<<I don't think they were too concerned about taking Yamimoto out over the Pacific Ocean, so your territory condition doesn't seem to apply. And i don't believe he was convicted of anything prior to his demise. >>
I don't think you understood my point about territory - - what I meant was that it was easier to apply the law of war to a conflict in which the declared enemy has a well-defined national territory, as Japan did and as "terrorism" does not.
<<Why should al-Alwaki be any different. >>
Yakimoto was a uniformed officer in a military organization of a national state which had a defined territory and a diplomatically recognized government. Moreover the US Congress had formally declared war on the Empire of Japan and the hostilities were still in progress.
None of those conditions applied to Awlaki; Yakimoto for sure was a legitimate target.
<<Like i said, it's a gray area and one i'm not comfortable with. I think it sets dangerous precedent, even though i agree with the reasoning for the attack and applaud the results. >>
We're not even close on this one. There's something treasonous or seditious in the allegations made against Awlaki, but nothing prevented an indictment being drawn up for a grand jury, and notice by advertisements, public media etc. given to Awlaki in Yemen so he could defend himself against the charges, in absentia if that was his choice. He could have been tried and sentenced if convicted. Personally I liked Awlaki, liked his spirit and his style, but I can see where he might have been guilty of a capital offence. Only a court of law could have decided that issue. This is a clear-cut case of extrajudicial murder by the Chief Executive officer of the U.S.A. and as far as I know it's an unprecedented infringement on the rights of the American citizen. Don't think Awlaki, think BT in a case like this - - is this the kind of country you want for yourself, where the Chief Executive, employing fishy legal opinions that he's afraid to submit to a court of law, ordering assassinations of citizens who say things he doesn't like?
<<to my understanding al-Alwaki advised other to commit terrorism, but did not kill anyone himself. >>
Well, that was one of my points. He could have been guilty of some kind of offence, accomplice, conselling, whatever. But it doesn't sound like they had a good enough case to take to court. So they just killed him. That's outrageous.
<<Which makes him kinda like Charlie Manson and the Underwear Bomber Squeaky Fromme. And he isn't on death row. >>
Charles Manson at least had a trial and an appeal.
<<Updated: But as Plane pointed out if al-Alwaki wasn't an international fugitive, he could have availed himself of his civil protections, instead of placing himself in the position of being "shot while escaping". >>
Except that he was never charged with anything - - I guess he could have returned to the USA to go to court to get off the kill list, because the judge wouldn't hear his father's case to get him off. The question is the right to kill without trial if the guy isn't charged with anything and just fails to present himself to answer charges that don't exist. Sounds Kafkaesque. Bottom line is the guy is American and the Constitution clearly says that he can't be deprived of life without due process. I've seen someone argue that "due process" was served by a bureaucratic investigation, followed by a recommendation, followed by the Presidential stamp of approval. To me, that's a ludicrous and insane definition of "due process" and I'm sure there isn't a court in the country that would accept that process as "due process of law."
See John Paul Knowles.
