ACLU Lens: American Citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi Killed Without Judicial Process

ACLU ^ | Sep 30, 2011 | Suzanne Ito, ACLU

[americanophile]

Today in Yemen, U.S. air strikes killed American citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Al-Aulaqi has never been charged with a crime. Last year, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights represented Al-Aulaqi's father in a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone. We argued that such killings violate the Constitution and international law, but the case was dismissed in federal court last December.

In response to today's killing of Al-Aulaqi, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:

The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific, and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President — any President — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country. In a hearing before a federal court last November, government lawyers argued the president should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans he has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. As National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner added today: "If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."

[albionin]

Boo, hoo hoo.

[edge10]

War is Hell.

[americanophile]

Except this situation differs in that we’re not talking about uniformed soldiers killed in a combat situation, but rather a known U.S. citizen who is targeted, hunted, and assasinated. It’s clearly distinguishable.

[edge10]

I guess we should be glad there was ‘Miranda rights’ during the Civil War. Imagine each side having to read each other their ‘rights’ before shooting or bayoneting each other.

[FlingWingFlyer]

What does an al Queda uniform look like?

[HighlyOpinionated]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/05/can-we-ban-islam-legal-guidelines-for.html [sorry this doesn't highlight, if it doesn't on second attempt]

We the People MUST insist that the above process be used towards Islam. The McCarran Act will reduce the influence of Muslims in the USofA.

In effect, it will say that they can believe whatever they want, they just cannot practice it in the USofA if it is against existing laws ... and the Constitution.

SUCH AS ... here's an example ... a person can believe in cannibalism, but it's against the law to kill people and eat them. So they're free to believe, just not free to act out that belief.

Same would work quite well for Islam. Believe in honor killings but you cannot follow that belief. Etc. Etc. Ad vomitum.

[ConorMacNessa]

What an exercise in sophistry you are engaged in! The man was fighting for the enemy in a shooting war. Whether or not he was a "citizen" he was an appropriate subject for a military response, not for handling in our so-called criminal justice system.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[PALIN SMITH]

40,000,000 Americans have been put to death without due process since 1973!!

What's another oversized fetus matter?

[americanophile]

We should have simply tried him for treason in absentia (we certainly had enough time) and revoked his citizenship through a reviewable judicial process; then killing him would be fair game. We need to follow a Constitutional process, even when we don't want to.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Did this person surrender himself to the legal system of the United States to seek his "rights?"

Was he someone who could be legally extradited?

When we let these people use our Constitution and laws as a one-sided game to kill us without their being killed, we surrender our right to survive.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact and those who make war on the United States, whether or not they are citizens, are subject to summary killing by military force or other means.

If they are beyond our courts, they need to know they cannot hide ANYWHERE in the world. They will be hunted down and killed without mercy - the same merciless treatment they give to innocent victims throughout the world.

If Americans don't survive, the Constitution doesn't survive.

These barbarians need to be taught this lesson OVER AND OVER. You choose terrorist mass murder of innocents and we'll hunt you to the ends of the Earth without mercy with every resource of our nation and kill you so quickly, you will never have a chance to escape or plead for mercy.

These barbaric, subhuman Islamic bastards have earned no quarter and none will be given.

We're coming for you, we'll kill every damn last one of you if that is the what you want... and hell's coming with us.

[americanophile]

It’s not sophistry, calm down. It’s called discussing a clear dilemma in our laws.

[omega4412]

If we had simply declared war on Islam on 9/12/01...

[ConorMacNessa]

It's not a dilemma - our armed forces are doing their job by killing the enemy's forces. This avid jihadist was responsible for numerous acts of war against our nation and doubtless would have been responsible for many more had we not taken him out. The accident of his American citizenship is a red herring.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!

[pointsal]

Can this happen to someone while traveling on I-5?

[americanophile]

So you support an unfettered, undisclosed process whereby a federal executive may execute U.S. citizens at his whim for alleged offenses against the state?

[RC2]

Guess they never heard of the term “Wanted....Dead or Alive”.

[bigheadfred]

Can this happen to someone while traveling on I-5?

Best not chance it and stay off that road.

[americanophile]

I'm glad you're not a judge. You can't just ignore someone’s citizenship and thus inalienable rights and decide to assassinate them without a judicial process at will. Think about what you're advocating.

[americanophile]

No reason it can’t if there’s no law that governs it.

[cynwoody]

Except this situation differs in that we’re not talking about uniformed soldiers killed in a combat situation, but rather a known U.S. citizen who is targeted, hunted, and assasinated. It’s clearly distinguishable.

War these days does not work as it did in WW2.

Compare al-Awlaki's case to that of bin Laden. He and three or four of his comrades were offed in Yemen, in an international and hostile context. If either bin Laden or al-Awlaki had been rubbed out without due process in similar fashion in the United States, some folks would be up on Murder I, I would expect.