Things like this really bug me. I mean, as a citizen I believe there is some things that the public should be aware of. For many people they would rather a play a flight simulator for mac than worry about foreign policy or what Obama's doing. Sadly most people are in the dark about what's happening in the world and most likely that won't change any time soon.

The citizen had literally declared his intention to support Jihad and moved to help them, along with being with a senior Taliban member. Is it not obvious that the person was an enemy combatant and had declared his desire to be treated as such?

This faux outrage against some slippery slope scenario seems utterly ridiculous to me.

The ridiculousness (from a "common sense" perspective) of what ANON45 calls the "slippery slope" argument is NOT intellectually compelling. You know what else seems absurd from a common sense perspective?--Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Bad analogies? Nope!--We are dealing here with highly sophisticated balances between different interests (or values, or commitments) fundamental to our life and identity. We SHOULD therefore make sure that decisions impacting those interests (the killing of a citizen, at the very least) are rigorous when we can afford it.

Could we afford a more rigorous decision in Awlaki's case? Ackerman says yes, and, he is right! Ackerman wrote a brilliant book ("Before the Next Attack," 2006) in which he recognized the need, as a citizen, to tolerate increased executive discretion in situations of emergency. So he is not some "suicidal liberal" (as I may well be). I think he judges accurately here that killing Awlaki was not a clear emergency, regardless of all the far-fetched scenarios you might imagine (e.g., that Awlaki's might have been in the process of planning an attack just before he was assassinated).

To me the bottom line is that no amount of media evidence, or "common sense" as you call it, ought to substitute for due process.

I'm totally shocked that for the author and most of the people commenting it is totally normal to kill a person whose only "real weapon was his impassioned anti-American sermons -- also known as "freedom of speech" and "free exercise" of religion" if he is not american. This whole article is shameful!

PITKO: First off, Awlaki wasn't killed because he gave "impassioned anti-American sermons". there are plenty of vehemently anti-american people living in america who speak on every street corner, and they continue to be free to do so. No one cares if all you do is speak your mind. The reason we went after Awlaki is because he WAS in fact actively engaged in terrorist warfare against the people of the United States. Why is that so hard for you to believe? Given all the ways we have wronged Muslims historically, how is it that so many of you refuse to believe that terrorism is real, or that it is not a threat? Where is the disconnect there? WE ARE AT WAR! Ask any one who has been and actually seen the threat themselves.

CHRISAK: Due Process is no longer an option during a global war, where speed is the name of the game. It was essentially using your amazing "logic" of due process that allowed Bin Laden to escape the crosshairs on ,multiple occasions before 9/11...we all saw how that one worked out. No, hold on, let's recap; 1993 world trade center bombing, khobar towers boming, Africa Embassy bombings, USS Cole bombing, 9/11, London Bombing, Madrid Bombings, the IRaq war, Afghan war, Somalian conflict, Yemen conflict...I could really go on here. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON"T PULL THE TRIGGER ON SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS A THREAT. What is it exactly that you don't get about that? We havent purposefully targeted and killed innocent civilians at any point during these wars (please show me PROOF, other than internet hearsay, that I am wrong). mistakes have been made by individuals, but the US government does not, and will never go after people if they are not a threat to the lives of Americans. I honestly want to know what happened during your life where now you feel that a 1984 scenario is an inevitability anytime lethal measures are taken during war. IT IS A WAR for chrisssakes. That is all.

Three things come to mind about this issue...

First, I don't see any reason to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. If it is wrong to kill US citizens who are members of non-state groups actively engaged in a covert war against the US, then it is wrong to kill non-citizens. Anything else would violate one of the basic principles of the rule of law, which is that EVERYONE is equal under the law. We already discriminate against foreigners and violate our laws and treaty obligations by doing things like executing foreigners without providing them with consular representation, we definitely shouldn't be also privileging US citizens who join in this "war" on the other side.

Second, I don't have any moral qualms about targeted killings of declared enemies of the US who are part of the organizations that have attacked us. While there are good reasons to take a law enforcement approach to much of our counterterrorism efforts, if we choose to use deadly force against our foes it doesn't bother me at all.

Third, I can't take complaining about the legality of drone strikes in Yemen very seriously. If Congress were a responsible political actor it would authorize such measures, but since it can't be relied upon not to play games with our foreign policy then rather than allow our efforts to be hampered by them not doing their job I don't have a problem with the president making the decision.

