Editor’s Note: Mary Ellen O’Connell is the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution at University of Notre Dame Law School.
By Mary Ellen O’Connell – Special to CNN
Every American adult knows what an armed conflict is. The U.S. is engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan and Libya. It engaged in combat in Iraq from 2003-2011. Thus, every American knows that the U.S. is not engaged in an armed conflict in Yemen - not a real armed conflict. Nevertheless, President Obama placed an American citizen in Yemen on a kill list. Anwar al-Awlaki and several other people were killed on September 30 by a “barrage” of missiles launched from drones operated by the CIA.
The president and his officials know that it is unlawful to kill persons in this way outside of armed conflict hostilities. So they have been asserting the U.S. is in a worldwide “armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” This assertion defies common sense. So officials also assert we have a right to kill persons who pose an “imminent” threat under the law of self-defense. In fact, the law of self-defense, found in the U.N. Charter, permits force in self-defense on the territory of a state if the state is responsible for a significant armed attack. Yemen is not responsible for any significant armed attacks.
So are we seeing a repeat of the famous “torture memo” strategy? Arguments are being asserted that are just plausible enough to keep Congress, the courts and U.S. allies at bay so targeted killing can continue. Where we once debated the legality, morality and effectiveness of “harsh interrogation methods”, we now discuss the legality of intentionally killing of suspected terrorists far from any actual armed conflict hostilities. In other words, the end justifies the means, especially with a plausible-sounding legal cover story.
Extrajudicial killing of terrorists suspects, however, is no more efficacious, lawful or moral than torture. President Obama campaigned against the use of torture, the “global war on terror” and the senseless war in Iraq. He promised to restore America’s standing in the world. He spoke of the importance of adhering to the rule of law and our values in facing the challenge of terrorism and other problems.
In 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, stated on Israeli television the U.S. position regarding Israeli targeted killing of suspected terrorists: “The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”
How could we? Killing in war is justifiable morally and legally because of the extraordinary situation of real hostilities. In the limited zones on the planet where two or more contending armed groups fight for territorial control, people are on notice of the danger. In such zones, the necessity to kill without warning is understood. Still, even in combat, there are rules. Civilians may not be directly targeted; principles of necessity and humanity restrain.
Where no such intense armed fighting is occurring, killing is only justified to save a human life immediately. Peacetime human rights and criminal law prevail. The actual facts of fighting determine which rules govern killing. The president has no override authority.
Nor should he want it. These rules apply globally. The U.S. should not weaken them, providing a basis for Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan to declare war against opponents, killing them anywhere with missiles and bombs.
And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here? And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?
We are told with respect to targeted killing - as we were with torture - that post-9/11 circumstances require extraordinary measures. Some of our leading ethicists countered that the absolute ban on torture must be respected as a moral imperative, regardless of the consequences. We could say the same about targeted killing, but, as in the case of torture, it turns out that doing the moral thing is also the effective thing.
Torture is an unreliable means of interrogation that trained interrogators reject. Leading counter-terrorism experts similarly reject the use of military force in efforts against terrorism. Terrorists seek to undermine lawful institutions, to sow chaos and discord and to foment hatred and violence. Upholding our lawful institutions, holding to our legal and moral principles in the face of such challenges, is not only the right thing to do - it is a form of success against terrorism that can lead to the end of terrorist groups.
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and several persons with him on Friday in Yemen did not occur in a battle zone. The killings occurred in a country in the midst of upheaval with various armed and unarmed factions struggling for control. The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mary Ellen O’Connell.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
This man was a traitor to the United States. He was actively engaged in waging a low level war against the US as shown in the several plots of Ft Hood shooting, Times Sq bombing, Detroit Christmas bombing. As such he is a combatant and can be killed. His death saves American lives. Are we supposed to capture and try him in court so that a jury can pronounce what is plainly obvious? Assume in WW II Tokyo Rose had a button that could launch a missle that would destroy Washington. Would it be illegal to kill her in an airbomb raid where she was beside that trigger because she was an American citizen?
Tim.. No matter what you think he may be, he still is a citizen like you and should have been brought to trial.. What if the fed "thinks" that you are a drug dealer because the neighbor reported it. should you be thrown in jail without a trial? Wake UP
When you cast your lot with our enemies, you become our enemy and should expect to be treated the same as them. He got what he asked for, and I guess according to his religion, he is a hero. God rest his soul!
Are you serious?
He was a soldier of an army enemy of the States, he willingly became an enemy in a foreign country. His killing is not different of the killing of any other enemy soldier.
What is wrong wi people that try to compare his killing with the killing of someone captured by a police force, US could only reach him through a war operation, if the CIA go there an capture him (risking the life of the team who capture him) the same people would be complaining on the illegality of the operation.
An enemy soldier was killed, period.... at most a RIP.
No he is not a U.S. Citizen!!!!!! One of the greatest motto I hear is "Love it or Leave it!!" and he left....forsaking that costly liberty we call freedom. He is more than just someone with an opposing political viewpoint...he wanted to destroy us...do you not understand that!!! We have the right to defend ourselves. and the President was carrying out one of the most fundamental obligations in his post. to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic....notice that last word there!!....Man! it must be nice in your world!!
How many American and civilian lives would you sacrifice to give this piece of crap a trial? Would you go in to get him? Send your children in?
I didn't think so.
Put your monetary where your mouth is or shut the heck up.
Never forget 'Blackhack Down'.
This dude, and those like him deserve to die. He was an American, he declared war against the U.S. With that, he gave all rights that you and I have. Tell you, what, next time, you can go to Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc and ask him nicely to come back to U.S. Some of ya'll should just STFU and be happy.
What part of WAR do you not understand. Why do you want to protect terrorists?
OK, Obama's bad. Next time, take the citizenship away first and kill.
The fact of the matter is we killed American citizens in droves during the Civil War. And, from the perspective of a Northerner, the south was guilty of secession, disunion, and treason. I suppose is we were to take the words and advice of Ms. O'Connell to heart, that would mean that we might as well just give up the war on terror. If we should never pursue those who commit treason against our country and our people, all of the terrorist groups and leaders would simply flee to Yemen, Oman, etc. According to Ms. O'Connell, then, the only option would be to throw our hands in the air and declare, "Looks like there isn't anything we can do about it."
While I do not disagree that a trial would not have been appropriate, I am not going to lose sleep over the death of a traitorous, treasonous man who made terrorist threats and took terrorist actions against our country. Yes, he was an American citizen. He was also guilty of treason.
I have been to war and war is not kind, or fair but an unfortunate necessary evil. When an American or Non-American participates in terrorist activity then I feel they have given up their rights as a citizen of any sane nation. It is amazing how people like you want people like me to keep the enemy away from our shores but root for the rights of the bad guys. If Mr. Al Awalaki had just blown your family to bits would you still be in his defense. NO. So pick up a gun, defend this nation, or shut the hell up.
Webmouth – the government didn't "think" this guy was a danger. He happily announced, admitted and took great pride in it. He admitted his role in the Maj. Hassan shooting at Fort Hood and openly admitted that he would like there to be more killings and he provided material support to see that they happened. How many times does it take for someone to say "I'm going to kill Americans" and prove out their words with actions until killing them is justified? Was he ever going to stop unless he was killed? No. Case closed.
