Abdulmutallab: The Fort Hood jihadi’s spiritual advisor told me to blow up the plane
posted at 10:02 pm on February 4, 2010 by Allahpundit
You remember our friend Mr. Awlaki, I presume. This makes four jihadist killers he may have had personal contact with: Abdulmutallab, Nidal Hasan, and the two 9/11 hijackers who attended his mosque.
Just one problem with taking him out. He’s an American citizen.
Al-Awalki appears to be in a leadership role when it comes to directing terrorist operations and selecting targets for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a law enforcement source told CBS News investigative producer Pat Milton. He had previously been viewed as a behind-the-scenes supporter, providing religious guidance and justification for attacks. He is now said to be an active operations player picking targets and suggesting schemes.
According to the source, Abdulmutallab told investigators he obtained the powerful explosives PETN and TATP in Yemen and was left on his own to decide when and how to bring down a plane, Milton reports. Abdulmutallab has apparently disclosed to investigators he picked Northwest Flight 253 because of its availability.
The source said Abdulmutallab told investigators he was guided by al-Awalki to detonate the bomb over U.S. soil, unlike the failed British bomber plot in 2006 when the bombers were instructed to detonate bombs on airliners over the ocean on the way to the U.S. so that there would be no evidence left behind.
U.S. intelligence already tried to kill him in Yemen via drone attack. How did they get permission to target an American citizen with some very un-Gitmo-esque treatment? They went to the top:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said in each case a decision to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen must get special permission.
“We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”…
Mr. Blair responded that he would rather not discuss the details of this criteria in open session, but he assured: “We don’t target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans or has resulted in it.”
He added, “The reason I went this far in open session is I just don’t want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless about endangering … lives at all. But we especially are not careless about endangering American lives, as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country and I think we ought to go into details in closed session.”
I’m blogging this just because I’m curious about how readers balance the idea of The One — or any president for that matter — enjoying the power to assassinate U.S. citizens with the fact that Awlaki’s evidently an extremely dangerous jihadist filthbag with murderous designs on U.S. citizens himself. The obvious analogy is to a soldier who switches sides on the battlefield (a la Nidal Hasan), but that doesn’t quite work: Killing a man who’s firing on you is more a question of self-defense, which virtually no one objects to, than a matter of the laws of war. What about a guy like Awlaki who’s plotting to harm Americans but never puts himself in a position where he’s actually pointing a gun at someone? Is it okay to target him for plotting on foreign soil? (The idea of a drone strike against a homegrown terrorist plotting on U.S. soil is unthinkable, obviously.) Or should there be some sort of extra prophylactic procedural measure in the case of U.S. citizens to guarantee that they’re not wrongly targeted? One possibility would be to go to some sort of court and present evidence that the suspect has effectively revoked his citizenship by levying war against the U.S., but that would cause problems potentially in cases where the feds have to quickly. Just interested to know what readers think.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Sniper?
davidk on February 4, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Abby SkyLab needs a new spirtual leader!
After hes executed!!
canopfor on February 4, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Frag him, and bag him.
Realist on February 4, 2010 at 10:06 PM
So, convict the jerk of treason, take away his citizenship then take him out. Wouldn’t that work?
mrsmwp on February 4, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Simple, have the British SAS abduct the scumbag and beat him to death.
chicagojedi on February 4, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Now, that’s just not right. You are only talking about US citizens outside of the US. There is no US law outside of the US. If a US citizen is working for the enemy, then he has long been a legitimate target of our spy agencies and defense establishment.
People act as if this stuff has never happened before.
neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Sounds like Obama to me.
Awlaki may be considered an American, but in reality he is not by his actions. Kill him. Preferably with a drone missile with some Bible reference inscribed with dried pig’s blood.
SouthernGent on February 4, 2010 at 10:09 PM
Just have the Brits or a Pakistani take him out them.
