The strike appeared to be the first time in the American-led war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that an American citizen had been deliberately killed by American forces, a step that has raised contentious constitutional issues in the United States. It was also the second high-profile killing of an Al Qaeda leader in the past five months under the Obama administration[.]

The White House decision to make Mr. Awlaki a top priority to be hunted down and killed was controversial, given his American citizenship.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which fought unsuccessfully in the American court system to challenge the government’s legal justification for its so-called targeted killings program, which was used to take aim at Mr. Awlaki, condemned that program in reaction to the news of Mr. Awlaki’s death. “As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts,” Jameel Jaffer, the A.C.L.U.’s deputy legal director, said in a statement.

For what it’s worth, Foreign Policy’s blog agrees that Anwar was a US citizen due an appropriate trial. The correct course of action would have been extradition from Yemen to the US for trial.

Bin Laden’s wife, who was with him in the room, “rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,” said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, reading from the brief account, which was provided by the Defense Department. “Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.”

Despite expecting Bin Laden to put up a fight, Mr. Brennan said the assault team had made contingency plans for capturing, rather than killing him. “If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that,” he said.

After the atrocities of World War II, there were held a series of military tribunals called the Nuremberg Trials, where German leadership was tried under doctrine drawn up by the occupying powers. By attempting to create and follow a criminal war-crimes procedure rooted in justice, the trials dispelled notions of “victor’s justice” and “murder by court.”

So why couldn’t we do the same with Osama? Here are two reasons why we should:

Executive Order 12333

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed into law this order which stated that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” This restated Gerald Ford’s ban on political assassinations, and Jimmy Carter’s ban on indirect assassination. Of course, this does not apply to enemy combatants…

“Grave Breaches” of the Geneva Convention

We haven’t seen any evidence that Osama was actively engaged against the United States; when he was confronted by Navy Seals, he was unarmed. He should therefore have been accorded protection as a prisoner of war, fairly treated, and granted a fair trial. Instead he was assassinated.

I’d like to leave you with this quote from Reason’s Did the killing of Osama bin Laden violate U.S. law?:

“We’re violating our basic values and our basic principles, which is that we accord everybody due process and we don’t engage in summary executions,” argued libertarian Fox Business Channel host Judge Andrew Napolitano. “Justice is not a summary execution by a Navy SEAL in your bedroom.”

The Economist’s obituary of Osama bin Ladin is also worth reading.

Update: In the LA Times article “Osama bin Laden’s son says U.S. broke international law ‘if’ his father is dead”, Omar bin Ladin says “We are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead.” Omar also accuses the US of “breaking international law by killing the unarmed terrorist leader without a trial.”

In light of the anniversary, it’s worth spending some time to ask yourself “what has America done to make them hate us so much?” Consider the recent imperialist unjust wars fought in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and the illicit actions of the CIA around the world, or the hundreds of military bases we maintain in other countries. The aid dollars we dole out to dictators to preserve the status quo, our arbitrary tariffs and immigration policies that alienate foreigners, and the eroding of Americans’ own civil liberties in the name of “freedom” and the “war against terror.”

America was once respected as a nation of justice, wisdom, and opportunity. Perhaps over time the Obama administration can repair America’s reputation.

“So, let’s imagine how [the September 11th attacks] could have been worse for example. Suppose that on September 11, Al-Qaeda had bombed the White House and killed the President, instituted a murderous, brutal regime which killed maybe 50,000 to 100,000 people and tortured about 700,000, set up a major international terrorist center in Washington, which was overthrowing governments all over the world, and installing brutal vicious neo-Nazi dictatorships, assassinating people. Suppose he called in a bunch of economists, let’s call them the ‘Kandahar Boys’ to run the American economy, who within a couple of years had driven the economy into one of the worst collapses of its history. Suppose this had happened. That would have been worse than 9/11, right? But it did happen. And it happened on 9/11. That happened on September 11, 1973 in Chile. The only thing you have to change is this per capita equivalence, which is the right way to look at it. Well, did that change the world? Yeah, it did but not from our point of view, in fact, who even knows about it? Incidentally, just to finish, because we [the U.S.] were responsible for that one.” — Noam Chomsky.

