Anwar al-Awlaki: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Anwar al-Awlaki (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 14. Januar 2012, 15:52 Uhr

695 Bytes entfernt , 15:52, 14. 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. Concerning International Human Rights Law, the case of Awlaki could be argued both ways.
+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 is strong evidence that Awlaki encouraged and directly participated in attacks against the United States.
+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. Under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) statute, American congress authorized the killings of any member of Al-Qaida, that the 'President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11, 2001, or harboured such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.' The U.S government argued that the AUMF would apply to any use of lethal force against Al-Awlaki as he has taken an increasingly operational role in AQAP, an organization the U.S determined to be an 'organized armed group that is either part of al-Qaida, or is an asscociated force, or cobelligerent, of al-Qaida that has directed armed attacks against the United States in the noninternational armed conflict between the United States and al-Qaida.'
+It is extremely rare if not unprecedented for an American to be approved for targeted killings, but this is a particular case, as The United States is still at war with al-Qaida and Al-Awlaki has admitted to be a member of al-Qaida.
-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.
-According to the principles of law enforcement, a states method to  prevent and suppress terrorism will be evaluated, it is under this law enforcement that the right to life is protected. Under this model the state is obliged to respect the right to life and carry out a fair trial. However, 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?’”