The major flaw I see in all these arguments is the he was "suspected" of being a terrorists or a "supposed" terrorist. This man went on youtube and admitted to being a terrorist. Not once not twice but over and over. Keep in mind people that the Colonies beat England because we didn't adhere to the "rules of war" of the time. Sometimes in order to prevail we must ignore the rules of engagement and operate at the level of the opposition. Had England done that instead of marching blindly into ambushes we would be complaining about our Prime Minister instead of our president. Just be glad that there are people willing to take the risk in extraordinary times to ensure our safety and your freedom to complain.
China boundary settlements with other countries
Western and Indian analysts and journalists frequently accuse China of having a new-found self-confidence, call on Obama to "burst Beijing's bubble", call its statements "harangue" and its behaviour "hubris", and accuse it of possessing an increased "assertiveness" (Almost everyone!).
Even a 2005 Pentagon report on Chinese military power expressed concern that “conflicts to enforce China territorial claims could erupt in the future with wide regional repercussions."
J.Mohan Malik, an expert in Asian Geopolitics and Proliferation, proclaims, "Having wrested substantial territorial concessions from Russia, Vietnam, and Tajikistan in their land border disputes with China, Beijing is now expecting the same from India."
Although a thorough analysis of China border disputes merits a separate blog post, only a summary is sufficient here to put things in perspective.
China has had land border disputes with every country which it bordered. However, it has resolved 12 out of the 14 disputes quite remarkably, giving remarkable concessions in each of them.
In its border negotiations with different countries, China has pursued compromise and offered concessions in most of these conflicts. China compromises have often been substantial, as it has usually offered to accept less than half of the contested territory in any final settlement. It has also not reiterated its claims on a majority of the territory which was seized from it by the so-called unequal treaties.
According to M.Taylor.Fravel, a premier expert on China border disputes,
"Contrary to scholars of offensive realism, ......China has rarely exploited its military superiority to bargain hard for the territory that it claims or to seize it through force. China has likewise not become increasingly assertive in its territorial disputes as its relative power has grown in the past two decades. Contrary to others who emphasize the violent effects of nationalism, which would suggest inflexibility in conflicts over national sovereignty, China has been quite willing to offer territorial concessions despite historical legacies of external victimization and territorial dismemberment under the Qing."
".....China has not issued demands for large tracts of territory that were part of the Qing dynasty......"
"China only contested roughly 7 percent of the territory that was part of the Qing dynasty at its height"
China land border negotiations with neighbouring countries offer a startling revelation. Portions of the total disputed territories that China received as part of its boundary negotiations with 12 of its 14 neighbours are as follows:
Afghanistan – 0%
Tajikistan – 4%
Nepal – 6%
Burma – 18%
Kazakhstan – 22%
Mongolia – 29%
Kyrgyzstan – 32%
North Korea – 40%
Laos – 50%
Vietnam – 50%
Russia – 50%
Pakistan – 54%
Pakistan was a special case in which China received 60% of the disputed land but transferred 1942 square kilometers of separate land to Pakistan. In Tajikistan’s case, the figure refers to the 28000 sq.km of the disputed Pamir mountain range, other sectors were divided evenly. In the case of Vietnam, in addition to this settlement, China transferred, apparently without any strings attached, the White Dragon Tail Island to (North) Vietnam in 1957.
According to Fravel, "Analysis of China dispute behavior bears directly on the future of peace and stability in East Asia. Behavior in territorial disputes is a fundamental indicator of whether a state is pursuing status quo or revisionist foreign policies, an issue of increasing importance in light of China rising power."
Timothy McVeigh was a homegrown terrorist who killed approximately 70 Americans, yet he was allowed his day in court.
Timothy McVeigh was arrested in the United States. He was not allied with a foreign power actively engaged in hostilities against the United States, from a foreign territory. The difference is an obvious one, Jameela. People who seek to obscure that difference are not arguing intelligently; they are seeking to obscure a very obvious distinction. Now, why would you wish to do that?
yes...and guess what, the Government had jurisdiction in Oklahoma or any other state for that matter. Awalki was hiding out in another country with our enemies. It's not simple anymore. How dare you compare the two. a lone actor vs an entire global terrorist network. Apples and Oranges my friend and you got them mixed. It too must be nice in your world.
So true – but he was here in the U.S. not halfway around the world as Awlaki was – at the very least have something substantial to say ....
I am now dumber from having read Jameela's comment.
How the Jews & Christians Will Enter the Hell-Fire
The following Ahadiths gives a detailed description of how the Jew’s and their corpse-eating, blood-drinking, Christian zombie slaves will enter the Hell-fire on the promised and fateful Day of Resurrection.
(Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: During the lifetime of the Prophet {pbuh} some people said, “O Allah’s Messenger! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?” The Prophet {pbuh} said: “Yes, do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?” They replied, “No.” He said, “Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a fullmoon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?” They replied, “No.” The Prophet {pbuh} said, (Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection, as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them.” On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, “Let every nation follow that which they used to worship.” Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities, but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient [i.e. good] and those who were disobedient [i.e. bad] and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, “Who did you use to worship?” They will say, “We used to worship ‘Uzair (Ezra), the son of Allah.” It will be said to them, “You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son. What do you want now? They will say, “O our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.” They will be directed and addressed thus, “Will you drink” whereupon they will be gathered unto Hell (Fire) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, “Who did you used to worship?” They will say, “We used to worship Isa (Jesus), the son of Allah.” It will be said to them, “You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son.” Then it will be said to them, “What do you want now?” They will say what the former people have said (and will be thrown in the Hell-fire like the Jews). Then, when there remain (in the gathering) none but those who used to worship Allah [Alone: the real Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists)], whether they were obedient or disobedient. Then Allah [the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists)], will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, “What are you waiting for?” Every nation has followed what it used to worship.” They will reply, “We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.” Allah will say, “I am your Lord.” They will say twice or thrice, “We do not worship anything besides Allah.”)
(Narrated Anas: The Prophet {pbuh} said, “Allah will say to that person of the (Hell) Fire who will receive the least punishment, “If you had everything on the earth, would you give it as a ransom to free yourself (i.e. save yourself from this Fire)? He will say, “Yes”. Then Allah will say, ‘While you were in the backbone of Adam, I asked you much less than this, (i.e. not to worship others besides Me), but you insisted on worshipping others besides me.’”
(Your Ilah [God] is One Ilah [God-Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He])
(“And indeed, We created man from dried [sounding] clay of altered mud. And the jinn, We created aforetime from the smokeless flame of fire.”).
(And I have created the jinn and men only to worship Me).
(And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”)
Jameela
Messenger of Allah
& Defender of Islam
1 October 2011
shut up. You are one of Allah's Morons. Your so called prophet is the hero of the stupid.
Unless someone has discovered the "religion" segment in human chromosomes or DNA, I think it's fair to say that we are all born of the same faith. And having considered most of the history and aspects of human nature, mythology, religion, what have you, I do not pray to a God....I pray there is a God.
Just to enlighten you; God, Allah, Ezra, Jesus, & Santa Claus are the same dude – just different name.
Since the Arab and the non Arab will never co-exhist in a peaceful manner there is only one option. Lets get on with your Holy War; when one side no longer exists then we have a winner. Of course that means you, and you kind will only be seen in history books.
No matter how you try you cannot steal the God of the Jews. Allah is another name for he who's name should not be spoken and not known by the ignorant. If you observe God's laws then you are saved whatever else you do! Islam came thousands of years after Judaism and Mohammed tried to become a Jew. I hope you gain understanding, and don't rely on a single book to see the truth. Wisdom comes from within, not from a book!