There have certainly been questionable kills carried out via the drone program, and more monitoring of the process would be completely appropriate, but in this case taking out Awkaki is a righteous kill to me.

Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen. He was a member of Al-Qaeda. He was a terrorist, and probably a world-class dou***bag. But most importantly, he was an individual that advocated, and materially supported the killing of me, my friends, my family, and people like me. That is the only important consideration at this point as far as I am concerned.

I don't care if you're a US citizen, a world citizen, a nobel prize winner, a priest, or a saint: if you advocate the killing of myself, my friends, and my family, or help assist in such an effort in any way, shape, or form, I'm going to target you. I'm going to be glad when you're killed, and I don't care how it's done. Obama just saved us the trouble. This isn't an outrage. Was it illegal? Probably. Do I care? Not in this case. Awlaki would have killed myself and my family had he gotten the opportunity. That's all that matters. Claiming the universal right of self defense, if given the opportunity I would have personally put two bullets in his head at point blank range and then gone home to make a snack. If that makes you more legally comfortable, then give me a list of names and an address. Otherwise I say good job Obama.

Americans are brainwashed, they say Anwar al-Awlaki want to kill them, murder their family, butcher them in their sleep, is a high ranking member of Al Qaeda; but there is no evidence for any of these claims. If there is any evidence, US government could obtain a grand jury indictment for his arrest. But they didn't, they just assassinated him.

While I truly abhor what al-Awlaki stood for and did, he was an American citizen and that either counts for something or it doesn't. Why couldn't he have been tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death in abstentia? So now it's okay to kill citizens on a case-by-case basis?

Move over, Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo. President, Nobel peace laureate, and former constitutional law scholar Barack Obama has declared that his administration needs no judicial review and that every hit they target simply could not be avoided.

Well Anwar was Muslim, doesn't it answers the question. Shame on you America.

I think it is pointless trying to engage a frighteningly large section of america on the philosophical and ethical nuances of their governments decisions/actions. If you aren't for the chorus, "America, F***K YEAH!" you are a terorrist sympathiser. Many seem to mention threat to my nation, family etc, but are not even aware of the threat their nation has been to others. Why? Because they don't need to. Remember the Romans and their eternal quest to slay the barbarian scourge. History repeated methinks.

Anyone who uses the word "methinks" has issues. I am an American. I am well travelled, in the Middle East and Asia. And Africa as well. In the Military and out. I am not college educated, I do not subscribe to any major media, or political party. I believe Palestine needs to be a state. I believe we need some sort of Judicial process that can verify "proof", and also the ability as a nation to deal with those who would do American citizens harm. I hope we , as a nation, can refrain from stepping into situations we can see from the outset will not be made better in the short time support for "the new thing" can be maintained. I also supply (in a very small way) manufactured items for personnel in uniform, overseas. I have never had a problem speaking my mind, even when someone has an "infidel" patch on their chest rig. No one I knew during my time in the Mil (first gulf war) was on any crusade, personal or otherwise. A lot of unnecessary hate and anger in the comments here. As far as Awlaki is concerned, had I done as he did, I would expect retaliation. A draftee has no choice. A volunteer does, and he knew what he was doing. The above article seems to me to be an attempt by Mr. Ackerman to expose a flawed system for dealing with a different kind of combatant. We have only begun a long process of creating policy and law around this subject. In the meantime, it is not in the best interest of the US to just let whoever, do whatever. Also true for any nation in the world.

You wrote, "If another citizen is ever targeted, it should only be after an extensive debate in Congress, leading to the statutory creation of a serious legal procedure designed to eliminate the obvious abuses revealed in the Awlaki case."

That process already exists. There was an extensive debate at the Constitutional Convention and during ratification debates, that resulted in the Fifth Amendment's protection against life being taken without the due process of law. This due process of law is spelled out further in the Constitution, defining treason as making war on the U.S. and aiding our enemies. It further states that a conviction for treason requires an open court.

We are talking about a suspected traitor and his crime of treason! We must label him appropriately. It makes absolutely no sense to not label this man a suspected traitor. Whatever else he might have been, propagandist, operational planner, he was essentially and centrally a traitor. Equally, it then makes no sense to not look to the Constitution's guidance on dealing with those suspected of treason. To not start the discussion here is to throw the Constitution and the rule of law completely out the window. This man was not charging at friendly troops with his AK-47. He did not present an imminent threat and he wasn't on a battlefield. This wasn't a "we didn't have a choice in the fog of battle" moment. He fell squarely into the category of traitor, and the Constitution has spoken clearly on this matter on what was required by law.

