Senator Debbie Stabenow Announces She Won’t Seek Re-Election in 2024
Idaho murder victims’ roommate heard crying, saw man in mask morning of killings: court docs
Lawmakers Voted To Send Billions To Ukraine While Making A Killing On Defense Contractor Stocks
McCarthy loses the 10th ballot for Speaker
MAGA-Hat-Wearing Teacher in Deep-Blue State Gets Major Legal Victory from Federal Court
Biden’s appalling response to the tragedy in Texas
Biden’s Buffalo Speech Was the Speech of an Indecent Man
Published on the same day as the Texas shooting and not related but Biden‘s words are related.
What We Know so Far About Salvador Ramos, Alleged Texas School Mass Shooter
Joe Biden’s Tone-Deaf Texas School Shooting Speech Is Absolutely Smashed by Dana Loesch
Never Forget Democrats Want to Remove Cops from Schools
WATCH: Beto Crashes Gov. Abbott’s Conference on Texas School Shooting
Report Shows FBI Spied on 3.3 Million Americans Without a Warrant, GOP Demands Answers
Top Republican Michigan Governor Candidates Ineligible for Ballot Due to Lack of Valid Signatures
LeBron James’ Son Targeted with Racist Comments After Taking White Girl to Prom
Interview: Kenny Holmes from FreedomSystem.org
Only 9% of Mass Shootings since Clinton Era Came from Extreme Right
Electric Vehicle Registrations Surge Across the U.S.
Report: Deadly Summer Blackouts Inevitable As Renewables Struggle To Replace Reliable Energy
In early July, 2016, I wrote ‘Is The War On Cops Debunked? Not So Fast.’ In that post I basically took the media and Reason.com down on their silly elementary ‘debunking’ of the war on cops. They used old data and applied it to 2015 and 2016. Which is utterly ridiculous and very lazy. You know, modern journalistic standards.
Now we are only two days away from the end of the year, and we have a lot more data. Sadly, I was right, they were wrong. Amazing what happens when you use actual statistics, and aren’t trying to promote your own confirmation bias.
Here’s the latest we have on police fatalities:
[supsystic-tables id=’1′]
Please note: These numbers reflect total officer fatalities comparing January 1 through December 28, 2016 vs January 1 through December 28, 2015
As you can see, things have been steadily getting worse since mid-2015. This chart only shows preliminary data on police fatalities, not assaults. Assaults have been increasing as well. A lot of the improvements made in police fatalities over the past several years have been a result of advances in life-saving technology, not a reduction in attempts to kill officers.
When the media peddles a false narrative that police are targeting segments of our population for murder (they aren’t), then basic human instinct takes root in the uninformed, angry, and criminal elements of society. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The debate has raged for some days now … was the killing of al-Awlaki in Yemen illegal?
Rep. Ron Paul says it was, but he says everything is illegal.
There are two primary arguments alleging the illegality of al-Awlaki’s killing.
First, he was a US citizen, and as such, was due a trial.
Second, the US violated international law by assassinating him in Yemen.
Neither argument holds up, both morally or legally.
First I’ll address international law.
Neither the Hague Convention of 1899, or the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbid al-Awlaki’s killing by international law. Right off the get go, proponents of this argument are off to a bad start. In fact, the international law community has often taken the stance that killing an adversary can often fall within the confines of international law.
Harvard Law addressed the issue a few years back.
The clauses that traditionally have been construed as prohibiting “targeted killings” are far from clear prohibitions. In the Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899), Article 23b states that it is prohibited “to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is not explicitly defined, and it can be argued that using missiles to attack a car in which a target is traveling, while brutal and having a high probability of injuring bystanders, does not fall within the purview of treachery. Similarly, targeted killings can be argued to fall outside the Protocol I Article 37 prohibition on killing, injuring, or capturing “an adversary by resort to perfidy”—described as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence.” Article 37 gives examples of perfidy including “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender” and “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.”
Basically, you can’t ‘assassinate’ under false-flag circumstances. No such circumstance existed with the al-Awlaki killing. It should be noted that this provision addresses someone belonging to a hostile nation OR army. While al-Awlaki did not belong to a hostile nation, he did belong to a hostile army. This is important later when I argue the relevance of his US citizenship.
In addition to this international law, the US has NO LAW forbidding foreign assassinations. We do, however, have a policy of not undertaking assassinations. Policy does not equal law.
The second component to this operation is that Yemen fully approved, and supported the killing of al-Awlaki. So no argument can be made that we violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation.
The other argument making its way around is that al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal because he was a US citizen. As such, an assassination order by the President of the United States would violate his constitutional right of due process. It should also be noted that al-Awlaki was not the only American killed in the attack.
Al-Awlaki’s ties to terrorism are not in dispute, his actual influence is. So can the president order his killing, or not?
8 U.S.C. § 1481 addresses the issue of US citizenship in situations like this.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality –
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen
years;
The law also addresses taking up arms against the United States in section 7. Considering al-Awlaki’s Yemeni citizenship, which does not recognize dual-citizenship, and his taking up arms against the US, it would appear that he renounced his US citizenship long ago.
Section 7 automatically revokes his citizenship because of his terrorist activities, but requires capture and tribunal. Since he was in Yemen, we revert to international law which permits his killing in order to prevent a further loss of life. More relevant is local Yemen law. Again, they assisted in the killing of al-Awlaki.
Is his killing a gray area? Only in the perpetually unrefined laws of US citizenship. Laws that most Americans agree need to be revamped, but the law nonetheless.
The only component missing to classify al-Awlaki as a non-citizen appears to be a mere formality of choreographed theater that would only serve to satisfy the selfish needs of third party citizens, not the parties directly involved. It’s pretty clear that al-Awlaki, the US, and Yemen were all on the same page.
Both al-Alwaki and Yemen agree that he is a citizen of Yemen. The US agrees that he revoked his citizenship. Who are you to swoop in and negate those facts?
The only sources of outcry appear to come from the ignorant, and those with a vested interest in ideological pacifism. Not from a position of morality or legality.
Ultimately, this is a debate that will fall upon opinion. If you think al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal, you’ll likely never change your mind. Same goes for those who think it was legally justified. Each individual will have to decide for themselves if international law, US law, or Yemeni law should reign supreme.
Of course, you can always consider al-Awlaki’s wishes too.