Vigilante on February 4, 2010 at 10:10 PM
So was Dillinger.
fogw on February 4, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Now, that’s just not right. You are only talking about US citizens outside of the US. There is no US law outside of the US. If a US citizen is working for the enemy, then he has long been a legitimate target of our spy agencies and defense establishment.
People act as if this stuff has never happened before.
P.S. Allah, it is very unfair for you to put words, that kick off moderation, into your own post without blanking them out/altering them the same way that we have to.
neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 10:10 PM
007 would have no qualms taking out this piece of garbage
John the Libertarian on February 4, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Termination
ICBM on February 4, 2010 at 10:13 PM
I’m blog
Why, I was pondering these questions myself as I sat in a cave in the Northern Waziristan region of Pakistan last weekend. The family and I go there occasionally to kick back, relax, and conspire in the plotting of attacks against the United States…
helps relax the muscles and sooth the mind.
amerpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:13 PM
He also said there are criteria that must be met to authorize the killing of a U.S. citizen that include “whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved.”
===========================================================
I picture Obama kicking the can,down the road!!!
canopfor on February 4, 2010 at 10:13 PM
That Detroit imam ‘resisted arrest’ and was shot 20 times. To be fair, they claim he shot first.
Awlaki was allowed to leave the US even though he was under investigation for violating the Mann Act. (wiki)
GnuBreed on February 4, 2010 at 10:15 PM
So? Adam Gadahn is an American citizen too.
SoulGlo on February 4, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Carry and drop a carload of those laminated miranda rights cards from a drone, like the one’s my ex the cop always kept in his hat, and then bomb the crap out of him.
Knucklehead on February 4, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Kill the bastard then bring his remains back so Zero can bow to them.
Maquis on February 4, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Kill ‘em all, Let allah sort them out, (the other Allah).
SHARPTOOTH on February 4, 2010 at 10:16 PM
I don’t think you can revoke your citizenship, or your rights. There are many precedents for homegrown threats actively plotting against the US where they didn’t revoke their citizenship.
I mean, why not just bomb the Unibomber’s shack?
People have done unbelievably despicable things, even treasonous things, and that still doesn’t allow for a citizenship to be revoked. The courts are very clear on that.
Do I care if we take this SOB out with a drone in Yemen? Not one bit.
jimmy the notable on February 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Put the subpoena on the business end of a Predator drone.
“The suspect died while resisting arrest.”
Everybody wins!
Bruno Strozek on February 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Try him for treason, and hang him high.
onlineanalyst on February 4, 2010 at 10:18 PM
You make it sound as though Obama is well within his right to assassinate any citizen on vacation outside the US.
Esthier on February 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM
[..] against all enemies foreign and domestic [...]
problem fixed.
oaths.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM
You make it sound as though Obama is well within his right to take out any citizen on vacation outside the US.
Esthier on February 4, 2010 at 10:19 PM
As an American citizen, I’d be more than happy to pull the trigger.
txag92 on February 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM
Flip the Eunuchbomber, stitch his underwear back together, pack in some PETN, and send him after al-Awalki.
2 birds. 1 stone.
Joe Caps on February 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM
You can ALL go to hell~do not collect your 72 virgins, and for you, eunich bomber, no dicky. For you, Ft Hood~you can’t run from the toilet brush.
HornetSting on February 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM
You can lose your citizenship involuntarily. Especially if you’re a naturalized citizen.
You can also lose your citizenship for treason or fighting for a foreign army currently engaged in conflict against the United States.
Specifically, Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a loss of citizenship:
Via State Dept.
amerpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Of course the US government can kill citizens that wage war against the country. Remember the CIVIL WAR?
Joe Caps on February 4, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Yeah, it’s okay to kill him. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
trapeze on February 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM
How hard is it to revoke the citizenship of a guy who has declared war against the country?
Because that would kind of solve the problem of targeting an American citizen for assassination.
