Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I beg to differ it going to be very hard to top when Obama ordered an extra extrajudicial killings of a US citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki.



Said US citizen renounced his US citizenship and was not within the geographic territory of the US (including military bases, embassies, etc.).

Ergo, it is legally questionable that it was an extrajudicial killing of a US citizen and is more likely the legal killing of a non-state combatant not protected by the Geneva Convention.


Thiz is false, there is not evidence al Awlaki renounced his citizenship. The Obama administration didn’t even deny the fact of his citizenship.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/09/30/was-anwar-al-awlaki-sti...


The FP analysis admits that one of the ways that a citizen renounces their citizenship is by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The legal issue was whether serving in the armed forces of a non-state armed force engaged in hostilities against the US (i.e., Al Queda) would satisfy this condition.

And the overwhelming decision by every lawyer that reviewed this in the administration was that it would. Note that the linked NYT article does not say that the Obama administration admitted he was (still) a US citizen. That was added by the FP author, and the Obama administration has never conceded that point.

Note: if he had fought with ISIS instead of Al Queda, it wouldn't even be an issue, since ISIS did declare itself to be a state. Under US law, any US citizen who fought for ISIS could be treated as renouncing their US citizenship and the protection of the US constitution.


> The legal issue was whether serving in the armed forces of a non-state armed force engaged in hostilities against the US (i.e., Al Queda) would satisfy this condition.

To begin with, all record of his "hostile membership" come from US administration, and not much known about him as a man, aside from him delivering a quite certain opinion as a theologian.

What is certain is that he and his family been hunted for years and killed.

It might well be the case of the "security theatre" establishment completely making up a legend of him being a "super duper mastermind," and him unwittingly (and possibly unwillingly) assuming the role.


Imagine, a socio-racial profiling blacklist impacting 1m+ people, a double percentage of whom are your own citizens by birth, who grew up and live in US, and a murder of one very unlucky Yemeni family.

Of course both are reprehensible


He seems like an out and out terrorist. Easy to write something like this when you haven't lost a loved one to a terrorist attack.


The point of a trial is to have a better justification than your feeling of him being "an out and out terrorist".


There is no feeling. He was clearly planning things. And the govt may have got a confidential order from a judge.


I'm curious, would a secret order from a judge remain secret after his death? Forever?


Depending on what intelligence went into it, yes.


Then at least preform a trial in absentia rather than just putting them on the kill list.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: