[Micah Foehammer]

Who May Be Killed? Anwar al-Awlaki as a Case Study in the International Legal Regulation of Lethal Force

Robert Chesney
University of Texas School of Law

Free PDF download

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1754223

Great overview of the legal issues involved


from page 51:

In a brief submitted in the lawsuit filed by al-Awlaki‘s father, the government explicitly asserted that an attack on al-Awlaki would be justified under domestic law by the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force statute (AUMF), which authorized the use of ―all necessary and appropriate force against those entities determined by the President to have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As the brief explained, the AUMF would apply in al-Awlaki‘s case because (i) al-Awlaki has become an operational leader of AQAP and (ii) ―AQAP is an organized armed group that is either part of al Qaeda, or is an associated force, or co-belligerent, of al-Qaeda . . .

fromt the AUMF:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

@Azred - I think his actions DO matter.

Another view:

It is typical, though, of American society that there should now be anguish as to whether Al-Awlaki, as an American citizen, should have been targeted and killed. The American Civil Liberties Union says the killing violates the US and international law and condemns it because there had been no due judicial process. A government's duty is to uphold the law, but its prime duty is to protect its citizens. It is rare that the two conflict but when they do, the law must take second place to protection. This was such a case. Al-Awlaki had declared war on the US through the Internet. On his website, he called on Muslims to kill American soldiers anywhere in the world; he said it was an Islamic duty. In e-mails he encouraged US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to kill US soldiers; Hasan gunned down 13 at Ft. Hood in November 2009. The list of those for whom he was a spiritual guide and who carried out attacks is long. Last year he called on American Muslims to attack the US. Al-Awlaki's target was not only Americans who, he said, had to be killed “without hesitation.” He targeted Arab governments as well. In such rare cases, the demand for due judicial process by the likes of the ACLU is morally vacuous. Someone who plots to kill has to be stopped. Otherwise he will succeed. In such circumstances, those who insist that nothing be done until his criminal plans are proven in court are complicit in his crimes. They effectively enable him to proceed. They care more about legalities, not about saving lives. It was perfectly legitimate to target Al-Awlaki.

http://arabnews.com/opinion/editorial/article509786.ece