BadgerHawk on February 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM
There are but the rules for doing so are uber top secret and won’t get published on the front page. This isn’t the first time Americans have turned traitor and forfeited their right to life.
Bishop on February 4, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Attach a message to the bullet that hits him: “Here is your sendoff to 72 P*ssies Galore.”
onlineanalyst on February 4, 2010 at 10:24 PM
So, who kidnapped AP and replaced him with a leftist nutjob who thinks we can set up a “court” to give “permission” to make Predator strikes.
Wow.
Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter on February 4, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Then you get into the fishy territory of whether he’s “enlisted” in anything, state-wise. Terrorism has always been a gray area on this subject.
And as far as #7 goes, to be convicted of treason, one must stand trial.
Would I say its reasonable (or at least, arguable in a court of law) to assume that by engaging in recruitment of terrorist attackers you could be committing #3…sure, and I don’t know anyone outside of the ACLU who would have a problem taking this guy out.
I’m just saying..the legality of it seems a little shaky.
jimmy the notable on February 4, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Aw, Shep Smith will be a puddle of tears tonight. Sucking his thumb and muttering to himself like Andy Sullivan leering at Sarah Palin’s Facebook page.
Sheppy was terrified to admit Hasan’s name is what it is.
Branch Rickey on February 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM
come on AP, you’re brighter than this.A US citizen does not an assassin8ion make.
Every officer of the United States–military or political is sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The problem here isn’t the presidential power to use lethal force against this individual, it’s in the designation of what is an enemy of the United States. You need to work your way back to the fountainhead. If Awlaki has now been linked to two plots, one that claimed 14 lives/32 wounded, and a second that was a near miss of 200+, then it is reasonable to designate that individual as an enemy of the United States. Awlaki has apparently already done so, we just need to catch up. So, once the designation of this guys status is made, then his final disposition is simply determined. Ignoring the sticky enemy designation only hamstrings the president into a stickier moral issue (threatening more Americans) than does delivering him outright.
Ethics, morals and oaths. Let’s get up to speed.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM
How can he be a terrorist? He doesn’t look like a tea partier.
ronsfi on February 4, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Anyone who has a problem w/actively trying to get this MF should remember that the gubmint laid in wait to ambush and kill John Dillenger, Bonnie and Clyde, and I think Pretty Boy Floyd.
Arnold says find em and kill em post haste.
arnold ziffel on February 4, 2010 at 10:29 PM
jeepers creepers AP, are you baiting?
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:29 PM
He chose his path. He chose to attack the country of his birth, and spurned it, for a life among terrorists. I won’t lose sleep over this.
He’s guilty by complicity. Charles Manson didn’t literally have blood on his hands, but he still went to prison for his complicity. Awalki doesn’t deserve the symapthy of the American people he wants to kill.
capejasmine on February 4, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Chris Matthews would agree.
onlineanalyst on February 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Or how about taking an oath to a political wing of a foreign organization? Most major terror groups are directly funded by countries, no? Like Iran.
He could also be convicted in absentia.
Either way, I say take him out if he’s a threat. You won’t find many innocent people caught up innocently in foreign lands conspiring to attack the United States.
Grandma McDougall doesn’t often find herself accidentally helping or encouraging Islamic extremists to plot attacks.
amerpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Just invite the son of a bit%h to a Pit Pork BBQ…
… then follow the rules of Gen. “Black Jack” Pershing.
Take pictures, put them on the Internet like they like to do, and one of many problems are solved.
What…?
No one wants to win this fuc%ing war?
Seven Percent Solution on February 4, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Seven Percent Solution on February 4, 2010 at 10:31 PM
dude, my comment went into AP’s hopper of doom but Black Jack made the cut? WTFO?
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:32 PM
I didn’t say you needed a court to make Predator strikes. I said a court might help in a case when you’re targeting an American citizen. How far would you go? Firing missiles at guys in apartment buildings in Detroit because there’s some sort of intel suggesting they’re plotting something?
Allahpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Solutions.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:33 PM
So was that guy who drove a truck into Oklahoma a few years back…
Seven Percent Solution on February 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Good point about the financial backing. Like I said, I have no problem whatsoever taking him out. I’m play a little devil’s advocate for AP on the actual legality of taking out an American citizen. Is he really worth a drone though? Those are expensive. Can’t we just drop one of those cash-for-clunkers cars on his hut?
jimmy the notable on February 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM
They keep trying to kill Adam Gadahn and failing. I see no different on that and no tear would be shed.
Any US citizen who is not military and with in 1 mile of an terrorist strong hold they are target practice not human shields. Their presence in the location revokes any citizen rights.
Could the leader could be considered a human shield if they are US jihads to protect the camp and avoid air strike, I would say no.
tjexcite on February 4, 2010 at 10:35 PM
If the court is going to be involved then it should be in the a priori designation of what constitutes an enemy combatant. For example, involved in the planning, execution, supply, training etc of any terrorist incident. Awlaki would fall into that designation. Hence, could be considered “enemy” and OK for whatever measures needed. However, a court should not be involved on the fly as a “Hey, judge, we got this guy, he’s an American, and he’s baaad.” can we thwack him?”"
Leadership and clarity at the top would make this designation but we have a clusterfark instead.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Tactical nuke?
BKeyser on February 4, 2010 at 10:37 PM
Rules of Engagement
Exist for a reason.
Or don’t exist for a reason as well. If we’re asking this question, then B+ and the Judge Holder are making this up in between free throws.
Jockstraps.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:39 PM
So he was sacrosanct like a Mosque?
That you have to ask such a question (about a worthless dirtbag that has already killed your people) that is so convoluted and sensitively addressed goes miles in explaining why the west is nine years down a dirt road, lost, scratching its as$ and wondering whats next.
BL@KBIRD on February 4, 2010 at 10:41 PM
He’s now part of the command and control of Al Qaeda, therefore a valid military target. Personally I’d like to capture him for the intel, but making him room temperature is fine.
McBaine on February 4, 2010 at 10:41 PM
No, some common sense is required here.
If there’s a guy plotting from an American city, you send in federal agents to arrest him.
The killing option would obviously be left for scenarios where we can’t readily reach and stop the suspect, and a timely apprehension/neutralization is required.
It’s quite a jump to go from killing an American citizen who’s a terrorist leader in Yemen to firing a missile into an apartment in Detroit.
amerpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:42 PM
dude, my comment went into AP’s hopper of doom but Black Jack made the cut? WTFO?
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:32 PM
ted c: Sounds like Black Jack Shalack!!
======================================
http://www.elsaelsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/jacques-3.JPG
canopfor on February 4, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Just like the CIA engages in paramilitary operations in the Middle East, but you don’t find CIA agents running through the streets of Detroit with AK-47s.
amerpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:45 PM
I think the POTUS is already doing due diligence on this. By forcing the decision to the top, then its reasonable to think that these guys are mulling over the “enemy of the United States” or not. If yes, then each of those muldoons oaths of office swear them to God that they will protect the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. If not, then they may choose to just bump the guy–make him move, throw him off his game, and check his tax return or something.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:46 PM
I didn’t say you needed a court to make Predator strikes. I said a court might help in a case when you’re targeting an American citizen. How far would you go? Firing missiles at guys in apartment buildings in Detroit because there’s some sort of intel suggesting they’re plotting something?
Allahpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Allahpundit: Remember this!!!!!!:)
===========================================================
===========================================================
===========================================================
Police Drop Bomb
on Radicals’ Home in Philadelphia
————————————
WILLIAM K. STEVENS / New York Times 14may85
50 to 60 Other Houses in Area Burn
2 People Known to Have Survived Siege
——————————————
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm
canopfor on February 4, 2010 at 10:48 PM
No, of course not. That’d violate the Posse Comitatus Act. That is, unless police helos are armed with Hellfires (which they’re not). A plotter may, or may not be, an executor of a plan. There’s more chess pieces on the board than the queen.