How dare you bring these disputed hadiths to this forum! They were written by men and their validity is not accepted by all Muslims. You know very well that the Quran purported to be written directly by Allah himself, trumps this Hadith. Here is what the Quran says:
Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve . [Quran 2:62]
Jameela
Messenger of Allah?
Messenger of Allah? Really? Are you a self declared prophet? LOL! Please guide us to Jannah oh self annointed one.
)
Another one bites the dust. He truely recieved what he had coming. Foreign or domestic, well we found him we delt with him and so what. Who cares what citizenship he has. You want to be a terriorist then dont complain when he get caught either by a sniper bullet, missile or the police. I bet none of you would shed a tear if he was to kill one of your family members and then we blew him up. Give me a break.
I'm not sure about being a zombie. I kinda think the Cosmic Muffin is a little more laid back than your interpretation.
Aah I could not have said it better myself, Jameela. The true answers always come from the opposing side themselves. years of telling the world about the culture of these nations. Thank you for the greatest advertisement about Islam. And the others here are correct this is not necessarily traditional Islam. Whatever problems religion has Judaism never demands that others be Jewish. And as far as worshiping other Gods. WOW talk about Chutzpah – Even Moses is not placed in the category of Mohammed as Prophet.
BTW – you will see how outraged most Israelis and Jews are at the burning of a Mosque. Jews are not even allowed there by ISRAELI law when Muslims pray – Do you think that happened anywhere in the Muslim world?
Jameela...before you go spouting off your insults to Christianity and to the Jewish religion, maybe you should do RESEARCH first. If I recall, Jesus is respected greatly in the Qur'an. And if you had done any research before you went spouting off your fire and brimstone post, you would see that in Christianity, Jesus is not only the Son of God, but is God in the flesh. You would see and hopefully understand what the Holy Trinity is; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. One God, three persons. Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean you can give your religion a bad name. It is because of antics such as this one that the Islam world gets such a bad name.
As for my reply about the article, justice is done. No reason to rant and rave about it, especially to all those who claim to be God fearing people on here remember Pro 24:17.
You're so stupid!
Jameela. From the Qur'an: Surah 29, line 46. Do not argue with the people of the Book unless in a fair way, apart from those who act wrongly, and say to them: "We believe what has been sent down to us. and we believe what has been sent down to you. Our God and your God is one, and to Him we submit." This is the most important and often ignored instruction from the Qur'an.
I hope we invade Saudi Arabia next and then destroy Mecca and Medina.
Interesting how she writes "pbuh" every time she mentions the "Prophet". I make much the same noise.
Go take your bacon bath Jameela.
As far as I can tell he wasn't implicated in the Ft. Hood shooting. Though he did encourage it, it wasn't him. That isn't even good enough for a Conspiracy Charge. Now the Underware bomber, that is a Conspiracy Charge, but since the plot failed, that is all it is.
In this Country Mass Murderers have rights. Child Molesters have rights. Heck we even give Enemy Combatants the protections afforded to our citizens and they aren't even being held in this country.
Yet an American Citizen has his rights under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments violated and it is a good thing? Just because those rights are inconvenient? The President has already declared that the tea Party is a bunch of Terrorists, is Michelle Bachman next on the Drone kill list?
looks to me like awlaki was just collateral damage in an ongoing war – he just happened to be riding in the vehicle with a pakistani al-qaeda terrorist...no different than on a battlefield in afghanistan...the fog of war.
Obummer, judge, jury, and executioner. He was a traitor, he deserved to die. As an American they should have tried to arrest him. If he died resisting no big deal. instead he was assassinated by his president the assassin and Chief.
thats retarded to say – i could careless about Obama really- but i guess you have to find someway to blame him – our/your president just to simply oppose him and cause more division – great this is exactly what these terrorist want – division.....
Why don't you sign to go and round up the remaining suspected terrists before they are blown up in a mix up. Be sure to ring them first and let them know that you areon their side.
Right. As soon as you start plotting the death of US citizens or US infrastructure you're a traitor and an enemy combatent. You lose your citizenship and the right to a fair trial. Your reward for being a traitor is a quick painful death!
Mate the truth is, whatever your country USA like it goes for it. USA has killed thousands of innocent people since last 11 years and for what? For few thousand americans??? which is even not confirmed to date as to who did 9/11?
The reality is, when USA says its a day, everyone should say yah its a day, and when they say it a night, all should agree. Let me tell you few clews about the future my friend and time will be my witness. USA is going to disintegrate in next few years due poor economic conditions and engaging in so many places around the world. The OIL/RESOURSE game that was started by the Republicans 20 years ago has brought nothing but dispare to USA. The so called NWO for which G Bush was working so hard and now Ubama is continuing the same policy, just to please the JEWISH lobby will no longer go far from here. Its a free world and Americans need to understand that you can only push someone to a point. And my friend, USA has already reached that point.
Another thing, you should read Quran Translation and try to understand the truth. I pray that you do.
First, I see a whole lot of ignorant statements for this article.
Now you. I will say that you are wrong about who was responsible. Al Quida did claim responsibility on numerous occasions. I will agree that the US government during the time period that you mention did things that I'm not proud of. The enemy of the USA that attacks innocent people and this guy was one, deserves the consequences that he has received. I have the same feelings to anyone that kills innocent people of any culture or religion. I am no expert on the Koran, but what I have read says the same thing.
Apologies, while I would not disagree that a trial would have been appropriate*
yes you are right
enemy combatant bud who say that us government? and you trust them? then you are indiferent moron .
Yet another week in which the Landmark Theatre is cocoipnusus by its absence. Doesn't it claim to be a venue for art and independent cinema? It's not even summer and they're still showing general release films!!! Why anyone pays their ticket prices to sit in those ghastly seats and watch a routine movie baffles me.
Justice has one eye blind, the other eye covered by a very thin veil...We are in a clearly defined war on terror, an action that has yet to cease. US law is not applied liberally in matters of terror....Nor is terror considerate of UN resolution.
Alas, we have come to the rub.....The deceased chose the wrong dog to fight. Oh well....
Well said. I can't believe I actually found another "liberal" (that's what the other party has branded me) in this discussion. I could not agree with you more.
True, justice is very a matter of opinion and a public – tainted – opinion is sometimes more devastating than the verdict of a judiciary.
The author mentioned Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel with an Australian accent, who condemned Israel's targeted killings on Israeli television in 2001. Well it must have been before 9/11. I doubt if he would think the same today. Yes, Obama campaigned against torture, the global war on terror and promised to close Quantanamo and improved U.S. international standing and won the Nobel Peace Prize. An irony, isn't it?
please read – very OFTEN!
We are in a declared war on Drugs. As part of the well regulated militia, does that mean I can help defend this country by shooting Drug Dealers in the street? What about the War on Poverty? Does that mean we should be shooting homeless people?
haha you're an idiot, in no way is that a reasonable comparison to the situation at hand.
He makes a valid point! This is what happens when you have idiot politicians who use the term "war" when it is something else entirely.
Poor article. O'Connell is correct that killing *as punishment* is wrong (at least in Yemen, where the fighting is better defined as skirmishing rather than the full-scale armed conflict where any person participating in hostilities is a lawful target), but totally fails to recognize that Al-Awlaki was an *ongoing threat* to the US (and, for that matter, Yemen). There was an imminent danger of him contributing to further attacks; the killing was clearly justified as an act of self-defense.
