• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

The U.S. military, like any other military force, can target combatants. So long as the cleric remains a combatant, he is a legitimate military objective. His U.S. citizenship does not change that reality. Hence, it is unlikely that the President's decision will be overturned.
 
A citizen's right to a trial is contingent either on his cooperating or his being captured. If he doesn't cooperate, it is the prerogative of the executive branch whether to capture or kill him.

No, it is the prerogative of the executive branch to attempt to capture him. Should he resist with lethal force, it then becomes the prerogative of the arresting officers to defend themselves as they deem fit.

After all, if I as a citizen of the United States were to commit or plan to commit a felony -- any felony -- and then make a run for a country with no extradition treaty, how could it possibly be the prerogative of the President to send a death squad after me?
 
It is not "illegal to kill a hostile citizen if he is a threat to others?"
in fact I think it is a duty.

I don't know about any other state, but in New York state he'd have to be an imminent lethal threat.

In other words, you could kill a man waving a gun around at people, but you can't kill a man who plans to kill people or who lends aid to others who do.
 
No, it is the prerogative of the executive branch to attempt to capture him. Should he resist with lethal force, it then becomes the prerogative of the arresting officers to defend themselves as they deem fit.

After all, if I as a citizen of the United States were to commit or plan to commit a felony -- any felony -- and then make a run for a country with no extradition treaty, how could it possibly be the prerogative of the President to send a death squad after me?

If this were a criminal matter, that line of argument would be right. However, when one is a combatant under the Laws of War, the situation is not an ordinary criminal matter. Under such circumstances, the individual is a legitimate military objective and can, like all other combatants, be targeted.
 
Nobody is saying anything about executions in lieu of trials.

Actually thats pretty much precisely what they said about Special K and the New York trial...sure...we'll put him on trial...and then we'll kill him!
 
The U.S. military, like any other military force, can target combatants. So long as the cleric remains a combatant, he is a legitimate military objective. His U.S. citizenship does not change that reality. Hence, it is unlikely that the President's decision will be overturned.

His citizenship means he has Constitutional rights which cannot be denied without due process.

It doesn't say "unless he's a really scary angry guy who wants to kill us."
 
If this were a criminal matter, that line of argument would be right.

It is a criminal matter. His alleged actions are addressed in the code of federal law as criminal matters.

However, when one is a combatant under the Laws of War

The Constitution supersedes the Law of War.



I still can't get over how many times certain people said we weren't bound by the Law of War with respect to GITMO detainees . . . and suddenly now we are.

Ironic. :lol:
 
His citizenship means he has Constitutional rights which cannot be denied without due process.

It doesn't say "unless he's a really scary angry guy who wants to kill us."

The due process argument is not relevant with respect to persons who are combatants. If the individual is captured, that's an entirely different matter. Then, he could no longer be targeted. However, he could be tried by a military commission.

If one were to have applied such an unwieldy interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, then the Union Troops would have had no constitutional authority to use deadly force in the Civil War against Confederate troops (U.S. citizens under the law, as such force deprived them of due process). There are no legal precedents whereby the Fifth Amendment could be applied to bar the use of deadly force during disorder that threatened lives, much less negate the military's ability to target combatants.
 
Last edited:
It is a criminal matter. His alleged actions are addressed in the code of federal law as criminal matters.

It isn't. So long as the cleric is serving a command and control function within Al Qaeda he is properly a combatant and a legitimate military objective.
 
I still can't get over how many times certain people said we weren't bound by the Law of War with respect to GITMO detainees . . . and suddenly now we are.

The U.S. has always been bound by the Laws of War. Such instruments preclude torture, among other things. Targeting a legitimate military objective is wholly consistent with proper application of the Laws of War.
 
The due process argument is not relevant with respect to persons who are combatants. If the individual is captured, that's an entirely different matter.

Yes, it is relevant. It says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It is explicit, and as the highest law in the land, incontrovertible.

