Return to “Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas”
They were aiming for the right front tire, but missed.The Annoyed Man wrote:So what you're saying is that a predator firing a Hellfire missile at a terrorist's vehicle is essentially no different than throwing out the spike strips to give him a flat tire?AndyC wrote:They'da been quite happy to arrest him 'steada killin' him, but he wouldn't turn hisself in.
Sucks to be him.
I think I'd be inclined to agree!
Finally, as for the Bill of Rights guarantee of due process of law and protection from unreasonable seizure, the memo concluded that al-Awlaki was different from a regular criminal, and cited court cases allowing American citizens who joined up with enemy forces to be detained or tried in military court just like noncitizen enemies.
There, fixed it for ya.fulano wrote:Just the ones we need to. We are the USA....after all...and besides, they are our citizens.Ameer wrote:All of them?fulano wrote:yesMeMelYup wrote:Should U.S. kill citizens overseas without affording them due process?
And all the people said, "AMEN!!!!"AndyC wrote:"Look, I don't want to kill someone. But if you threaten my family [and] one of our lives is in danger, I'm doing all I can to kill you. No apologies."
-- CNN contributor Roland S. Martin, commenting via Facebook on the U.S.-led attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Islamic preacher turned propaganda chief for al-Qaida, in Yemen on Friday. Some had questioned whether the killing of an American citizen without due process was unconstitutional. Martin was apparently not one of them.
Yemen is full of training camps for al-Queda, so that makes it a war zone IMO.apostate wrote:When did the United States invade Yemen?jocat54 wrote:The guy was in a war zone
Heck, last time I checked a map, it din't even share a border with Iraq or Afghanistan. So there goes the Cambodia or Laos anaolgy from the Viet Nam war.
That is a totally unrealistic comparison. al-Awlaki was not targeted for being a Muslim. He had pledged allegiance to military force who is an enemy of the United States (aka al-Queda) with which war has been declared against. Once that has happened, the person is an enemy combatant and not an unlawful combatant (i.e. no longer a civilian, but a soldier of al-Queda) as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3.Cobra Medic wrote:In the same way a lynch mob or vigilante is acting in self defense.Purplehood wrote:I consider it a combat-related death.
Correct. One level lower than the actual act committed.speedsix wrote:...so they could get the death penalty by charging him as an accomplice, where conspiracy would only get the First degree felony punishment...right?
Title 5, Offenses Against the Person
§ 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person
commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly,
recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.
(b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder,
manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, § 1,
eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff.
I canMadMonkey wrote:Can you explain that? I don't see how he could be held responsible... are there any examples from here in TX?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Under Texas law, he killed everyone of the soldiers murdered at Fort Hood.
Edit to add: Since the crime commited was several counts of Capital Murder (the intentional murder of someone for retaliatory purposes, which carries a Capital Felony penalty), the Conspiracy charge would be covered as a 1st Degree Felony.CHAPTER 15. PREPARATORY OFFENSES
§ 15.02. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
(a) A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed:
(1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and
(2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.
(b) An agreement constituting a conspiracy may be inferred from acts of the parties.
(c) It is no defense to prosecution for criminal conspiracy that:
(1) one or more of the coconspirators is not criminally responsible for the object offense;
(2) one or more of the coconspirators has been acquitted, so long as two or more coconspirators have not been acquitted;
(3) one or more of the coconspirators has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, or is immune from prosecution;
(4) the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the object offense is legally incapable of committing the object offense in an individual capacity; or
(5) the object offense was actually committed.
(d) An offense under this section is one category lower than the most serious felony that is the object of the conspiracy, and if the most serious felony that is the object of the conspiracy is a state jail felony, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor.