Some say just because the Constitution provides the due process for a treason conviction, does not mean we have to convict him, the government can just kill him instead. Such an un-American conclusion requires the belief that the government has no restraints, can do whatever it wants in all matters, and Americans have no rights or protections. But the United States is a creation of the Constitution, and therefore the United States is always limited by that document.

Others bring up the "feasibility" of capturing the suspect. The New York Times has recently reported that the secret memo, according to anonymous leaks, stated that capture, if feasible, was legally required in this case. If true, then the memo itself admits that the assassination was illegal, if capture was feasible. Those who say capture wasn't feasible should take a look at the map of Yemen, our military bases, our naval capability and then consider the UBL raid in nuclear equipped Pakistan, and our invasion of Panama to capture and put on trial Manuel Noriega.

If we kill every suspected enemy in the world, and lose our Constitution and rule of law in the process, our enemies have won.

Having read the comments, I'm a bit shocked, but not that surprised.

Most people here think that being an "Islamist" or "jihadist" equals a death sentence. Some people thought the same of being born Jewish, remember? How are you any better than them?

True that some extremist Islamists want US citizens dead. So what? Have you never wished somebody dead? Some of you are doing so now, rejoicing the death of your fellow citizen.

If one part of a group kills someone, do you prosecute the whole group? Fort Hood shooting, a mass homicide and act of terrorism was committed by a US Army Major. If all Islamists should be dead for the grave crimes of some Islamists, then all US Army members should be dead for the grave crimes of some US Army personnel, right?

Every time you thoughtlessly characterize someone as a "terrorist" even when someone may be an ordinary criminal, every time you charge al Qaeda affiliation with some atrocity (this means you, Blake Hounshell), no matter how tenuous the connection, you feed the general atmosphere that the US needs to have total freedom to act.

Israel is far worse at this than we, and it's catching on elsewhere. That hijacker in Osh, Kyrgyzstan killed by a sniper acted exactly as any criminal might: he saw a roadblock and tried to avoid it, yet he too was called a "terrorist".

Ask yourselves what makes a terrorist v what makes a freedom fighter? When is a car bomb different than a bomb dropped from the sky? When is someone burning a Coptic church different than tanks moving in on a crowd of protesters in Homs?

There is a vocabulary for all these things, but it could be better. It's shortcomings, and the thoughtlessness in the media has played a significant part in the murder of an American without the due process the constitution demands.

I look forward to the FP article titled "When Is A Terrorist A Freedom Fighter?"
You can begin with the example of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the KKK.

Awlaki was only a citizen by a fluke of the law. The relevant law here was written before NGOs started fighting wars with states. The fact remains that this was a man who publicly waged war on the US and intended to (and indeed attempted to) kill US citizens. Comparing killing him with killing a citizen is a false equivalency. Only a truly naive and overly technical reading of the law would lead a person to believe that Awlaki was still a US citizen.

Nicolas19:

I can see how you would not be surprised. I think you saw what you wanted to in the above posts. In your reference to "any better than them" I assume you mean Nazi's. I can think of many ways "we" are better than them. Islamist and Jihadist are not separate terms. In this case, I believe you are thinking of the western definition of Jihad as strictly military. I would go with "defend Islam", one of the tenets of Jihad, itself a duty for all Muslims.

I did not see anyone here, nor do I know anyone personally, calling for a war against Islam. "terrorist" does not, in any definition, equal "Islamist" or "Muslim" and I would hope that anyone saying that is rightly ignored.

"True that some extremist Islamists want US citizens dead. So what? "

Defend that statement in a reasonable fashion. That makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the article or comments here.

As far as "When is a terrorist a freedom fighter", that's a difficult argument, and the most germane comment I have seen , to the conversation if not the article. And I think that is entirely a matter of perspective. Is a terrorist a "freedom fighter" fighting for freedom from US foreign policy? Or are all Americans "freedom fighters" fighting for freedom from terrorist actions against US citizens at home and abroad?

The concept of Due Process was cast aside when the Bush Administration decided to declare a criminal act as an act of war, then used the premise to invade sovereign nationalities. This not only confused the two but created the concept of miitary war upon ideology, thus legitimizing Al Qaeda and thier cause in the eyes of the Muslim world. It will be known as the greatest military and foreign policy blunder in history, greater than Stalingrad and Waterloo.
So now that we've stepped in it with both feet, the Obama administration has no choice but to act accordingly. There is no time for endless congressional debate over ideological semantics, there is only time to act.
So far I applaud the Obama administration for quick decivise action. Awlaki forfeit his citizenship in theory if not procedure a long time ago.

It use to be done back in earlier times, a citizen and or soldier could be put to death IMMEDIATELY for treason and/or sadition in the time of war. The reason why GITMO is full is because the leaders are listening to too many human rights groups because "we are not to treat them inhumanely?" During Vietnam the Marine Recon Snipers carried out hunt/kill missions all the time to take out vc officers and high profilers. Read the book "Dear Mom" about the missions of one such Marine. Anyway why should we NOT take these people out? They are enemies and this is a time of war, during war you take out your enemy. Why should I have my taxes pay for his stay in a cell and feed and clothe him and pay for his trial for the rest of his life. We capture the junior ones(foot soldiers) to gain intel about people like awlaki and osama. Once we know where they are we dont need them for intel about themselves.............BOOM!!! Move on to the next target. By the way as far as I am concerned as well as any other Veterans out there I fought for the Flag that is in my front yard that gives you the right to express your opinions on this article as well as the person that wrote it. IT DOES NOT HOWEVER GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO JOIN FORCES WITH OUR ENEMIES WHEN WE ARE AT WAR WITH OR SUPPORT THEM OR AWLAKI WILL BE WAITING FOR YOU!

If our split system of governance is to have meaning, then it needs to be robust enough to handle outlier cases involving citizens such as Awlaki. No one in the executive branch should have sole authority to execute a citizen. If a citizen engages in a treasonous act and leaves the country, it should be reviewed and authorized by the Judicial Branch, even if the accused is absent. We have absentia trials all the time.

We are not officially at war with Yemen and so military tribunals should not apply. Is it really too difficult to present a judge with some evidence, to ascertain whether or not it is valid, and if there sufficient justification to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

What makes me uncomfortable is the possibility that this authority could blow back on our shores.

FREEDOM FRIGHTER- noun
a fighter for freedom, especially a person who battles against established forces of tyranny and dictatorship. Lets see maybe Libyan Rebels, Egypt, on and on. Oh yeah us during our REVOLUTION the citizens who were not soldiers but plain ordinary people who volunteered.

Last year, a federal court ruled that such decisions are matters for the president and Congress to resolve, not the judiciary. That ruling recognized the dangers of letting federal judges exercise control over tactical combat decisions — a realm in which they have little or no expertise and in which they have great potential to do harm. Procedures that are sensible and prudent in a civilian law enforcement setting could be a disastrous impediment in a military one. (excerpt from a chicago times article).

There has been "judicial review" of the subject. Wikileaks released documents showing that Yemeni Government officials condoned such actions, so there is a precedent. Al Qaeda is an NGO, with no affiliation to the recognized Government of Yemen. Our drone attacks, or even Special Operations forces require the permission of Yemen to conduct attacks, not a Congressional declaration of War against Yemen. Military tribunals MAY apply, depending on the Judicial Branch definition of an NGO combatant, US citizen or not.

Thank you for your input I have been actually looking for the ruling/laws that govern such situations. Military actions/decisions are in place to cover such situations especially for acts of war. Tribunals, court martials, etc. are for the military and it is exact when said a civilian judicial system CAN cause alot of damage.

The problem with Awlaki seems to be that there is no provision in US law to revoke the citizenship of individuals who join non-governmental groups engaged in violent hostilies against the US. If he had joined a foreign army at war with the US then his citizenship could have easily been revoked first--

"The Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. "

Perhaps the law needs to be ammended to include international terrorist networks.

The key question is whether he should be treated as a citizen or resident who has committed a crime, or as a soldier of a foreign power.

If a citizen, then due process is required before taking anything from him.

If a soldier, then it is both proper and moral to kill him.

Here we have a citizen who is a soldier of a foreign power. Which is more important? His citizenship or his allegiance?

To my mind, his allegiance -- his choice -- is more important.

Also to my mind, the Obama administration's process was quite reasonable. Since he fled to a place where he could not be extradited, there is no way that a criminal.process could be initiated. He put himself beyond the pale in a couple of different ways.

If criminal law is applied, the due process must be strictly observed regardless of the residency of the alleged offender.

