> I honestly have no idea how Obama's reputation survived this. Taking executive action that completely undermines an individual's constitutional rights is monstrous. It's really sad that it was a total non-issue.
I'm "conservative" (although I abhor Trump) but I will say in defense of Obama that there clearly are exceptions from constitutional rights. For example, police are clearly allowed to use lethal force to stop an armed and dangerous person.
I cannot speak on the finer parts of US law, but it seems obvious to me that it isn't as clear cut at some people portray it.
> For example, police are clearly allowed to use lethal force to stop an armed and dangerous person.
But in this case it's more like if a policeman stalked and sniped someone that they had an arrest warrant for. They defined a US citizen as a target and drone striked him when they were able.
> But in this case it's more like if a policeman stalked and sniped someone that they had an arrest warrant for.
It's worse than that, Anwar Al-Awlaki never had a warrant for his arrest, he was never charged with any crimes. In fact, after finding out about the "Disposition Matrix" (read: Kill List) that his son was on, Al-Awlaki's father publicly pleaded with the Obama Administration to actually charge his son with a crime so that he could be afforded Due Process. The Obama Administration refused to charge him with a crime, instead they just took him out a few months later with a targeted drone strike.
They essentially said they didn't want to have to explain things in court, so killing him was easier. Despite his scary name, Anwar Al-Awlaki was an American kid born in New Mexico. He may have been a bad guy, but we'll never know because the government decided it didn't need to prove it in court.
> But in this case it's more like if a policeman stalked and sniped someone that they had an arrest warrant for.
Disclaimers:
- I am no specialist on US constitution or laws but generally,
- I don't know this case kn particular except from what I have read from media, especially sites like HN
With that out of the way, from a common sense perspective, stalking and sniping a criminal who is a persistent threat to the public cannot possibly be unquestionably wrong, can it?
I mean, lets just go all out in a thought experiment that goes to the extreme end to prove my point: an American citizen sits in a known location and we know he is about to press the trigger that will release a highly contagious deadly pathogen inside 10 large cities, including at least one in US.
A police sniper has a steady aim on him from 100m and through a bug at the scene he hears him say: "this broadcast is coming to an end, I'll now press the button".
Will it not be correct for the police sniper to fire?
If it is, then the only question left is if it was legal for him to do it according to American law or not, and not something that should be an unrecoverable stain on someone's history.
It would depend on what that officer knew to be his 'rules of engagement', but also he a police officer and so it would be legal. They murder people regularly for far less reason than this without legal consequences. And, because of qualified immunity, even when what they do crosses into illegality, they still face no consequences. The POTUS need not be involved, police can and do violate constitutional rights all on their own.
I'm "conservative" (although I abhor Trump) but I will say in defense of Obama that there clearly are exceptions from constitutional rights. For example, police are clearly allowed to use lethal force to stop an armed and dangerous person.
I cannot speak on the finer parts of US law, but it seems obvious to me that it isn't as clear cut at some people portray it.