@Tim: The treachery and his past acts are irrelevant, except to the extent they provide a guide to the ongoing threat he posed. The proper way to deal with past acts is judicial; the proper way to deal with ongoing threats is military.
@Alvin: I think the fighting in Yemen is too limited to call it full-scale armed conflict in the sense that Afghanistan is (and arguably NW Pakistan). The Global War on Terror refers to the Congressional Authorization of Military Force in US law, delegating to the executive the power to decide which specific regions require the use of armed force; it doesn't make the whole world a battlefield under the international law of armed conflict (which the US incorporates expressly or impliedly into domestic law).
Put it this way: if the whole world is a battlefield, the President could order the Marine Corps to surround a terrorist's house in (say) Wyoming and they could shoot even if the terrorist did not pose an imminent threat. Limiting the definition of battlefield to areas of more intense fighting means that we can only attack our hypothetical Wyoming terrorist when he poses an imminent threat. Because killing someone is irreversible, the more permissive rules of engagement should only apply to areas where serious fighting has marred the ability of the civil authorities to respond to the situation. Ordinary self-defense is enough everywhere else, and in terrorism cases, it usually isn't too difficult to meet the threshold of imminent threat anyway, especially given the legal definition of imminence has been widened since 9/11.
Listen to him, he hits the nail on the coffin–ok bad joke. But we need to remember that one cannot wage a war on an ideology like Awlaki's, as an American citizen he has the right to opinion. However, we can wage war on an organization that employs a clear ideology and uses rhetoric to manipulate ignorant and vulnerable would-be-terrorists around the world. We have significant evidence that Awlaki's rhetoric was not simply free speech, it was a weapon against our state. In this very unique case, disarming Awlaki–through assassination–was a critical accomplishment in our war against al quaeda, accomplished with Yemeni aid and intelligence no doubt.
And in what court was that evidence heard? The President is not allowed to kill US Citizens by Executive Fiat.
Okay, legal question, if anyone can answer:
So if Obama can kill anyone anywhere in the world that he designates a terrorist, does that mean he could legally kill an American citizen in America if he deemed them a terrorist threat? Like if he got intelligence that a suspected terrorist was hiding in a house in America, could he just drop a bomb on that house and that would be totally legal? What if other civilians were killed in the process, could the govt be held legally responsible for those deaths or is that legal "collateral damage" of "war"?
Oh hell yes, I think the moral and legal climate is now is one in which the scenario that you described will pass without a ripple in government circles at least.
I think there is common agreement that it is illegal, however legality is not the issue as much as how much doubt you can cast on the illegality of the act, cloud the issue as it were.
Another worrying fact ( for those who worry about these things ) is that was no identification done on the victims after the attack, according to CNN. I don't see any system of checks and balances here, basically the military can kill anyone they want and say it was anyone they want and get way with it. When you apply this pattern to Russia and Chechnya or any of those other states with terrorist attacks made against them, you can see what it may result in – a host of extrajudicial killings carried out with impunity.
Here is what would seem the legal course of action ( since many advisors seem to be out justifying any anti-terror actions that the U.S. makes you won't get it from them) – Awlaki should have been served an arrest warrant, captured and brought to trial in the U.S. since he was a citizen. Maybe his citizenship should have been revoked first. Boring? Yes. Impartial? Yes. But it looks a lot more like justice and a lot less than a mob hit.
Two words, Waco, Texas.
Horribly mismanaged and a lot of civilians died, women, children. I dont see the public outrage from that, although it happened not too long ago. Sonehow if it involves another country and has the 'terrorist' lable on it people think they have to crusade for 'laws' for these murderers when they in turn have no lawfulness for their victims.
I think that you need due process to determine someone is a terrorist or enemy combatent. In the US, they can just send the police to arrest you and gather evidence, and then rule that you are an enemy combatent. But outside the US, if you are actively plotting attacks against the US, then you are a traitor and have lost your rights to citizenship. What's so hard to understand about this. A terrorist deserves no sanctuary to plot against US!
This is a clear case of crime against humanity but alas, who dares query the u.s. It is a crime if it was committed by others but justified because it was the u.s.
We should be careful we are engaged in same action are we are accused of by our ennemies. Defending democracy in Bagdad, Kabul...killing innocents people during our operat.ions in Pakistan and "celebrating" our illegal killing. We look like the one we claim fighting. Remember Julius Cesar, Alexander...already using same justification and still were kill themselves. Military supremacy is only a mirage, let's pray that we wake up and stop going where we don't suppose to go. Today we killed Alwaki, tomorrow we will veto Palestinian state...what do you think will happen next?
I agree. America just start something make me very uncomfortable; I will know the truth the day when we have a taste our own medicine.
This "drone killing" is the medicine I refered.
al-Awalki did not turn himself in to the nearest police station, so he waived his day in court. He encouraged violence to others, and violence came to him. Killing is not the answer, but it seems to be part of the process.
There were never any legal charges against him. It's pretty silly for someone to turn themselves in when they haven't been charged with a crime.
First of all, even though America has engaged in battlefield combat for the past 10 years in both Afghanistan & Iraq, the war on terror has never been about a battlefield! It's a new & different type of proposition! There's nothing illegal or immoral about a nation ferreting out its enemies & dispatching them, along with help from allies as was the case in the al-Awlaki killing! Yemens intel officials gave the US the cue & the drone opened specific & targeted fire! O'Connells assertion that we opened fire willy nilly in an unprepared nation is false! Her second assertion that any US official could ostensibly take it upon themselves to kill anyone they deem a criminal is just silly! We are in a war with terrorists who have harmed us abroad & at home & it's an unusual war in that it actually cannot be fought in a specific country, because terrorists use the world as their battleground! But that doesn't mean ours not a well strategized, specified battle plan!
Cont.: O'connells satement that living lawfully & going about business as usual is a deterrent to terrorist & will eventually stop them, is very naive! Terrorist are essentially likeminded sociopaths who use religion, patriotism, familial bonds & hatred for a percieved enemy, in order to egg on the fervor needed to recruit young people & turn them into suicide bombers! It would be alot more convenient if we could defeat them with conventional war, but we can't! This is our only option at this stage in the conflict! Even a liberal like me understands the necessity of what we're doing! This IS the new face ofwar& we can't put our bleeding hearts in the mix!!
When the Oklahoma city bombing took place, was a warrant out to 'kill or capture' the person or persons responsible? Did the perpetrator get a barrage of missiles or the death penalty? Selective justice reeks of a hysteria more than the application of the law.
get real get over it – the war on terrror and killing terrrorist abroad will not cease with this president or any future one republican or democrat
What I find to be quite sickening is seeing all these ignoramuses blogging in here trying to glorify the wanton murder of Anwar al-Awlaki. This was no more, no less than an act of cold blooded murder by those gutless wonders operating those ungodly drones and to see people condoning or even glorifying this cowardly act shows just how sick our society has become!!!
You are clearly clueless. Find out something about these type of ops before you call other US personnel cowards and murders.
please grow some balls and move yourself to a great country like Yemen – lol – i'm sure you'd be very happy there since its apparent your not happy with America...
Go and Fk yourself traitor – that's all I got to say to author of this article.
