It is difficult to call it a fact since there was no trial, no due process, nor evidence cited by US government in the killing of its citizen. Perhaps there was secret evidence presented in secret to a secret court, but that's rather grim consolation.
Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters. WWI and WWII were both horror shows, Western civilization rightly decided to do their best not to repeat the worst of the atrocities committed therein. You seem all to eager to return to a world where Western governments kill millions without consequence.
Trials, due process, evidence, these are domestic legal concepts. They don't apply to military actions on foreign soil.
> Also the concept of law should absolutely insert itself into matters of foreign military matters.
Rule of law depends on the institutional capital of the judiciary. The judiciary inserting itself into diplomatic and military matters costs institutional capital. The more the judiciary stays out of the foreign affairs of the military, the easier it is to keep the military out of the domestic affairs of the judiciary. And ultimately when you make politically necessary things illegal, you set the rule of law up for failure.
Assassination by drone is (or should be) considered a political act, not a military one.
It was maybe too blunt, but it may have been part of the point to say it this way, as if it were said by the Americans who "didn't care" once they heard it was "just some Muslim-sounding name" and the person was accused of terrorism. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's not hard to imagine many Americans would forget any outrage they might have had, once they heard the name "al-Awlaki." (I am an American myself, if it matters.)
[Later edit]: To build on the original point, maybe we need to stop using distracting mitigating terms like "drone", "terrorism", "citizen", "country", maybe even "al-Qaeda" etc. There's enough to talk about when we pare it down to: the Executive Branch is unilaterally and secretly a) investigating, adjudicating, and executing, b) spying on everything by default, c) instituting less-drastic but still restrictive measures, such as no-fly lists and watchlists. Is simplifying it to that extreme too naive? Maybe, but I'd rather start there and work forward, than getting sidetracked early about which nationalities it's OK to kill, and precisely which organizations are so knee-jerk evil that the mere whiff of them justifies almost anything.
P.S. I didn't lead with this because my other thoughts are more productive, but maybe you slighted Yemen almost exactly the way you accuse the parent of slighting Islam. At least, I read a negative connotation when you write "he went to Yemen", as if that's already half the case for why he needs to be killed.
It may very well be. But OP is not saying al-Awlaki was a muslim and therefore not worth bothing about raising a stink regarding constitutional issues, but rather that large swathes of population believe that.
Heck were are dealing with people who thought (and still think I bet) that Saddam Hussein was "al Qaeda".
> The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters.
All is well except for those pesky constitutional issues. If this was Russia or other countries which (I am guessing here), do not have the same rights in their Constitutions as US, there wouldn't be much to discuss.
So "foreign military matters" needs to be discussed a bit more. See, US is not at war with Pakistan. It is friendly with its government and allegedly is allowed by said Pakistani govt. to pick off people on the ground to kill using drones. So this needs to be talked about. Are we at war? Is "Global War On Terror" now an conventient cop-out to let us do this there without those Constitutional rights people getting into our business? What if those tribes in the mountains brought drones and started dropping anthrax boms or grenades on our cities, would we understand that as an equitable retribution and so on.
Yes, it indicates this is wrong. There's a profound difference between killing someone in the heat of battle versus the president reviewing kill lists every Tuesday. The latter suggests a lack of imminence. Add to that he's a citizen and that the battlefield is any place where "terror" is.
Arguably, al-Awlaki simply preached dissent. Granted, you can argue he was a traitor actively trying to harm the US. In that case, so is Hammond, and a lot of other people conveniently on official lists.
Just because you disagree, even vehemently, with al-Awlaki's message, does not mean that we should compromise our principles of due process. Larry Flynt wasn't an ideal poster boy for free speech advocates. But his justice affirmed the strength of the 1st Amendment and was a small step in erasing racial boundaries (he published interracial porn shortly before being tried on obscenity). So I think lumping al-Awlaki and Hammond together is very much productive.
This is a drastic oversimplification of what the USG believed about al-Awlaki. CT officials in the US believe al-Awlaki to have had direct roles in the "underwear bomber" passenger jet attack and an attempt to blow up two cargo jets with PETN. He was indisputably a counselor to Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood.
In sum, the USG and UK believed al-Awlaki to have been Osama bin Laden without all the money, operating from a secure location in Yemen, recruiting random people from around the world to conduct horrible crimes in the name of AQAP.
It does a grave disservice to the tradition and, one supposed, the very concept of "dissent" to equate the coordination of murderous large-scale attacks on civilians with "dissent".
Sharing this belief with the USG does not require someone to believe that it was justifiable to assassinate him. But you can believe assassination to be wrong without glorifying its victims.
Do we want to abandon such things as quaint and old fashioned when we're dealing with the death penalty? I really, really, really hope not.
(1) About whom I have no opinion whatsoever.
al-Awlaki wasn't a criminal and he wasn't given the death penalty. He put himself in a position of being a foreign military threat and was dealt with as a military threat. No country extends due process or the presumption of innocence to foreign military actions, and it's a tremendous conceit to suggest that the whole world's activities should be encompassed under U.S. criminal law.
First, he was not a foreign military. He was a US citizen and non-state actor. That is the crux of the US legal opinion on the matter, the US says it can use force against its own citizens anywhere in the world and international law does not apply because if it is a citizen, non-state actor, then it is a domestic issue no matter where the individual is located. So legally, the US makes the distinction between a US citizen joining a foreign military (state actor) and a foreign terrorist organization (non-state actor).