Moves.
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Good point about PCA.
amerpundit on February 4, 2010 at 10:50 PM
You betcha. This guy is firing jihadis at us.
unclesmrgol on February 4, 2010 at 10:51 PM
I thought that crr6, aka Julio, orated so broadly the other night about how self-defense was a “universally recognized right” and that, everyone knows, that its okay to just kill someone who threatens you with force. If that’s true, then maybe he could fill you in on some of the answers to your questions AP…..
He’s quite the logician./
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 10:56 PM
oh i forgot the obligatory *double eye roll*
ted c on February 4, 2010 at 11:01 PM
If you had to you should. But that’s a little unlikely. You use drones where your filthy feet might otherwise stain sacred Muslim lands. At home your should be able to handle it with small arms, sure, be prepared to go down on one knee if some wag from Dearborn suddenly flashes open a Qur’an but you should escape the use of missiles at home. Things will probably make more sense after their next impressive atrocity.
BL@KBIRD on February 4, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Run him over with a black SUV,…. oh wait.
Alden Pyle on February 4, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Sheesh. Let’s not get dramatic, queeny.
HornetSting on February 4, 2010 at 11:11 PM
I wonder if AP is amazed that a city police chief can order the storming of a hostage scene and ass@ssination of the US citizen hostage holder (assuming it is a US citizen)? You mean we have SWAT people who are trained to ass@ssinate US citizens on US soil? You lie!
neurosculptor on February 4, 2010 at 11:15 PM
This jerk was born in the US. He doesn’t look moronic like Gadahn. I sure would like to read about his parents, and how all this happened.
PattyJ on February 4, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Am I the only one who sees a major disconnect between this administration’s ordering the execution of Awlaki and reading Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights?
bgoldman on February 4, 2010 at 11:31 PM
“Arnold Ziffel’s” earlier comment slightly parallels what I was thinking:
Give Abdunutallajob an empty Thompson machine gun and ask him if he wants to pretend to be Bonnie or Clyde.
viking01 on February 4, 2010 at 11:58 PM
Screw him. At the least, he’s a traitor and at most a murder inciting terrorist. Kill him any way possible.
Big John on February 5, 2010 at 12:11 AM
AP- you’re overthinking this dirtbag’s fate.
You kill traitorous, homegrown jihadis wherever they perch, then figure out if you were “allowed” to.
Such legaloid hairsplitting is the luxury of the survivors.
A terrorist, whatever his nationality, needs to be given a dirt nap, not an existential handwringing.
profitsbeard on February 5, 2010 at 12:50 AM
Some sort of court implies that the evidence be made public. In the KSM tribunal much of the evidence was confidential, but wasn’t even needed. He freely confessed and want’s to be a freaking martyr – for Allah’s (other one) sake oblige the man. This nonsense of expecting our intelligence people to protect us and demanding to know everything they do is beyond absurd. If we know our enemies know.
I guess I don’t really see the dilema here. Solid evidence exists that this guy is actively plotting attacks from overseas on American soil. Can you say enemy combatant? I knew you could. As someone else has said “…against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Don’t think his citizenship is a factor. Martyr/vaporize the little feller – post haste.
swede7 on February 5, 2010 at 12:55 AM
If they thought they could get away with it politically, I almost think this administration would be more likely to pardon Lynn Stewart, reinstate her law license, and allow her to go over to advise this guy on how to counsel potential jihadis without actually running afoul of any US laws.
eeyore on February 5, 2010 at 1:01 AM
His citizenship is irrelevant to his status as an enemy. Any person engaging in acts of war against the United States may be determined by the CIC or his designee to be an enemy and by the terms of the laws of war an enemy combatant. Enemy combatants are subject to the lawful use of force including lethal force if necessary to effect their capture.