This article is absolutely 180 degrees wrong. If the man would have ceased coordination of attacks on his fellow citizens and come back to his "home" country (and I use that term loosely), I would agree that killing him was wrong, without a trial. We are at war with no country. Yemen or Afghanistan. We are at war with terrorists. This snake preys on the poor and extremists in Islam. To kill this snake you must cut off it's head. Awlaki forsook his fellow citizans and even took up orchestrating their deaths. He was one of the many heads that channeled money and instructions throughout the world to accomplish the deaths of innocent people and his fellow Americans. This was the right thing, as much as any other striike on the heads of our enemies, whether bin Laden, al Zarqawi or Awlaki. We have every right to defend our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. You might want to read the oaths our leaders are sworn to.
Well in following your logic where do we stop? Vietnam...don't you remember? I am ready to give my life for my country but on same line I have the right to denounce our wrong doing. I am for fighting terrorism but also as an American I see that we intervene only in Bagdad, Kabul... why not Saudi Arabia or Egypt? I guess you read me I am as American as you but wake up and realize that we only attack the easy pray. China is killing our manufacturing, India stoling our medical pattern....no we prefer attacking the one that sure we will win....we can kill awlaki but let's china and India killing us.
Oh shut up! This is like saying killing Osama Bin Laden is illegal and that September 11 was just a civil aviation disaster.
you forget he would cut your head off for being an american. grow some stones like my grandparents had and enjoy your morning latte. The one that you didn't have to worry about being blown up to buy it. The reality is there are bad people in this world and if they need to be taken care of, then it's the only thing Obama has gotten right. Allowing the pros take care of business.
Al-Awlaki should've turn himself in, he should've been charged & prosecuted! In a perfect world that would be the scenario, but in a perfect world there would be no war, no terrorists! In this world, would he ever have turned himself in? He!l No! It's naive to even think such a thing! Could we have captured him alive? Possibly, several billions of $ & years later, during which time he would've been free to recruit more youth for suicide missions & free to plan & carry out such missions anywhere in the world! His specific mission was to attack Americans....anywhere we gather! In 2001, after 9/11 the Bush admin. set up the AUMF, the permission to use military force outside a battlefield on terrorist combatants!That is the law at work in this case! Welcome to the new face of war! PS.as j. von hetterlingen said Read, Often! Educate yourselves on this matter! If you still feel it's wrong, you can argue your point more efficiently!!
Al-Awlaki should've turn himself in, he should've been charged & prosecuted! In a perfect world that would be the scenario, but in a perfect world there would be no war, no terrorists! In this world, would he ever have turned himself in? He!l No! It's naive to even think such a thing! Could we have captured him alive? Possibly, several billions of $ & years later, during which time he would've been free to recruit more youth for suicide missions & free to plan & carry out such missions anywhere in the world! His specific mission was to attack Americans....anywhere we gather! In 2001, after 9/11 the Bush admin. set up the AUMF, the permission to use military force outside a battlefield on terrorist combatants!That is the law at work in this case! Welcome to the new face of war! O'Connell is right on 1 point, it's dangerous! PS.as j. von hetterlingen said Read, Often! Educate yourselves on this matter! If you still feel it's wrong, you can argue your point more efficiently!!
Sorry bout the duplicate! Cnn stuttered this time!
Sorry Ms. O'Connell, I am satisfied that the U.S. killed him. Terrorists such as he mock our laws, and have no problem killing innocents regardless of one's interpretation of the law. Frankly, the only way to protect our people is to selectively use force to resist their efforts. Wish it were different but it's not.
Is terrorists mocking our laws reason enough to make a mockery of our laws?
Terrorist just mocking us huh really only – not conspiring to kill us.... are you ok?
Ms O'Connell:
Please stay in your Ivory Tower, and leave the rest of us alone, and spare us your ridiculous opinions.
Better still throw her into a well because that's where she is presently seeing the world.
You'd spill US red blood while trying to get through UN red tape. Welcome to the new way wars are fought. If Awlaki wants to join an army that targets civilians, doesn't wear a uniform, and hides in foreign countries using human shields then he should get used to the consequences of the new reality he imposed on himself.
Mary Ellen O’Connell needs to get out of her theoretical ivory tower and come down to the real world.
"Theorectical ivory tower". I like that. It's exactly what this is though. While she theorizes wether or not it is lawful meanwhile they plan on murdering more people.
I do appreciate this article though. There should be at least a question on is it legal.
Well said!!!!
Let me see if I got this right: If the government decides to put a United States citizen on a terrorist list – without providing any proof of that citizens guilt- they then have the right to assasinate that citizen without any due process of law- no trial , judge , jurry nothing? If this is correct then this is not America anymore. My country is now some kind of totalitarian state run by the military industrial complex for the benefit of the banks and the corporations. The "war on terror" is a joke. It's the Orwellian never ending war.
all right genious grow some and form a group of people likeminded as yourself.... That you can go catch traitors in another lawless country halfway around the world.....!
And how do you suggest we arrest him? Ask him 'pretty please' appear for a trial? As he hides behind human shields by living in a community?
Do we just let him try and try again to kill hundreds and thousands of us? Or do we do the only thing we can - put a missile up his tailpipe when there are no civilians around.
Would you give your life to bring him to trial? Your children's lives? I guess not.
You make me sick. Enlist, protect this country, or shut up.
she's daft!
dfsavrevwfcewqrwexqewrwndfjfnlaskjhfasjbfnlasjdklllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllldddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
His death is nothing more then a traitor who took up arms against his country and it’s citizens because HIS religion dictated him to do it as it dictated him to encourage other to do so. Remember this, he was a traitor and murder and he came to a sticky end of his own choosing.
It's the times we live in. It's one thing to protest and quite a bit different planning the murder of civilians just because of a warped reading of religion. If we all went back to the mid ages The Crusades would still be on and there would be no Jews or Muslims.He deserved to die by whatever means necessary and guess what he was now it's time to look for the next target.
Thank you for this article Ms O"Connell. It's good.
Are we seriously discussing this? This guy committed TREASON, where you can be killed on the spot. It was absolutely legal, and if it wasn't, like I care!
Absolutely, in war time traitors are expected to be shot on the spot. A legal summary execution done according to and within the international law. And USA is at war with terrorists – and these terrorists are real people . This is not mass paranoia or hysteria. Terrorists now operate in small groups – and they are AMERICANS who are self radicalised Muslims. They are people with minds twisted and poisoned by radicalism.
Ms O’Grady ignores the inconvenient reality in favor of a legalistic and blinkered viewpoint. It may be legally “grey”, but targeted, extrajudicial killing of terrorists has proven highly effective in disrupting the activities of Al Qaeda, to the extent that they have lost the senior leadership of both their operational and propaganda units. This has proven enormously damaging to Al Qaeda, and has resulted in a massive reduction in effective terrorist activity and in support for Al Qaeda. People only support a group they think has a chance of success, and the best way to erode recruitment of new terrorists is to make it clear that to join is to condemn yourself to death. Ms O’Grady would see international law upheld to the letter, even to the ruination of the West. Europe already favors ineffective counter-terrorist policies, would she have the U.S. run the risk of attack by doing the same?
If we tried to put all of Al Qaeda on trial then who would we go through? The ICC? That's laughable, then nothing would have been done about it. The only reason Al Qaeda is not the threat is was 10 years ago is because of our relentless pursuit of its leaders, members and finances. This man was an American but also a traitor, and just because Islamic terrorist attacks do not come from goverments but groups, does not make it any less an act of war. Wars do not go through trials. War criminals should go through trials, but not if they are still actively participating in acts of war. Then they are targets, nothing more. I have no sympathy for this man, or for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Good riddance!
