Of course I do! That's a silly question, and inflammatory. I value all cultures.

You owe me an apology.

I sincerely--maybekindasortaehnotreally--apologize.

What kind of ridiculousness is this. The guy renounced the US and declared war on it. He was killed in an ongoing war after inciting murder of US citizens. Was it illegal for the US to kill confederate soldiers in the field? No? then shut the hell up and get a clue.

I'm not disagreeing, SC...take it easy.

And those who do disagree have a logically valid--if here misplaced and not applicable, in my opinion--point.

So just chill...

umm was i even speaking to you?

is this you speaking SantoClausowitz or is this a trial verdict speaking? yeah, that's what I thought

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Its history speaking dumbass prove me wrong

"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

how the hell is it history speaking? the confederate example made absolutely no sense, that was a case of a war of independence, and confederate soldiers renounced their United States citizenship in favor of CSA citizenship.

can you read?

oh i knew you were going to bring that section up. you mean the undeclared wars we are fighting right now, bombing countries like pakistan and yemen?

Oh our boy Al-Awlaki never renounced his citizenship in favor of international Jihad?

america has lost it's way.

If your definition of a "war" is one in which someone attempts to detonate a bomb hidden inside his underpants because terrorists have no other goddamn way of attacking the United States anymore, then we were at war in 1993 when the first attempt to destroy the twin towers was initiated. And what country's citizenship did Aw-Awlaki join? For christ's sake, the guy was assassinated with no charges ever filed----that means that by the American justice system, the guy was innocent. this is a truly terrifying precedent to be set----innocent americans can be blown away from the sky.

You know...

You sort of forfeit your ability to be counted as taking part in a serious, adult discussion with a valid, mature opinion when you devolve into a name-calling contest.

For once...and it frightens me...

I must agree with maple:

America has lost its way, and it only has itself to blame.

(Note to self: Start looking at alternative countries to live in, preferably somewhere with a good hockey/baseball/football league and some kickass cafes.)

I'm sorry Jpg are you bitching about predator drone strikes or are you bitching about killing a man who renounced his citizenship and took up arms against the united states, and who a federal court rejected a motion he not be targeted.? Or are you just throwing out anything you can find.

I think Invictus pretty much hit the nail on the head; fundamentally good thing done VERY badly.

But I WILL say...

I've lost all sympathy for your position, jpgredsox:

NOW you're just being obstinate, I think...

A man plans a bombing as a part of a larger group planning such bombings, and THAT doesn' sound like an attack/war to you?

While I don't buy this whole "War on Terror" bit--let's stick to just "War on the Guys Who ACTUALLY Attack Us And Not Police the World"--I MUST SAY...

Panning to set off bombs on American soil to harm American citizens...

Germany did this during WWI--did THAT not constitute an act of war?

I'm pretty sure it did, as...well...we WENT to war agaisnt Germany...in this big event, from 1914-18, what was it called...it was big, some Great War all over the World...

Alright, so here's my understanding of it.

This man had renounced the United States and was actively conspiring to commit attacks against it, no? There is ample evidence of this in the form of propaganda videos distributed by Al-Qaeda.

So we have established that fact, now since he conspired to commit crimes against the United States and renounced the country, does that constitute renouncing his citizenship? If so, then there's no further case.

Next, Yemeni special forces have tried to apprehend him on multiple occasions, but became involved in firefights with the people protecting him and he managed to escape. If they were acting under orders from the US consul (which we don't know) then does that count has him being served? If so, then there's no case.

Also, he was posted online in publicly identifiable places as being a wanted man in the USA. If it is posted online in a place clearly visible for a reasonable person to see, then he was served his summons and there is no case. By not responding to his service of summons, he is pleading guilty in court and thus branded a traitor.

Finally, if none of those above facts count, can the Constitution - as it is currently liberally interpreted - implicitly allow the killing?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Going part by part, I think its clear that he committed an act of treason via "adhering to their Enemies" Next, a person can be convicted based on the "Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act" which I believe the Supreme Court would allow the videos he has made count as, or the people who traced back the explosive packages to him. Finally, "Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason." This is the tricky part. Obama was in charge of the drone strikes....so unless Congress (or key members of it) were informed, then this is the weakest link to the chain.

Again, I think all of the above plus his name on wanted lists serves as due process, which means that the person is notified that he is wanted in court. By being on the most wanted list, and by being aware of that fact, I believe his process was served.

+1 Eden and Invictus, agree totally here.

Obi- Just slink away nothing you've said on either side of the debate has any pertinence as usual

"If your definition of a "war" is one in which someone attempts to detonate a bomb hidden inside his underpants because terrorists have no other goddamn way of attacking the United States anymore, then we were at war in 1993 when the first attempt to destroy the twin towers was initiated."

How about continued statements about waging war or Jihad? Does that count? Does that only count when a white person does it? When a brown person does it is it less valid?

"For christ's sake, the guy was assassinated with no charges ever filed----that means that by the American justice system, the guy was innocent. this is a truly terrifying precedent to be set----innocent americans can be blown away from the sky. "

I believe thousands were killed at Gettysburg without charges being filed as well, you still have not made any distinction between the two cases.

http://politics.salon.com/2011/06/01/free_speech_4/
We don't even know if the guy actually participated in any strikes or not----all we know is that he put out speeches calling for the violent overthrow of the United States government. People look back at McCarthyism and say "oh, that was so horrible" but what we are doing today isn't so different. I'm not at all arguing Aw-Awlaki was innocent, but there was a reasonable enough doubt that he deserved a trial, and no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." America was supposed to be an example of liberty and freedom to the world, something the rest of the world should emulate...the government simply can't go around and kill whomever they want

@jpgredsox - your definition of war is antiquated. Definitions of words must evolve with time, just as interpretations of the law do. When interpretations evolve to become more liberal, you don't hear liberals bitching about it, so when interpretations evolve to become more conservative, please don't stoop down to the level of all the bigots who say abortion is illegal, when it is constitutionally legal.

"We don't even know if the guy actually participated in any strikes or not----all we know is that he put out speeches calling for the violent overthrow of the United States government."

No McCarthyism was against people who at worse called for the overthrow of the US government in a distant and abstract future. This guy was writing an article urging his followers to grab the nearest gun and shoot up their corner cafe. Completely different.

"America was supposed to be an example of liberty and freedom to the world, something the rest of the world should emulate...the government simply can't go around and kill whomever they want "

You are exactly right, only the ones who have waged an active war on the United States such as Anwar Al Awlaki

This is a manufactured controversy.

@jpgredsox - The due process clause just means that he has to be notified that he is being put on trial, not that he *has* to be tried in order to be found guilty. I think you're misconstruing the 5th amendment

Communists radicals were arguing for violent revolution even going into the 1960s a la the Black Panther...how can you separate the two? I'm really not buying this "oh, revolution in the future" to "oh, revolution now!" And the Civil War example is completely not valid because they were seceding and forming a new government, and the North and Lincoln basically did charge them all with treason when Lincoln ordered 75,000 militiamen to quash the rebel states.