If law of war is applied, we have a right to kill the enemy threatening us as much as an enemy a right to kill any of us who try to kill him/her. It should not matter to us if the enemy is an American citizen or not. The same rules can be equally applied to and by our enemy. It is a war.

I think neither law of war nor criminal law is applicable to this conflict. Neither makes clear sense. The question should ask opurselves is that will our killing the leaders of Islamic Radicalism help us achieve our goal of defeating the movement of Islamic Radicalism?

Nobody wants to see this conflict degenerat into an endless cycle of retribution and violence like the one between Israel and Palestine. We would make ourselves an active participant of a vicious cycle if we simply cheer about each successful kill without asking how the killing has helped us move a step closer to defeating Islamic Radicalism.

If criminal law is applied, the due process must be strictly observed regardless of the residency of the alleged offender.

If law of war is applied, we have a right to kill the enemy threatening us as much as an enemy a right to kill any of us who try to kill him/her. It should not matter to us if the enemy is an American citizen or not. The same rules can be equally applied to and by our enemy. It is a war.

I think neither law of war nor criminal law is applicable to this conflict. Neither makes clear sense. The question should ask opurselves is that will our killing the leaders of Islamic Radicalism help us achieve our goal of defeating the movement of Islamic Radicalism?

Nobody wants to see this conflict degenerat into an endless cycle of retribution and violence like the one between Israel and Palestine. We would make ourselves an active participant of a vicious cycle if we simply cheer about each successful kill without asking how the killing has helped us move a step closer to defeating Islamic Radicalism.

IF YOU ARE A PROFESSOR OF LAW DID YOU KNOW WHAT HIPPOFEET IS TALKING ABOUT? JUST A QUESTION.

AMEN TO THAT TERRY BRENNAN. He WAS an American Citizen but left and joined forces with an NGO so he did forfeit his right and it is an act of treason. Goodbye awlaki.

I think he is a failed President too, but I applaud him for Osama's demise and Awlaki's. Just let the military do what it needs to do with proper authorization to take out the key elements now so it doesnt bite us back later. If they didnt know what they were doing they wouldnt be there. Let them do their job so we can wrap this up and they can come back home. Just think of all the things/missions/black ops that the public doesnt know about. It takes an act of Congress to move an Army, but a whisper from the Commander in Chief to send out some Marines. That was one of Ronald Reagan's passions, I know because I had the pleasure of meeting him and talking to him at Parris Island, SC back in 1986. One of the greatest speeches I have ever heard. And we loved his protect our flag and our country no matter what attitude.

My problem with Mr. Ackerman's article is not "the jerry-built" system in place to deal with actions against NGO's and known individuals associated with them. We will never come up with a perfect solution for this that covers every instance. The US and current and following administrations will struggle with this. There will be more laws and policy, some good, some bad. My problem is this article is reporting on reporting by someone else. There are no papers from the administration to wave, no former government employee speaking the painful (but at least honorable) truth. Before I believe anything, I have to decide if I believe Mr. Ackerman. From my understanding, the "mid-level NSC staffers" are people given the job by the Administration to decipher intelligence, gather proof, and make a call. Is that the responsibility of the POTUS? He cannot delegate those tasks to the very people in the very organization created to do that work? I don't think any one man would have the time to track, in real time, ponder the implications of, and deal with every violent NGO, let alone individuals. That's not realistic. I need to re-read the article, I did not see the "illegality" as defined by the constitution, a congressional act (not law itself), or a Judicial ruling (meaning now its law).

i Agree in
Yeah that's strange, i think americans are kinda brainwashed, i mean they should wear bombers and do sports instead of thinking that kind of things...Thanks for Work!
Ar Condicionado Imoveis A Sexy Alimentacao Ar Automotivo

bende sizlerden gordugum gibi belirtyiyorum bakiretr seklinde olmasi mumkun

Are you really turkish or fluent in turkish, that made no sense

I agree with this. I think the whole idea of being at war with an idea was the first mistake, but now we have enabled the worst kind of abuse in our system and have lost our rights as citizens. Furthermore its scary how easy it is for the government to recruit support from the people for such acts. container gardening

I agree we should not differentiate between a citizen or a foreigner. I believe we should treat everyone the same. If a US citizen is suspected of belonging to a terrorist group, the US should kill him/her as soon as possible regardless of his/her being an Islamic Radicalist or a white supremacist or his/her residency in Yemen or seslichat South Dakota. People like bin Laden are as dangerous as those like Timothy McVeigh.