Law, speak! Law, impeach the law breaker! Law don't keep your silence! Or the innocent people and we all and the world be at risk! Under the mercy of Imperialism human heart is in terror! Law must prevail for the best!
If it is legal for a US citizen to be executed for commiting espionage against their country, then I fail to see what the difference is here......?
Mary O'connell, as a vet, I find your opinion very offensive. Take your bleeding heart to Yemen and see how that works out for you.
You stupid Mike, you law breaker are the threat to all human being; actually you people are the terrorist who has no eyes to see the reason and opinion of law, and justify a criminal action; you are blind fool not to see its long term consequences due to your ignorance!
So if I understand you correctly, targeting and killing American's is ok, but Targeting and killing America's enemy's is not? See it's that logic that probably got you in trouble in the first place.
We've heard it so many times, yet the end result is the same, if they are peace loving and all, then why do they continue the cycle of hatred?? Is it beyond their manhood to say, "enough". Personally, I think it is. The views expressed here are myopic, one sided and voiced by those that the nearest terror threat is if the fridge doesn't have milk in it this morning.
Way over-due.....Bye bye J/O
For all the bleeding hearts, you could have gone over to Yemen, asked him please to come back to the US to get tried for treason, live in your home, and then you could have paid for his keep in nice tidy clean prison with three square meals every day. You could pay for his cable TV and his vitamins and play basketball with him everyday during his outing. Then for entertainment you could both watch the scenes from the Fort Hood massacre and watch 911 tapes for more fun. What is all this crap about saying we shouldn't have killed someone willingly promoting our deaths? Take a valium people!
Live with the Rats – DIE with the Rats.
Mary, I am so glad you're opinion doesn't count for zip.
Remember 'Blackhawk Down"? Would you rather we send hundreds of troops in to capture him, take 20% losses in our troop and kill hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians in the process?
A drone strike is quick, clean and safe. Like a laser scalpel.
Mary, shut the heck up.
What a stupid sentiment, Al Qaeda is at war with the US and is also at war with Yemen. A member of Al Qaeda is an enemy where ever he is, if it's a house in Pakistan, a house in Yemen or a hut in Somalia. We don't wait for them to come out on the battlefield, they don't fight that way. We don't worry about international law, they don't observe international law or even have a country of their own! The idea that we shouldn't go after them wherever they hide means that you are allowing them sanctuary. Any country that harbors these types of people has to accept that the US is going to get them. IF those countries don't like it, tell them to stop providing refuge! If they can't control their borders or keep them out, who cares if they protest anyway? Stop being stupid about this, Al Qaeda deserves nothing from us except a quick death wherever and whenever. You don't offer them a civilian trial, they have no rights as American citizens, once they are traitors. To think any other way about this makes no sense, for who? For What?
Stupid you are! We are not worry about some terrorist being killed, but worry about that a president is taking authority to kill; it is about the fight of our freedom and democracy such action can lead a president to misuse his authority! if the law is misused by such mighty power people's freedom can be put at risk. It can travelled on a twisted road and innocent and powerless people might be tortured and get killed!
USA: Do as we say not as we do.
I actually do not care whether it was legal or illegal, and found all this theological discussion rather
empty handed. Most opponents of the killing insist that it was illegal because the guy was technically
a US citizen. According to them It sounds like it is absolutely legal to kill people in such a manner
as long as (i) they are not US citizens and (ii) it is done abroad. I feel that this is rubbish and even
engaging into this argument is waste of time.
That is not the point.
What I do feel that al-Alwaki was a kind of "public relationship kill", that is, the guy did not like the
United States and was talking about it all the time, perhaps with passion and inspiration for the
fellow muslims. But other than talking he did NOTHING else: he is merely a "comical Ali" for
al-Qaeda.
Now in the US his killing is elevated to a major national success in war on terror. What is the purpose
of doing that? Perhaps preparing American public to believe that war is won and all evil people are dead
(guess, killing al-Zavahiri would be the last prize), so "mission accomplished" and it is time to withdraw
from Iraq/Afghanistan? In reality both Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns are straight failures because
it is clear that upon US withdrawal the regimes established there will quickly fall and change into religious
madness nowhere close to what US has hoped for (perhaps back to straight Taliban again in Afghanistan).
So what are these killings for? To convince American people that these meaningless wars were not
a plain waste or what?
Nobody is opposing the killing of terrorist. We are opposing the monopoly on the authority without letting law to speak about it; its verdict. We must not be impatience with the law. Slow it maybe but steady and winning the race is impportant too! The killing should be though the legal process! If we don't like the law it should be change by due process, but not by individual opinion! So that in the future law can't be twisted and pose threat to anyone, suppose they don't like the leader of other party or any people and throw some evidence from any military personnel and without due process or proven guilty they can be targeted, like in many communist countries we used to hear. Today they might break rule for terrorists reason, tomorrow they might break rule for opponent and day after they might rule for any one who they don't like it; breaking low is just unacceptable!
And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here?
Because we have the capabilities to make arrests here and not there. They don't want our boots on the ground.
And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?
Because it was a military operation against an enemy combatant. The president is the commander and chief of the military. Governors are not.
I guess you never saw a wanted poster.
Garbage. We said from the very beginning we would go anywhere the war on terror took us. last week it took us to Yemen. We are at war against Al Queida, this guy was part of that organization. I have to question the Authors favoring the side of criminals and terrorists over the US ability to go and get them dead or alive like we always have.
Stupid to take side of the authority against the law who speaks for all, for rich or poor, for friends or foes, for ours or for others! We rely on law rather than on authority, a monster who can get out of control if the law wouldn't cage him!
When People said– Obama is a liar, they were right! He has gone against every thing he said, and without feeling shame! His first lecture was to close Gitmo Prison to spend war money on our streets, but look what we found is the wars he criticized are still on and it is on his presidency, but he blames two wars of Bush for the economic problem, then why can't he stop it, because he lacks leadership! He knows only to blame to get vote. People supported him overwhelmingly for his agenda why couldn't he do it when we gave him chance to do it? Why he couldn't dismiss the wars if it is killing our economy? One day he will come out and say something I will do it and next day he will come out and say that was wrong; Isn't that flip- flop? Doing wrong without knowing is better than doing wrong knowing that that is wrong. He is killing people knowing the rule that that action is wrong, and trying to misuse his lawyership to twist the law; that is very wrong!
Americans have become international liars and murderers – weopons of mass destruction that never were – killing people left rigth and centre -above the law like Chuck Norris and the rest!!!!! Heck, why have courts in the first place? – if certain persons may pass the death penalty at will – without a trial? Why not just do away with the courts and go ahead – distort the truth and kill at will – THE NEW AMERICAN WAY
If we quit letting the attornies of this country run everything we do, we would have had a better life all around, starting years ago. Yes there is a legal process but the more we follow the legal process in all aspects of our lives, the more attornies slither through the cracks to find a way around the laws. that is one of the reasons we are in a position not to reduce government. Everytime a new law is implemented in the corporate world or private citizen world, there is a swamp of attornies trying to find a way around it and in turn another law is passed to patch the hole then another is passed to patch that hole etc. etc. over and over and over. The rules of war an/or conflict have no boundries if there are weasels hiding in other places so they don't break a nail or get dirty. The Al-Queda weasels should be hunted down and slaughtered. they are predators and have pledged to kill everyone and anyone that gets in their way or does not agree with their stoneage beliefs.........................