1. I always wanted to be a vegetable farmer
2. I can’t stop, won’t stop
3. If my father would only decipher a coded message and find the treasure
4. People think of me as sleepy
5. I suffer most from frailness
6. What upsets me most is totalitarian imperialist regimes
7. Most men are shorter than they want to be
8. My family treats me like a prized gnu
9. My greatest worry is how to balance work, life, and everything
10. Some members of the opposite sex have mysterious eyes
11. Most women have more pairs of shoes than me
12. I regret losing my blog’s dominance and audience
13. The main thing in life is love
14. Secretly I read poems
15. If my mother would only recertify
16. I don’t like people who can’t wink
17. I wish I could forget the time i drank too much rum
18. When troubled i sleep
19. It bothers me that I am sick today
20. What angers me most is the loss of innocence

If you like this meme, do it on your blog and hit me up in the comments with the link!

Deputy Chris Engel, 25, had been on the job just two weeks when a routine traffic stop Dec. 20 turned into the biggest cash seizure the Nebraska county has ever seen. The driver’s story didn’t add up, Engel said, so he did a little more investigating. The driver was not arrested — or even ticketed for going 10 mph over the 75 mph speed limit. (He was warned.) But the investigation is ongoing, Engel said. The Nebraska State Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Agency are assisting in the investigation.

“Chris is a very aggressive young deputy,” Hanson said. Investigators don’t know if they will be able to connect the money to a drug operation, Hanson said, but the important work already has been done. “The big thing is he grabbed 69 (thousand dollars) and took it away from them,” Hanson said of the money seized. “That’s going right straight to the heart of the matter.”

Thanks to America’s asset forfeiture laws, Police can and will take your property from you if they want to, or suspect they can. Usually this occurs when carrying large amounts of cash under the assumption that anyone carrying a large amount of cash must be guilty of a crime. The legal proceedings are dubious, as the Federal government brings a civil case against your seized cash:

The US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a “preponderance of the evidence” that it is not.

On a practical level, the law enforcement agents making the seizures are either (a) funding their departments or (b) acquiring equity that will personally benefit them, a clear conflict of interest between revenue generating activities and lawfulness. This came from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed by Congress in 1970, which sought to reduce crime by eliminating its financial motivations. For example, in the case of a drug dealer, RICO would let police take his pimped out car, stacks of cash, and other such business accessories, making it unprofitable and embarrassing to be in that profession.

The Mesa Tribune did an analysis of the RICO cases filed in Arizona between January 1990 to November 1993. The nine local agencies it analyzed were the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the D.P.S. (Department of Public Safety), the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and the Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe police departments:

• Nearly three-fourths of the people who lose property in forfeiture cases are never charged with a crime.
• About two-thirds of the people who had property seized had no criminal records in Maricopa County.
• One of every six people whose property was seized was an uninvolved third party who was not even present when the property was taken. Typically these were parents, siblings, boyfriends, or girlfriends who entrusted their cars or other property to someone who was arrested on a narcotics-related charge.
• More than $4 million in cash – 54.8% of that taken – was seized from people who were never charged with a crime.
• Of the more than 2,400 people whose property was seized, only one in five was ultimately convicted.
• Only one in 20 went to prison.
• One in 40 went to prison for five years or more, even though those are the people most likely to be the kingpins at which the law is aimed.
• Despite the law’s stated aim of breaking wealthy crime organizations, the average cash seizure is $3,063.
• According to the Mesa Tribune study, the nine agencies raised $26.5 million in that time period. Typically, forfeiture profits are divided among the agencies that contributed to the case.

Once your equity has been taken from you, it’s your own responsibility to sue to get it back. Probably, you won’t even be charged with a crime, just presumed to be guilty of criminal activity before being proved so. To show “innocent ownership” in court, according to Practical Freedom, you must demonstrate all of the following:

1. The person acquired an interest in the property before or during the criminal act.
2. The property was acquired legally.
3. The owner did not or could not have known of the illegal activity.
4. The owner was not married to the person committing the illegal act.

When is someone going to sue the government and get this turned around? Asset forfeiture makes sense when it is applied after the judgment of guilt, not before, and inside the usual limitation and restrictions of law.