US citizehship confers no special privileges on enemy terrorists who take it upon themselves to engage in acts of war and terrorism, sending their minions to do their dirty work as they scurry about the farthest and darkest corners of the world like cockroaches.
novaculus on February 5, 2010 at 1:27 AM
A declaration of war against Al Qaeda “and organizations sharing its doctrines and goals” would open the door for a charge of treason.
njcommuter on February 5, 2010 at 1:29 AM
Where is John Kerry with his “aerating villages” meme? Ah, ‘air-raiding‘ is okay.
Sergeant Tim on February 5, 2010 at 2:34 AM
Given the likelihood that UBL is either dead, dying, or totally out of his mind (Jihad against American global warming?), is it time to consider Aulaki the top terrorist active in the world today?
I figure this guy is no better than Benedict Arnold, and should be hanged for treason and sedition. That being said, I would rather he be made to stand trial for his actions, as he is an American citizen. Although his seemingly permanent residence outside the US and therefore outside the jurisdiction of most law enforcement makes it a military matter.
It is an interesting sticking point.
Sgt Steve on February 5, 2010 at 2:35 AM
Why get into this nuts and bolts about the citizenship of the terrorist? Why discriminate against Yemeni, Saudi, Gazan, Egyptian and other terrorists by reserving a rocket for them? What? We have an inequity in the treatment of terrorists and that must be modified at once. All terrorists, regardless of citizenship, ought to be killed. Is he less a terrorist because he was born in the U.S.? I’d say no. He does not regard U.S. citizenship, Constitution, or law else he’d not be sending bombers to create destruction over and in the U.S. So, before we get hit with a EEOC suit by Yemeni, Saudi, Gazan, Egyptian and other terrorists, regardless of citizenship, let’s kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.
SilentWatcher on February 5, 2010 at 7:31 AM
This fails on a couple of levels. Assuming an Islamic imam could be arrested in an Islamic country and extradited to the US for trial, (a long shot at best) Barry and Holder would give him a public forum circus trial costing millions.
Not to mention that according to our present CiC there is no “War on Terror”. It is an “Overseas Contingency Operation”, whatever the he[[ that means. Don’t think declaring an OCO on al Qaida would help much.
swede7 on February 5, 2010 at 8:03 AM
amerpundit:
“No, some common sense is required here.”
As with any government power, it is foolhardy to assume common sense will necessarily prevail. My own first instinct is to give Awalki the send off he deserves, but his is a pretty obvious case; there will be other more arguable, questionable, judgment calls to be made.
If it’s OK to kill Awalki with a predator drone, then it’s OK to assassinate him, whether he is holding court in Yemen — or walking down the street in NYC. Like it or not, as a citizen, he has the same Constitutional rights as everyone else does. That’s why granting the Prez the authority to declare him an enemy combatant is both a key war fighting power and a slippery slope, especially when the WOT will never come to an identifiable end.
Such an extraordinary power should be vested in the President alone, but as with any power, he should not be allowed to exercise it unchecked. He should be required to document that declaration. He should be required to inform the chairman and ranking members of the Senate and House Intel Committees. As C-i-C, I should think he would not need their concurrence, but such a protocol would inhibit a very real potential for abuses. Nor should he be required to submit his determinations to a court, no matter how it might be composed. Congress, not the judiciary, is charged with oversight of the Executive Branch. As we are seeing ever more clearly, overlawyering can be a deadly constraint.
JM Hanes on February 5, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Did we have these dots connected before undie bomber spilled the beans? We need better dot connectors.
Kissmygrits on February 5, 2010 at 9:35 AM
I’m not a lawyer so I won’t speculate on the legal issues.
Morally, I see no difference between an American plotting to kill Americans and anyone else plotting to kill Americans. If they can be captured quickly without endangering American civilians then that should be done. If killing them is faster and safer for civilian Americans then that should be done.
I would not risk an innocent American’s life for in any way for even one second in order to extend any sort of protection to anyone I know wants to kill them.