However, to your point if it was a foreign military while due process may not apply laws of war apply, for example, it would not be murder to kill a foreign military actor on the battlefield but it is murder if you killed a captured enemy (POW). This is applicable even in this case, because after the first botched drone strike, his father sued the US and was trying to negotiate the surrender of his son, but the US couldn't even entertain a surrender because then the US would have had to acknowledge the existence of the kill list and the fact this guy was on it. In any other context, under the law, an enemy combatant would be permitted to surrender and at least avail themselves to certain rights, like the right not to be killed while a prisoner of war. I am not suggesting or stating emphatically he would have surrendered, but I don't doubt the Father's sincerity in his desire and intent to negotiate the surrender of his son.
>"I will do my best to convince my son to do this (surrender), to come back but they are not giving me time, they want to kill my son. How can the American government kill one of their own citizens? This is a legal issue that needs to be answered," he said. "If they give me time I can have some contact with my son but the problem is they are not giving me time," he said.
I am sure the lawsuit would detail all attempts he made with the US to begin negotiations.
[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... [2]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/10/yemen.al.awlaki.fa...
The "father" and "son" I'm referencing are Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Abdulrahman was Anwar's juvenile son, killed in a drone strike against senior AQAP militants some time after Anwar was killed. Nasser is his grandfather.
There is no evidence in here that Anwar al-Awlaki was attempting to extricate his juvenile son from the war zone he had taken him into.
Thomas has already covered this quite well, but I'll briefly summarize again. al-Awlaki was actively at war against the USG. Killing him is roughly equivalent to killing US citizens who fight for other foreign governments. The drone strike was not carrying out a legal sentence, it was simply the use of force in a global conflict.
If he was, why was it too hard to run the case? Why all this apologist stuff about an accusation being good enough for a death sentence - also carried out on his son while he sat in a cafe a week later. This is Stalinist reasoning, what is it doing in the USA?
The logic of the strike was that waiting for that situation to resolve itself would have the effect of giving al-Awlaki many more opportunities to coordinate attacks, that the pattern of al-Awlaki's involvement in attacks was one of escalating intensity, and that the attacks plots themselves were becoming more ambitious. At some point, the logic goes, he'll figure out how to coordinate a strike that actually succeeds in creating mass casualties.
There are a lot of very valid reasons to oppose drone strikes. For one thing, you might believe Obama to be a fundamentally reasonable person, and then remember how awful Bush II's national security staff was, and think about what crazy things the next President will do with the capabilities. You might, like me, also categorically reject the death penalty. And you might also be concerned with the idea of a "declaration of war" on a terrorist brand name which any idiot in the world can revive and slap on a black flag any time they want, thus ensuring that the war is never brought to an end. I know that's what I think.
What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter". That's all.
Is the evidence for literally all the claims above still "leaked to a newspaper by a public servant but officially neither confirmed nor denied"? Or are some public servants "on the record making the claim"? Is there anything testable and verifiable?
The claims may be entirely correct, I don't know and I don't actually care much. A claim is not evidence. I claim there are war criminals in the US government right now who should be extradited to the Hague, but so what if I claim that? It's of mild interest to some but has no baring on whether shooting them is legal, justified or something I should do anything but oppose.
Your closing comment:
"What I don't think you can say is that in the al-Awlaki case the USG struck al-Awlaki down simply because he was a "dissenter". That's all"
Strawman. Nobody claimed that in this conversation.
Probably, but some Wikipedia browsing reveals several who were captured and _not_ killed. (Beware, list assembled hastily, along with usual disclaimers about it being from Wikipedia.)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Best - life in prison
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Peter_Burger - death, commuted to life in prison
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_John_Burgman - prison for 6 to 20 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Chandler - life, commuted after 16 years by JFK, on condition he immediately leave the US
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_Gillars - 10 to 30 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_James_Monti - 25 years
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_John_Dasch - death, commuted to 30 years
Some even had a death sentence commuted! I'm not informed or motivated enough to dig into the relative threat levels of these people vs. someone like al-Awlaki, how warfare has changed, al-Qaeda vs. Nazis, the circumstances of their capture, etc. I'll leave it at just noting that we've found a way to not-kill even an American SS officer (Monti), so maybe we can keep that up. Or at least, we can know not all American Nazis were killed "indiscriminately", nor when they were "on a list." (Although, in line with my previous post, I would hope this restraint would not be only because they are citizens.)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_t...
It's pretty offensive to muslims to lead your characterization of al-Awlaki with the fact that he was Muslim, rather than the fact that he went to Yemen and took up arms against the United States while inciting violence against the country. U.S. Citizenship isn't a blanket immunity against U.S. military action. It's certain that the U.S. killed Americans who went and fought for the Nazis in Europe. Few people would challenge the validity of such actions. Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately?
And ultimately, it's deeply counter-productive to try and lump people like Hammond together with people like al-Awlaki. Military action against foreign aggressors is a fundamental right of sovereign nations. People will not give it up. If you tell them that such actions must be subject to "law" all you'll accomplish is distorting and diluting the law to accommodate the sorts of actions that must be taken against foreign aggressors. The law should not try to insert itself into foreign military matters. It's not a fight it will win, and it will be the downfall of the law.