http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

I realize that this may be "old news", but I just got this in an email a little bit ago.

Not quite sure what I think about it right now. Most of the time I'm on the fence. Meaning that my emotions say I don't care and my logic tells me that this is, or could be, a slippery slope.

The more I think about it the more I believe that the man targeted essentially gave up his rights to be an American by his actions/deeds.

Some excerpts from the article:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.
Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

What does everybody else think?

I think this is a shady area. Yes, he is an American citizen, but it seems he has committed treason, which I believe is punishable by death, but isn't a trial supposed to take place first?

treat him like everyone else. if we try to catch him and he gives up or gets caught, great. if he puts up a fight and takes a few bullets to the forehead, i wont lose any sleep.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said

I think that those "officials" may be misinformed.

dwccrew wrote: I think this is a shady area. Yes, he is an American citizen, but it seems he has committed treason, which I believe is punishable by death, but isn't a trial supposed to take place first?

That's what I first thought. Treason plain and simple.

Glory Days wrote: treat him like everyone else. if we try to catch him and he gives up or gets caught, great. if he puts up a fight and takes a few bullets to the forehead, i wont lose any sleep.

+1

So is the idea to capture the guy but kill him if you can't capture him or to just kill him?

Just kill him.

Kill em if you get the chance

Put one through his dome.

take him out.

CenterBHSFan, I'm with you on this one. I'm really not sure what to think. I've actually been trying to resolve how I feel about ever since I heard about it on NPR. It is most definitely a slippery slope.

I understand how everyone feels about his actions and how no sleep would be lost if a CIA agent sent a bullet through his skull, but at what point is that line drawn where we allow the government to kill American citizens without a trial?

This case seems pretty straight forward and I'm sure most would agree that this guy should die, but what about the next case, or the case after that; will they all be so straight forward and who determines when someone's actions warrant an assassination? Would it set a precedent?

Garden35, you mentioned that, "...that those "officials" may be misinformed", in response to the idea that this case is, "...extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing..." would you enlighten us on previous cases?

A slippery slope, indeed...but i think i'm ok with this. In fact, i'm definitely OK.

If we can capture him alive, then fine. But, if we can save the manpower and just take him out, then that is alright too.

Let's all agree that he should be killed in some capacity

Bullet through the skull or lethal injection.....

Target Mission has been a long time practice in a combat area approved by the Military/Government (I worked with a sniper assigned to my unit once) so let not make like it does not happen.
High Value Targets list is also a standings operation but with a more discretion ...Because this guy is an American does not make for a slippery slope. I feel his action justifies the Targeting and I have no problem because of the security of the country. After 9/11 High Value Target of other America was authorized by Bush and Obama is just following standard operational protocol.
Yes! Belly has admitted that Obama has done this one correct….. No sure he did this out of knowledge or just plain ignorance of the situation.

Belly,

I know that in combat situations, this is standard. However, I think the issue with some folks where it might be a slippery slope is just to snipe somebody walking down the street or sitting in a kitchen.

And although I have no problem with him getting justifiably snuffed, I also wonder about "down the road". Let me point out that although I'm not worried or even anxious about this, it does raise some questions for me, as it should.
*EDIT
This is why I am not totally sure what I fully think about it. I still need to take the time and process it out, and weigh my initial gut-reaction with logic.
......................................

As a sidebar, this just ties in with my thoughts concerning another thread. I stated that I have no problems with Americans being tried as terrorists by a military tribunal if they are confirmed as being such.
In my mind, if you plot to kill innocent people because of your radical convictions, that's terrorism and the people involved have essentially (in my mind) given up their rights as Americans.
At least they will be tried instead of just targeted for assasination. Hopefully before any lives are lost.

Ok, Devils Advocate again.....lets see if I have this right.....

If they are not US citizens then they should face a military tribunal......

If they are a US citizen, Put a bullet in their brain pan. We think they are a traitor and it will save the cost of a trail mandated by their rights in the constitution. :huh:

I'm thinking that this guy has information that they do not want to come out in court.

We are the greatest country in the world. Maybe we should act like it.

Revoke his citizenship, then shoot him.

Bigred1995 wrote: I understand how everyone feels about his actions and how no sleep would be lost if a CIA agent sent a bullet through his skull, but at what point is that line drawn where we allow the government to kill American citizens without a trial?

the second he points an AK-47 at a Soldier or CIA agent or if he puts his hand on a detonator as we try to capture him. that is where you draw the line between capture and kill.

Bigred....for me anyway, the answer to your questions can be found in the numerals of the time you made your last post

Glory Days wrote:

Bigred1995 wrote: I understand how everyone feels about his actions and how no sleep would be lost if a CIA agent sent a bullet through his skull, but at what point is that line drawn where we allow the government to kill American citizens without a trial?

the second he points an AK-47 at a Soldier or CIA agent or if he puts his hand on a detonator as we try to capture him. that is where you draw the line between capture and kill.

This point is moot, seeing that you could make that argument for anyone. any nationality anytime.

salto wrote: Bigred....for me anyway, the answer to your questions can be found in the numerals of the time you made your last post

I completely understand what you're saying, but my question for you, and I'm sure I know what you'll say, but would it have been as justifiable to "snipe" Timothy McVeigh and all involved with the Oklahoma bombings?

The ultimate questions I'm trying to resolve within myself in determining if this sort of action is justifiable are; At what point do we move away from what the Constitution say and kill Americans without due process (so what set of criteria do we use, if there is even a set that can be created) and who ultimately decides, is it the President's decision or do we have a Congress along with the President decide or a combination of decision makers?

Like I mentioned before, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this situation; but when I think about the future implications of this decision, it scares the hell out of me at the precedence it may set!

dwccrew wrote: I think this is a shady area. Yes, he is an American citizen, but it seems he has committed treason, which I believe is punishable by death, but isn't a trial supposed to take place first?

I have no problem executing terrorists or traitors. But I agree that there should be a trial to determine that they fall into one of those categories.

As far as I'm concerned, this rag-head renounced his U.S. citizenship the second he took up arms against the U.S. and its citizens and now nothing more than an enemy combatant.

Shoot him on sight.