If one were to have applied such an unwieldy interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, then the Union Troops would have had no constitutional authority to use deadly force in the Civil War against Confederate troops (U.S. citizens under the law, as such force deprived them of due process). There are no legal precedents whereby the Fifth Amendment could be applied to bar the use of deadly force during disorder that threatened lives, much less negate the military's ability to target combatants.

If you can demonstrate to me that this man wears the uniform of any military of any foreign government which is making war on the United States, then you can make that argument.

Otherwise, he's nothing more than an accused felon.
 
The U.S. has always been bound by the Laws of War. Such instruments preclude torture, among other things. Targeting a legitimate military objective is wholly consistent with proper application of the Laws of War.

Bound by, yes -- except where those Laws contradict the Constitution, as is the case with rights protected by the 5th Amendment.
 
I don't know, maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but last I checked, America went to war (legally speaking, not metaphorically speaking) with nations, not organizations.

If you go to war with a nation, like Yemen, then the Laws of War would apply.

If you go after an organization, then you're talking about RICO and conspiracy charges. Not the Laws of War.
 
Yes, it is relevant. It says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It is explicit, and as the highest law in the land, incontrovertible.



If you can demonstrate to me that this man wears the uniform of any military of any foreign government which is making war on the United States, then you can make that argument.

Otherwise, he's nothing more than an accused felon.

The courts' silence on the issue during the Civil War (American citizens who declared themselves a separate entity and who, under U.S. law, were not under the command of a foreign government) demonstrated the limits of the Fifth Amendment, namely that it does not provide immunity from one's being a combatant. Moreover, as per Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 43, 44 (1942), if the cleric is captured, he can be tried by a military commission. There is no constitutional guarantee of a grand jury proceeding in his situation.
 
I'm not saying he'd be entitled to a grand jury. I'm aware of that caveat in the 5th Amendment, but he's still entitled to some form of due process.

Sending in agents to apprehend him is one thing. Sending agents in to execute him is a clear violation of his rights -- and by extension, all of our rights.

If all the President has to do to get away with killing any of us is to name us an enemy combatant, then what are our rights worth?
 
If all the President has to do to get away with killing any of us is to name us an enemy combatant, then what are our rights worth?

An enemy combatant is defined not by the President, but by the Laws of War. Indeed, in the 1942 Ex Parte Quirin case, the U.S. Supreme Court was crystal clear in its ruling that U.S. citizenship did not provide immunity to combatants and that their role as combatants was defined by the Laws of War:

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.

Since that case, the only thing that has changed is that the Geneva Conventions have been added to the Laws of War. Those instruments further clarify who is and is not a combatant.
 
Here's the sick thing in all of this.

If Obama gets away with this, then every President from him forward will then have the authority execute any American citizen at any time in any place if they are first named an enemy combatant. No due process, no judge, no nothing.

Furthermore, this goes a long way to brushing under the rug all those nuts who have been accusing the President of being a secret Muslim, or of being soft on terror. Every time someone even thinks of making that accusation, he'll have this to point to.

The worst part is, so many of you conservative Obama-haters are lapping this up. You don't even know your opinion of him is being changed, however fractionally. You don't even know that this, like GITMO and the Military Comissions Act of 2006, is yet another incremental step towards an all-powerful President.

I'll bet you guys all the gold in Fort Knox that either the President isn't sure this is legal and wants to find out if we'll let him get away with it, or one of his advisors isn't sure but wants to find out. Either way, this isn't an excercise of established Presidential authority.

This is a tentative step into a whole new arena of Presidential power.

I'm scared of what the next step will be.
 
An enemy combatant is defined not by the President, but by the Laws of War. Indeed, in the 1942 Ex Parte Quirin case, the U.S. Supreme Court was crystal clear in its ruling that U.S. citizenship did not provide immunity to combatants and that their role as combatants was defined by the Laws of War:

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.

