I am proud of this. I am proud that there are people like Nidal Hasan among my students. What he did was a heroic act, a wonderful operation. I ask Allah to make him steadfast, to protect him, and to free him. I support what he did, and I call upon anyone who calls himself a Muslim, and serves in the US army, to follow in the footsteps of Nidal Hasan."

"Interviewer: Do you support such operations, even though they target what the media calls “innocent civilians”?

Anwar Al-Awlaki: Yes.

With regard to the issue of “civilians,” this term has become prevalent these days, but I prefer to use the terms employed by our jurisprudents. They classify people as either combatants or non-combatants. A combatant is someone who bears arms – even if this is a woman. Non-combatants are people who do not take part in the war. The American people in it