Why was Anwar al-Awlaki executed by drone, without due process?

[jazzimov]

77. Despite the denigrating name you have assigned,

I would like to address the 2 points you bring up.

1) Actually, you bring up several points in this first "point". You claim that this is an "Unconstitutional power to Murder", which has two points in itself. This is NOT unconstitutional because our Constitution grants the right to declare war to Congress. Congress passed the right to the President to respond in the AUMF. While I agree that the AUMF should be repealed or amended, it was passed. Therefore, this action is Constitutional.

As to whether this is "murder", by definition it is not. However, the Geneva Convention to which the US is a signatory has a passage that outlaws "assassination". Personally, I think this is a stupid provision. Is it better to send - for instance - cruise missiles that kill hundreds of innocents or perhaps blanket bombings that kill thousands of innocents? Or would we prefer targeted killings that reduce the killing of innocents? Remember, the Geneva Convention was meant to dealt with Nation-States at war with each other, and not groups residing within other Nation-States. Personally, I support the solution that limits the killing of innocents or "collateral damage" as much as possible. Which would mean targeted drone attacks or targeted assassinations in the words of The Geneva Convention. Which means we need a global discussion.

But you bring up another good point. Although we may trust Obama to "do the right thing" (or at least some of us do) that doesn't mean that the next President will be trustworthy. Therefore, we do need an internal discussion to put limits on the usage of this new technology. Unfortunately, this would mean that Congress would have to actually "do something". Repealing or amending the AUMF would be a good start. Which means that I am glad that the "drone issue" is getting some attention - however I think it's the WRONG attention and that we are focusing on the wrong aspects.

2) This argument actually proves the need for the US to be able to wage war. I, personally, am against war. I think it's stupid, counter-productive, and kills lots of innocent people who don't care about the manipulations of their so-called "leaders" when they simply want to be allowed to live their lives. However, I know that "turning the other cheek" simply doesn't work . I can be as anti-war as I want, but others will see me as "naive" and simply beat me up in order to take my lunch money - or worse. MUCH worse.

Yes, this technology can be easily developed and used by others. Which, again, brings up my point in #1 that we need to have a Global discussion.


I hope I have explained how this is NOT an easy issue, but at least it's better than launching cruise missiles and killing many more innocents, which was better than the previous alternative of bombing. But that the nature of warfare itself has changed.

I won't go so far as the last Administration to justify anything because "9/11 changed everything" - if it was wrong and immoral before 9/11, it is still wrong and immoral. However, we are no longer fighting against Nations but against groups who may or may not be affiliated with Nations. IMHO targeted assassinations are much more appropriate than they have been at any other point in history.