So it will be your wish to change the law, right? In decision like killing you don't want to follow the law, right like a killers' wish? Why do we need prison then? why don't you go to live wilderness where you can get killed by some animal, or you will kill any one like animal. A civilized society can never imagine to live without law; it is just the aggressiveness of party in power whoever it is to deteriorate the law when while they whine about it when they were seeking power to fool the entire country and people. How stupid to manipulate the law before it is changed by the due process!
You speak as if this was a civil court action or an action against a litter bug. We are not talking about a civil law suit, we are talking about predators within everyones society. We have these dregs of society that have declared war against a society, religious beliefs, lifestyles, who the heck made them the hall monitors of the world. If you are a predator then you threaten me and everyone around me. These people have taken upon themselves to break the law of human nature and law of the land for their own beliefs and there is no compromise. If we felt that roaches have the right to feed on trash and invade our homes then we would be overrun with them, more than we are now. These peoople feed on the weakness and vulnerability of others within their own society including childern. I say again they are predators and predators lose the right on the planet.
1. Awlaki was part of the command, control, recruitment, and propaganda infrastructure of Al Queda.
2. Al Queda commands guerilla forces engaged in armed conflict with the United States and its allies around the world.
3. Al Queda violates the rules of war by a) deploying small infantry units in attacks against civilian targets and b) not wearing uniforms or flying flags while conducting military operations.
4. He was a legal target. Al Queda is an organization of war criminals.
I misspoke, I was not reenrifg to Americanizations or remakes of anime. I was reenrifg to anime in general, and the way it is perceived in North America.I love the Hellsing manga and anime series and saw of Hellsing Ultimate but it's basically like taking the first 3 episodes and making them into a 60 minute OVA. I was afraid that NGE was like that but have been assured that it's not.I can only hope that Berserk will remain untouched because I'd love to make a live-action trilogy in the future. 20 years or so from now
uh, he advocated killing innocent civilians and was a recruiter for a dangerous organization. His actions were immoral. Killing a bad man to save the lives of many is not immoral.
But oh so much fun!
Mary O'connel writes about lawlessness by the Unites States and our targeted drone strikes as though we are targeting innocent civilians but knows wholeheartedly that this is not the case. We are in an armed conflict, and it's unfortunate that you don't believe we are...you are wanting to go back to a pre-9/11 world. In the post 9/11 world we are in an armed conflict around the world and here at home. You bring up idiotic comparisons to Governors and Presidents as well as immature rhetoric about how U.S. citizens do not have due process. The terrorists they killed are U.S. citizens that ideologically have become enemies of this country and have renounced their citizenship except in saving their lives and making a mockery of the very law you so highly advocate. Grow up and get real. You are sounding like a politician.
President Obama is doing what he must do to protect innocent lives. Real innocent lives. All it takes is one missed opportunity and look how much damage Osama did with that opportunity. That's why I say to Mary that she needs to grow up and stop the childish fingerpointing.
Awlaki would have killed everyone of you reading this, without hesitation, and without regret. Thank god our military has a backbone.
People seem to go merrily along their way saying this was wrong, or immoral of the mean ole USA to treat one of their citizens this way. Guess what, he didn't want to be a citizen anylonger and wanted to do the good citizens of this nation harm, oh, and I guess had he kept his citizenship, this would some how prevent a visit from a drone.
Remember, his goal was to kill all or any Americans, even the ones that think this is a travesty, the only travesty would be when he gets YOU in his sights because we let him. He renounced the love of the nation and pledged harm, I see no need to consider him an American any further. It's easy to slander and denigrate efforts to bring down these beasts when you are not an immediate target and your dogma and ideology is paramount instead of the safety of the nation.
Nobody disputes what he was or what he may have intended to do. Nevertheless America broke inernational law and committed illegal acts:
[1] In Pakistan OBL
[2] In Yemen
[3] In Libya – unarmed civilians droned in the hopes you MIGHT hit Gahafi [and he's STILL free.
It's getting to be a nasty habit with you lot.
And you , who wet your knickers because the terrorists might attack you , have deliberately left 7 Million Israelis open to
attack from 450 Million arabs without batting an eyelid? You are truly disgusting and easily the most vicious people on the planet.
your definately wrong on many counts first off the US has been assisting countries fight terrorism for years now, we are involved with helping the Phillipnes fight an Al qaeda offshoot in Abu Sayaf, we are helping the Somali government fight Al Qaeda terrorists in their country, we have an understanding with Pakistan to fly drones over their country, we are in Yemen with the permission of the Yemeni Government to fight terrorists on their soil. Its not like the drone just swooped up out of nowhere and put a hellfire up Al Awlakis rear end. Those drones are in Yemeni air space with the permission of the Yemeni Government to fight AL Qeda in the Arabian Penninsula. Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda and was being groomed to take command of the group before he was killed so yes his killing was legal by any definition as US Miranda rights and laws do not extend to any country a US citizen happens to be on. In fact we gave him the right to be silent when we shot a rocket up his pooper and now whatever invisible man he prays to can be his attorney.
Was a unmoral death? YES!!! WAS TOO FAST!!!
"The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mary Ellen O’Connell".
The above is the only logic and truth found in this article.
Mary Ellen O’Connell, EFF YOU! You need to get back on your med. I hope the next terrorist bent on killing Americans come for you first.
This POS gave up his American citizenship the moment he took up arms against America. This is not a criminal case to tried in a regular court. I'm glad your voice has ZERO affect on our lives or influence our policy. Get real lady.
She's right in everything she says. Americans can rarely face criticism. You are so full of yourselves. You are wrong. – get over yourself.
can you see itts over america is not safe in every thing you do and practice will be attacked you will turn and bite your tail, there is no solution do you want to know why? look at your history the only way to stop this is disown your beliefs see?? they are doing a great job
Americans have to be the biggest hypocrites on the planet!
You blasted Israel for a "targetted assasination" But you have a hundred and one excuses why your murders are A-OK? Whatever your self-serving justification is YOU ARE WRONG.
You piously blasted S america/Mexico and Colombia because they have drugs but you OWE ALL three of them a total of $47.6 Billion
For 50 years, Israel has kept a lid on the arab world which guaranteed your greed foil was satisfied – now you want to throw them under the bus!
Like I said – cheap, disloyal, hypocrites. What happened to the real Americans? [Some of you ARE here, Bless you. Unfortunately there aren't many decent ones left.
Samir Khan and Anwar al Awlaki launched war at us by sending the Muhtallab (underwear bomber), Shahzad (Times Square bomber), Nidal Hassan (Texas shooting and killings of American soldiers) and who knows what else. We returned fire; it's legal and as moral as possible. The Obama Administration could just lie down and allow us here to die; that would truly be moral, but the world would be ruled by people like Khan and Awlaki because they would leave no one alive if they get their way.
Samir Khan and Anwar al Awlaki launched war at us by sending the Muhtallab (underwear bomber), Shahzad (Times Square bomber), Nidal Hassan (Texas shooting and killings of American soldiers), exploding printer cartridges
and who knows what else. We returned fire; it's legal and as moral as possible. The Obama Administration could just lie down and allow us here to die; that would truly be moral, but the world would be ruled by people like Khan and Awlaki because they would leave no one alive if they get their way.