Since that case, the only thing that has changed is that the Geneva Conventions have been added to the Laws of War. Those instruments further clarify who is and is not a combatant.

I thought the whole mess with GITMO was that nobody could quite figure out how international law applied to "unlawful enemy combatants."

I thought people aplenty were saying that there was no place in international law for "unlawful enemy combatants," ergo they were afforded no legal protections.

At any rate, since we can't point to a nation whose uniform this guy is wearing, and since we're not at war with Yemen, and since you can't be at war with an organization, this is all moot.

It's a criminal matter, not a war situation.

I defy anyone to prove that you can actually, under US law, go to war with an organization versus a nation.
 
Here's the ironic thing about you citing Ex Parte Quirin to me.

Ex Parte Quirin in no way stated that a combatant was stripped of all his legal rights. There is still due process to be found, even there.

Well, that, and while this cleric is about to be executed, Hans Haupt got his day in court.

Funny, that.
 
I thought the whole mess with GITMO was that nobody could quite figure out how international law applied to "unlawful enemy combatants."

That issue concerned what to do with them after they had been captured and were hors de combat. Even unlawful combatants have minimal protections, something the U.S. Supreme Court upheld. The same would apply to the cleric if he were hors de combat. If not, he is a legitimate military objective and can be treated as such.

At any rate, since we can't point to a nation whose uniform this guy is wearing, and since we're not at war with Yemen, and since you can't be at war with an organization, this is all moot.

It's a criminal matter, not a war situation.

I defy anyone to prove that you can actually, under US law, go to war with an organization versus a nation.

Article I, Section 8 does not restrict declarations of war to nation states. It only states that "Congress shall have power...to declare war..." and "to...repel invasions..." To date, no U.S. Supreme Court case, much less decision, has limited that authority exclusively to nation-states.

The Laws of War also are not limited exclusively to conflicts among states.
 
Article I, Section 8 does not restrict declarations of war to nation states. It only states that "Congress shall have power...to declare war..." and "to...repel invasions..." To date, no U.S. Supreme Court case, much less decision, has limited that authority exclusively to nation-states.

Well, then, let's see the declaration of war that authorizes us to go into Yemen and execute an American citizen without a trial.
 
Here's the ironic thing about you citing Ex Parte Quirin to me.

Ex Parte Quirin in no way stated that a combatant was stripped of all his legal rights. There is still due process to be found, even there.

Well, that, and while this cleric is about to be executed, Hans Haupt got his day in court.

Funny, that.

The key language is, "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency..."

What are the consequences of belligerency?

1. If an individual is a combatant under the laws of the war, he/she is a military objective. Military objectives do not enjoy protection as civilians. They can be targeted by military operations. The President's order is directed toward that end.

2. If the individual is rendered hors de combat i.e., is captured, surrenders, or is injured, he can be tried under a military commission.
 
Well, then, let's see the declaration of war that authorizes us to go into Yemen and execute an American citizen without a trial.

Congress has repeatedly authorized legislation to fund the conflict with Al Qaeda. By doing so, it has ratified the President's exercise of his authority as Commander and Chief. The Supreme Court has made no decisions to declare the conflict unconstitution and no such decisions are likely.

Attacking a combatant is not an "execution" in the proper sense of the term. Authorization to target a combatant does not require a trial. The Laws of War apply in this case. The Supreme Court has spoken on that matter in the past and it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse its longstanding precedent.

In sum, the President's authorization is constitutional.
 
No, my question presupposes that American citizens are entitled to Constitutional protections when pursued, captured, and detained by any authority of the United States.

Do you believe there is anything an American citizen can do to relinquish their Constitutional rights?

The Constitution supersedes any treaty in matters of American law.

But not in matters of warfare.

Ergo, the Constitution applies and the Geneva Conventions do not when it comes to the treatment of American citizens by American authorities.

The Constitution does not apply in war zones.
 
Back
Top Bottom