DamnCat on February 5, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Constructive question:
What did we do about Adam “Double Whopper” Gadahn?
Smartass comment:
The proper protocol is that whatever Bush would do is wrong, vile and an affront to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law and that whatever Obama does cannot be questioned because…well, who are we to question the wisdom of the Messiah; his ways are inscrutable but ultimately just.
Tongueboy on February 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Du-uh. It’s called “treason.” Those laws have been on the books since, literally, before this country was founded.
And the word “conspiracy” isn’t just mental illness; it is a CRIME. You don’t have to prove somebody pulled a trigger or planted a bomb, but only that he was involved in some way. And that is ridiculously easy to do.
As for the sniping suggestions. If he’s holed up with the enemy, go for it. If he’s not, then just throw a net over him like you would any other criminal suspect.
This ain’t brain surgery.
logis on February 5, 2010 at 10:25 AM
If he’s a natural born US citizen I don’t think you can take away his citizenship.
Tokyo Rose was a US citizen, but I don’t think it would have been a problem for the US to bomb the radio station she worked at.
This is a dicey area, I understand the concern about assassinating US citizens, but this is a war and the guy is a “soldier” (with apologies to all actual soldiers, just trying to work out an analogy) for the enemy. If a US citizen went and joined the Nazis, it would have been ok to bomb him even if he was sitting in the barracks. I don’t think you need to have him in the physical act of pointing a gun at you before taking action.
This is war, not a criminal action.
rbj on February 5, 2010 at 10:51 AM
In my view, Awlaki is complicit in a number of terrorist strikes against America, thereby abnegating his citizenship. He is a clear and present danger to the nation, therefore he’s fair game for capture or assassination.
RebeccaH on February 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM
I don’t know how to balance it but I think that it’s a mistake to give citizenship to people who are hostile to the US. It’s NOT true that just because somebody comes to America or desires American citizenship that it means that they love America or want to be an American. Most conservatives would rather die than admit that, but Mr. Awlaki is the proof.
aengus on February 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM
My view is that such scenarios must be dealt with on a one-off basis and don’t permit generalization. I personally feel that the executive branch is acting irresponsibly unless they either kill or capture Awlaki and Gadhan.
The only sop the administration should give to these guys out of respect for their citizenship is a very public declaration that: they must either immediately give themselves up in exchange for the opportunity to acquit themselves at trial in the USA; or else they will be hunted down and killed (if they can’t be easily captured).
John E. on February 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM
That’s a silly comment. Did you take a survey or something? I don’t know anyone would not admit that, much less rather die than admit it. Conservatives complain all the time about people who come here but do not want to assimilate into American culture.
DamnCat on February 5, 2010 at 11:27 AM
jimmy the notable on February 4, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Having an enemy that is stateless helps re the Gevena Conventions but in the case of a US citizen acting for a stateless enemy it would seem like a grey area. Unless you have a conviction I think there would also be issues with Allahpundit’s suggestion of a special court. How rare would it be to find a court that would issue a death sentence to someone who has not even been tried in abstentia? Now that this is all public I’m waiting for the left to start questioning The One’s executive powers to undertake such actions.
MajorKong on February 5, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Awlaki is engaged in conspiracy to commit murder. The fact that this is a criminal violation by an American does not mean he can only be arrested, any more than any other criminal can only be arrested. They can also be killed, when that is the only way to stop them. Arrest requires opportunity to arrest.
If a police officer or a CCW holder sees a robber pointing a gun at a clerk and has an opportunity to put a bullet into the side of the robber’s head, that is what he should do. (Anyone who thinks from watching TV that police have some obligation to give up tactical advantage by giving warning, please note that quite a few police officers have died making that mistake.)
Awlaki is pointing his gun (his jihadists) at numerous Americans. It requires nothing novel in American law to kill him at the first opportunity.
Alec on February 5, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »