If it is legal for the US to assassinate people in foreign lands

[Warren Stupidity]

why is it not legal for Iran to do the same thing?

[rfranklin]

1. American exceptionalism...

works every time!

[MineralMan]

2. It may be legal in Iran for them to do that.

However, the US may also work to prevent other countries from doing assassinations in our country. We do not follow Iran's laws with respect to actions taken in the United States. Had the assassination taken place, it might have been legal in Iran, but would not be legal in the United States and would have been prosecuted as a murder, which is against the law here. If assassination by foreign powers in, say, Yemen, Yemen can prosecute those who did that assassination if it violates their laws. But, first, that person must be identified and taken into custody.

The law is a funny thing sometimes.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. The US is reported to be pressing this as a violation of international law

so my question is quite pertinent.

[MineralMan]

9. I'm not saying your question isn't pertinent. It is.

I'm just providing information.

[Angry Dragon]

33. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan

Have we declared war against these countries??
If not then why is it okay to kill civilians in these countries??
I would think these people live in fear for their lives,
living in fear of attack from others is a part of terrorism.
Does this make the US part of terrorism??

[Unvanguard]

3. Was the Saudi ambassador an important figure in a terrorist organization targeting Iran? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The answer to that is likely yes, as far as Iran is concerned.

[Unvanguard]

22. Which one? Care to explain your answer? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Huh? What wasn't clear? Which what?

Iran can decide by fiat that various Sauds are terrorists, just as we have declared all sorts of people terrorists, and then by our theory of international justice, go around the planet killing those people.

[Unvanguard]

28. I see. So truth doesn't count for anything?

Do you think al-Awlaki was involved in a terrorist organization targeting the US?

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I have no idea.

Perhaps a trial, even in absentia, where the evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that al Awlaki was guilty of a capital offense was presented to a jury, would have been a good idea? Or is that too quaint in this day and age?

Since we are playing 'ask a question', are you happy with star chamber procedures wherein the executive branch can issue assassination orders on anyone anywhere without any judicial review?

But I digress. I merely assert that Iran is just as entitled to carry out assassinations as we are.

[Unvanguard]

31. It was not an execution. It was not punishment. It was a killing of a combatant in wartime.

People who criticize the al-Awlaki assassination always seem to frame it the wrong way. It would be different if he had been a terrorist at some point, and then had gone into hiding and was hanging out in Florida; then it would be inappropriate to assassinate him, and, indeed, I would oppose inflicting capital punishment on him on the same grounds that I oppose capital punishment in every other case. But that is not the issue here. We are talking about a military operation motivated, not by retributive ends, but by the desire to prevent prospective harm to the country from a terrorist organization. There is no fundamental difference between this and the air attacks the US undertakes in Afghanistan on a regular basis. The US government did not have to try al-Awlaki any more than they have to try each person they target in an ordinary military operation. Lawful punishment and the use of violence in wartime have very different standards, and rightfully so.

Iran is just as entitled to defend itself from people who seek to violently attack its citizens as we are. There is no plausible indication whatsoever that the Saudi ambassador was in fact in such a position.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. keep telling yourself that.

[Angry Dragon]

34. And you have seen the facts to back this up??

or is that still filed under National Security??

[Unvanguard]

35. The facts about al-Awlaki? No.

I don't work for the Pentagon. (Nor, of course, do I see the facts involved in all the many other military operations the US undertakes on a daily basis, or for that matter the facts involved in all the trials the US legal system handles on a daily basis.)

[Angry Dragon]

36. Then you have no idea if the assassination was legal

Did the CIA really kill him??
The CIA is involved in most of the drones........
Is the CIA part of the military??
What makes a person an enemy combatant??


However the facts of trials are open for you to look at

[Unvanguard]

37. Quite so. There is an element of deference involved here.

Of course, that's true in a wide variety of other cases too, especially though not exclusively in the military context. I don't pretend to know everything.

[green917]

38. I completely disagree!

Terrorism by an individual (if Al-Awlaki was, in fact, guilty of said offense which we have NO assurance of because he was never tried for it) is a criminal act, not a military one! It should, therefore, be prosecuted within the existing laws of the land (which, I may add, expressly forbids summary execution). My question to you is, what terrorist act was he directly responsible for? How do we know that his rhetoric wasn't just that...bluster and rhetoric? The simple answer is we don't because we killed him before interrogating him or trying him for the crimes we accused him of.

You state that the Saudi Ambassador was not in a position to violently attack Iran. Who made you the arbiter of what is or is not a threat to Iran as far as their government is concerned? Why can't they make the same blanket assertions against someone that they feel may have been working to harm their way of life (&, who knows, this man may, very well be a spy for the Saudi Government) that we do? This is the problem with throwing the rule of law out the window...we wind up having debates like this one where we, sadly, have forfeit the moral high ground because we have done something that we have forbidden and chastised other countries for doing in the past. Moral relativism is a dangerous tight rope to walk and we have opened ourselves up to these very questions. A horrible mistake in my humble opinion.

