Article

2011-10-11 Arabia

Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Anwar al-Awlaki

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2011-10-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top
File under: al-Qaeda

#1 Those that pledge allegiance and are loyal to the U.S., are treated one way. Those that join a foreign army, kill Americans, and are not loyal, are treated another way. Too bad, so sad.

Posted by whatadeal 2011-10-11 02:32|| 2011-10-11 02:32|| Front Page Top

#2 It makes no sense to me to offer legal protections to to people who gain US citizenship just to make it "illegal" to blow their a$$ up on the battlefield in another country while they are committing perfidious acts.

Perhaps a distinction that hasn't been considered much is that in a "typical" alleged traitor's case, getting our hands on him involves wading through a bunch of our own citizens. It is possible that our general population is on the traitor's side to a significant degree, so the traitor need to have protections so that the government would have to answer to this general discontent.

In Al-Unlucky's case, getting our hands on him ~~involves~~ would have involved significant cost and risk because our agents would have to wade through hostile forces in another country, who nobody's government, especially our own, should have to answer to.

I suppose an answer to all of this would have been to call for him to surrender himself. If he had surrendered voluntarily at our embassy in Yemen, or had surrendered to Yemeni authorities, or if we had been able to go out and arrest him by force on American territory, then, he should have had the usual legal rights. But since he had made himself inaccessible without significant risk to Americans and also declined to surrender himself, then he has waived those protections.

Also, in cases like this, it would make sense for there to be some sort of review of the decision-making process to make sure that the traitor truly was significantly aiding a significant enemy, that he was not on American territory, that arresting him would involve significant risk above what would be found if he were in American territory, that we had publicly called for him to surrender in a meaningful way, that he had failed to surrender in a reasonable time, and that the decision to have him whacked was justified and done with due process.

And this should probably be done before the fact if possible rather than after, but there's always a first time for everything.

Posted by gorb 2011-10-11 09:48|| 2011-10-11 09:48|| Front Page Top

#3 A Judge should be able to declare someone an OUTLAW.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2011-10-11 18:01|| 2011-10-11 18:01|| Front Page Top

#4 There should also be a long and very wide awake execution for outlaws if we catch them.

Posted by Creregum Glolump8403 2011-10-11 18:47|| 2011-10-11 18:47|| Front Page Top

#5 ...while they are committing perfidious acts.

"Perfidious"

nice.

Posted by Skidmark 2011-10-11 23:55|| 2011-10-11 23:55|| Front Page Top

23:55 Skidmark
23:52 Skidmark
23:47 Albert Spaise4340
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:00 Redneck Jim
22:49 trailing wife
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:39 Eohippus Phater7165
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:31 lotp
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:14 Eohippus Phater7165
21:52 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:48 Eohippus Phater7165
21:39 lotp
21:00 tu3031
20:56 Spot
20:47 JosephMendiola
20:41 Frank G
20:39 rammer
20:39 JosephMendiola
20:37 Frank G
20:34 john frum
20:19 rammer