Based on your analysis, was Barack Obama justified in killing al-Awlaki?

OK. I'll play along as a learning exercise.

Under the USSC decision released today, I would say Obama is immune from prosecution, or at worst given the presumption of immunity. In my opinion, the targeted killing on foreign soil of those fighting against the United States in declared or undeclared acts of war is well within the circle of immune official acts per this ruling. Such killings also run the risk of collateral damage, including the deaths of innocents. That collateral damage should be minimized, but the risks of collateral damage don't have to be completely eliminated. That the son was killed separately from the father doesn't seem to change anything.

Obama would argue absolute immunity, or barring that, presumptive immunity. It would be up to the prosecution (that's you in this little thought experiment) to show that the presumption of immunity did not apply. The only evidence you seem to have presented to rebut the presumption of immunity is that the son was not on a kill list. As the judge, I'd ask if all of those killed are on kill lists. If you couldn't present some evidence to show that a person must be on a kill list before they are killed, I'd rule the presumption of immunity was not overcome.


To differentiate this situation from the previous silly hypothetical killings by Seal Team 6 on US soil, let's look at that. You can't order the US military to kill anyone. It needs to be connected to acts of war against the US. Killing a person such as a political enemy on the streets of the US is outside of the official acts of the President, and outside of the scope of the military.

--Peter