Principles and Policies Podcast for 10/14/2011- Was Al-Awlaki’s “Sentence” Correct?

This entry is part 2 of 55 in the series Principles and Policies Podcast

Our Principles and Policies radio show for Friday October 14, 2011. Barry Sheets and Chuck Michaelis of the Institute For Principled Policy discuss the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki and whether or not his death “sentence” was correct.

Series NavigationPrinciples and Policies Podcast for 10/13/2011-What Law Allows War Against A Citizen?Principles and Policies Podcast for 10/15/2011- The Electoral College

One thought on “Principles and Policies Podcast for 10/14/2011- Was Al-Awlaki’s “Sentence” Correct?”

  1. Thanks for the great analysis.

    Would Al-Awlaki have to have been tried in court before Letters of Marque and Reprisal could be granted against him? If not then how can a Letter of Marque and Reprisal NOT be a Bill of Attainder?

    Do Bills of Attainder, Habeas Corpus and Due Process rights apply to non-citizens? If so, under what circumstances? Is Treason, by definition, something that can only be committed by citizen?

    It seems to me that, if war had been declared, then by definition, none of these protective rights would apply to the declared enemy. Otherwise the power to declare war would utterly useless. Locke defined war as a conflict over which no earthly judge has the authority resolve–and therefore the only way for justice to be attained is for the injured party to “take the law into his own hands”. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to say that a judge must make ruling in order for enemy combatants to be killed, captured or held (even indefinitely) once a war has been declared. But presumably, these constitutional prohibitions imply that the United States can’t declare war on its own citizens. But are the Letters of Marque and Reprisal a type “war” under Locke’s definition, or is it merely declaring a means by which Due Process may be carried out?

Comments are closed.