[FarCenter]

4. Iran didn't get a legal opinion from the counsel to the President and the Justice Department

If they had, it would be legal.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. good point

[saras]

8. It is against international law for the US to assassinate people. It is ok under US law.

[MineralMan]

10. Not if those people are classed as combatants in an armed

conflict. I believe the UN has addressed this. Disclaimer: I'm not arguing that it's right, just pointing out the legal issues. It is most definitely illegal to assassinate ambassadors and other consular personnel, though. There is an arguable difference between the two targets.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. I don't believe the UN has addressed 'that' at all.

But your claim is that if Iran simply asserts that various Saudi shitheads are 'combtants' then they can waltz around the planet killing them without violating any international laws?

[MineralMan]

18. No, I'm not saying that at all.

And I believe there is a UN resolution that covers this whole al Qaeda terrorism thing. I'm not absolutely certain about that, but I believe there is.

In fact, here is a link to a PDF file of the current UN Sanctions list of individuals in al Qaeda, as of October 5, 2011.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/pdf/AQList.pdf

Information on this stuff is available at the UN website. I don't have time today to run it all down, but you can go to www.un.org to find whatever information you wish.

Here's a page listing all Security Council Resolutions regarding al Qaeda for your perusal:

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/resolutions.shtml

[WinkyDink]

21. We are not in "an armed conflict," no matter how many uniforms and arms WE use.

We are using military means to invade nations where there are terrorist groups.

[MineralMan]

23. I'm not the one doing the categorizing. In reality, we are

in an armed conflict. That's obvious. Whether you agree with its legality or morality is sort of irrelevant. I deal with real situations, not ideals. You can call it what you wish, and so can I, and neither of us matter in what is happening. There is an armed conflict. Congress has approved that conflict. We've spent more money than I even can understand on it. It exists.

I'm posting information, not opinions on the legality or morality of anything. I'm not the arbiter of either.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. So again, Iran can decide that it too is in an armed conflict with sunni extremists

and kill them anywhere they want.

[MineralMan]

27. Of course they can, but they'll do it without international support.

Assassinating Ambassadors isn't a smart move, generally. It's unlikely to get support from anyone. They failed, anyhow.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Usually trying to kill someone's ambassador has been regarded as an act of war

So, yeah, I guess they do consider themselves in an armed conflict.

[melm00se]

11. it's a matter of jurisdiction

is a killing committed in another country an indictable offense in the home country.

As was pointed out:

If American Andy kills Jordanian Jackie in, say, Jordan, can he be charged, tried and convicted in America?
If he can, whose legal system, rights and rules apply? Certainly the Jordanian justice system has differences (subtle or gross?) from our own.

Can he be extradited to Jordan? yes, if there is an extradition treaty but if there's not then no.

back on point: if Iran were to send an assassination squad into the USA, there would be repercussions but it all depends upon the ability to apply those repercussions.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. again - the US is pressing this as a violation of international law

I have a problem with that, as the hypocrisy is palpable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. The US didn't killed UBL & Awlaki for legal reasons. It's a war the US openly claims to be fighting

That's why when Iran attempts to assassinate others its is also called an act of war. So really, there is no double standard.

Of course, the difference here is UBL & Awlaki were actively working or had worked to get people to attack the US. I'm not sure how the Saudi ambassador to the US was a national security threat to Iran.

Iran also has committed an act of war (assuming the charges stands) without declaring war against the Saudis or US.

For the record, I oppose the Global War on Terror including Obama's re-labeling of it. Books will neutralize more jihadis than bombs will, and they're cheaper too. What we need is more reconciliation of each other's grievances with less killing by either side which on adds. I'm also opposed to the Awlaki killing because he was a citizen put on a target list without due process to determine if he deserved to be on that list.

I understand your frustrations with US foreign policy, I share them, but there is no double standard in this case (assuming the charges stand).

[MineralMan]

19. You're right. Comparing the two incidents is not comparing

similar things, as you say. I'm not justifying the US action against Awlaki, but that was a completely different deal that an assassination attempt against an Ambassador.

[WinkyDink]

20. So people actually believe this story, AFTER the lies of WMD's, "mushroom cloud," "trailers,"....???

We really do never learn.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Just because one thing is wrong doesn't mean all similar things are wrong

The flip-side of that argument is equally fallacious -- Iran has committed some terorist acts therefore all terrorist acts are Iranian.

Everything has to be judged case-by-case.

I'm not saying I accept the news reports as provided. In fact, in my post I twice wrote, "(if the charges stand)." But I'm not assuming false flag operations either.

People have claimed in the past things were false flag operations only to be proven wrong. Should we be so uncritically skeptical or should we judge evidence as it is presented?

[piratefish08]

15. they should have used the same lawyers Bush, Cheney and Obama use??

:shrug:

[krabigirl]

16. remember, it's only OK when the USA slaughters people. in fact, it's righteous when we do. sick

[indepat]

40. Like far-reichous?

:shrug: :patriot:

[Rex]

17. Nations piss on international laws and do what they want to.

Not like that has ever changed.

[hack89]

29. Stateless terrorist versus accredited ambassador - do I detect possible shades of grey? nt

[hobbit709]

39. That's the can of worms that got opened.

If it's OK for A to do something, why is it not OK for B to do the same.