Anwar al-Awlaki: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Anwar al-Awlaki (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 13. Januar 2012, 16:40 Uhr

1.835 Bytes hinzugefügt , 16:40, 13. Jan. 2012

→‎U.S approved targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki

TN

197

Bearbeitungen

@@ Zeile 32: / Zeile 32: @@
 ==U.S approved targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki==
-The US government spent several months considering the legal implications of targeting the American born citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. President Obama said Mr Awlaki is a radical Muslim cleric and had taken ‘the lead role in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans’.  There was strong evidence that Awlaki encouraged and directly participated in attacks against the United States. It is extremely rare if not unprecedented for an American to be approved for targeted killing.
+The US government spent several months considering the legal implications of targeting the American born citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. President Obama said Mr Awlaki is a radical Muslim cleric and had taken ‘the lead role in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans’.  There was strong evidence that Awlaki encouraged and directly participated in attacks against the United States. Concerning International Human Rights Law, the case of Awlaki could be argued both ways.
+The International Law of Self-defence is used as a justification for any targeted killing operation against Awlaki in Yemen. In several Security Council Resolutions it is stated that the immediate aftermath of 9/11 affirmed the right of the USA to defend itself and emphasized that defensive force may be used when a State had failed to prevent or suppress terrorist activities originating from its territory. Michael Ramsden states that 'There are essentially two levels of State responsibility relevant to the practice of targeted killings. The first is to ascertain the **jus ad bellum** justification for infringing another States sovereignty. The second is to establish that the deprivation of an individual's life was lawful under IHRL.' The international law of self-defence, therefore, provides in relevant circumstances a necessary but not a sufficient justification for targeted killings. Ramsden further ellobrates that the justificatory framework of self-defence may be inappropriate for the use of force in Yemen, where there has been a distinct absence of protest from the Yemini government over past US attacks. The fact that the Yemeni government remained silent could imply their consent for such operations. This would mean that the appropriate **jus ad bellum** would be consent instead of self-defence. However, any targeted killing would have to be justified in accordance with IHRL, and the applicable **jus ad bellum** justifications (whether it be self-defence or consent)cannot deter any wrongful act under IHRL.
+There will be situations where the possibilty of arrest and due process is not possible. In such circumstances, the extrajudicial use of lethal force  becomes an unavoidable part of law enforcement.
+It is extremely rare if not unprecedented for an American to be approved for targeted killing.
 In an audio interview broadcasted over CNN early in 2010, Awlaki states:  “I came to the conclusion that Jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other able Muslim’ He asks American Muslims, “how can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful co-existence with a nation that is responsible for crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters. How can you have your loyalty to a government that is leading the war against Islam and Muslims?’”