Well, this lady obviously doesn't know much about conflict, I quote:
"It engaged in combat in Iraq from 2003-2011."
There are still people there. Still getting shot at. They are my friends, and they are still there getting blown up and shot at. So you tell me Mary Ellen O’Connell, is that not combat???
i hear you, she is seriously out of touch with both the current situation today and the reality of war. The US is fighting conflicts today all over the world whether its the Phillipines, Somalia, Yemen, AFG, Iraq, Lybia, etc. and if you have a chance to get rid of a terrorist you should take it because you may not get another chance. Any idiot who thinks he should have been arrested needs to get their head examined. its not like he has a zip code and address that he can be found in. he was tracked down with information from Intel sources which is time sensitive. no way are you going to chopper anyone to those remote areas full of terrorists to hand him an arrest warrant and then read him his miranda rights. lol!!! some people just dont get it and probably never will
". . . and several other people were killed on September 30 by a “barrage” of missiles launched from drones operated by the CIA." where is the justification for the killing of the "others"? Were they American traitors? Were they terrorists? or were they just unfortunate in being near the intended target? We don't know, do we. perhaps they were citizens of Yemen. How do we justify "collateral damage" in a country, like Paki9stan and Yemen, with which we are not at war?
First off since the story doesnt say what they were lets not right off the bat believe they were simple farmers on a picnic. Justification? simple.. collateral damage! we do not have to be at war with Yemen to assist them with their war on terror. we are operating on their soil with their permission, any collateral damage resulting from the death of any terrorist regardless of how sad it is im sure they have procedures for that. All these things are worked out before any permission is given to conduct operations. and by the way you cant blame the drone if a terrorist is hiding behind the skirt of a human shield when killing time comes civilian casualties are always avoided as much as possible but sometimes its going to happen.
TO OPEN EYES 1ST : You speak as if this was a civil court action or an action against a litter bug. We are not talking about a civil law suit, we are talking about predators within everyones society. We have these dregs of society that have declared war against a society, religious beliefs, lifestyles, who the heck made them the hall monitors of the world. If you are a predator then you threaten me and everyone around me. These people have taken upon themselves to break the law of human nature and law of the land for their own beliefs and there is no compromise. If we felt that roaches have the right to feed on trash and invade our homes then we would be overrun with them, more than we are now. These peoople feed on the weakness and vulnerability of others within their own society including childern. I say again they are predators and predators lose the right on the planet.
I guess that killing Jesse James, the Daltons, Bonnie and Clyde were also bad...
If it was that bad.. Why staying here? Why not going to Afghanistan, Yemen and Indonesia to capture the bad guys and show us how to do it the right way? Knocking at their door and asking them to surrender? Talking is cheap.. especially when people don't have anything to lose.
Wasn't the killing of Bin Laden performed in a country which is not in a state of war with the US?
Wherever they killed him, the good news is that he is DEAD!
The ends doesn't justify the means. Why do we even need to debate this? In this case, the possibility of collateral damage is enormous, since there is but one legitimate target. Other persons found near him are not legitimate targets and committing acts of war in a country that we are not at war with will only lead to further trouble of the exact kind that we are trying to end!!!
TARE its already been explained!!! we are operating in that country with the permission of the Yemeni Government! that drone didnt just show up there we are flying those drones in Yemeni Air Space with the permission of their government to hunt down Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninnsula. Collateral damage is already worked out between the governments before any permission is given to conduct operations. educate yourself on these matters before you post dumb statements.
In many cases ends do justify means. For example the when the end is to prevent crime, we may execute the criminal. Execution is horrible always, but it could save lives, so we justify the means (killing the criminal) by the end (prevention.)
Likewise in war, in WWII we killed millions of German civilians. This is horrible and immoral, but the end was to defeat Nazism and killing civilians was part of the necessary means towards that goal.
Mary Ellen....so naive. Freedom isn't free. You have an extreme lack of understanding today's world. We are at war with non-state actors that require asymetrical strategy. Jump out of your nice, legal jurisprudence mindset and think like a 21st century intellectual, and you just might understand the cause and justification of the elimination of this terrorist.
If we continue to do that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IS AND THEM" who can use the same argument against us. READ AGAIN " Where no such intense armed fighting is occurring, killing is only justified to save a human life immediately. Peacetime human rights and criminal law prevail. The actual facts of fighting determine which rules govern killing. The president has no override authority.Nor should he want it. These rules apply globally. The U.S. should not weaken them, providing a basis for Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan to declare war against opponents, killing them anywhere with missiles and bombs.
And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here? And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?
If we continue to do that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM" who can use the same argument against us. READ AGAIN " Where no such intense armed fighting is occurring, killing is only justified to save a human life immediately. Peacetime human rights and criminal law prevail. The actual facts of fighting determine which rules govern killing. The president has no override authority.Nor should he want it. These rules apply globally. The U.S. should not weaken them, providing a basis for Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan to declare war against opponents, killing them anywhere with missiles and bombs.
And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here? And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?
The author of this piece of crap waste of bandwidth is an idiot
Nuke the entire Middle East...problem solved.
Well, I think we should start with nuking Mecca.
Mary Ellen, you said: "The president and his officials know that it is unlawful to kill persons in this way outside of armed conflict hostilities. So they have been asserting the U.S. is in a worldwide “armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces. This assertion defies common sense.'
As far as I am concerned "we ARE in armed conflict with al Qaeda", and this assertion does not defy my common sense!
What about many people such as myself, who think that we are in global conflict with al Qaeda?
Secondly, within United States, if we can target the suspect, then we also arrest him. This is not the case with Bin Laden, or Awalaki. Your analogy is a "straw man" logical fallacy.
Similarly the analogy with targeted killing is faulty, since unlike killing of enemies, torture, is not allowed under the United States law.
Today's war do not necessarily involve fighting in a local territory. It is global just like the Internet.
I think that targeted killing is morally superior to war: If we managed to kill Hitler and his inner circle in 1938, we might have prevented WWII and the death of 60 million people.
This same logic applies today, to both United States and Israel today. Killing a few leaders seems to be morally superior to and all-out war and occupation that would be needed for arresting the terrorist.
OMG how can you say that we are not in conflict with Yemen and they are ot responsible for any attacks? USS Cole ring a bell?? It was parked in Yemen and attacked by yemeni al quaida members.. and this guy was buddy buddy with the yemeni president! A known terroist and traitor to the united states.. they knew we wanted him and they helped hide him.. just like the saudi's hid Bin Laden... we knew it and stopped playing their games and went in and got the job done.. finally!
Sometimes in matters of safety you cannot be 100% "politically correct".... worrying about political correct ness is why we have been over there for so long!
I am extremely critical about many things regarding how President Obama handles the Presidency. However, this is not one of them. I applaud his use of drone strikes against our enemies. Awlaki was Al Queda's top recruiter! What is the problem? Sorry folks, but this isn't the Cold War. Our enemies don't wear uniforms, and our enemies target civilians in office buildings. So, that's what we have today, and I think Barack Obama had a "come to logic" moment upon seeing the intel when he came to office. However, the American Left and the Hollywood Left, seem to be living in denial about what we are up against, and what the stakes are.
Hi my friend! I wish to say that this post is amazing, nice written and include almost all vital infos. I'd like to peer more posts like this .
Hi, Neat post. There is an issue together with your web site in internet explorer, may check this? IE still is the marketplace chief and a large element of other folks will leave out your fantastic writing because of this problem.