Radical American Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

[Master of Ossus]

The question is not whether it's impractical to arrest him. The question is whether or not he's a legitimate military target.

Deciding that he is a legitimate military target is equivalent to deciding that he's committed a capital offense.

In what possible sense is this true? There are entirely separate rules for how legitimate military targets are treated as compared with capital offenders, as well as separate procedures for handling such people. You are falsely equating the two to create a mix-and-match legal system, when the two are in fact completely separate for a reason.

The US government now asserts the power to decide, in secret council, that American citizens are legitimate military targets by virtue of affiliation with private organizations it has decided to be "at war" with.

This should not reassure you.

What? Are you seriously questioning the US Government's determination that it is in an ongoing armed conflict with Al Qaeda?

I would be far more comfortable with this decision if it had been made in the field or on short notice. Instead, the decision was made in cold blood, we knew for months that the US government wanted al-Awlaki dead, and yet there was no attempt to observe or even consider any kind of review process.

If al-Awlaki had been shot, rifle in hand, trying to attack US troops in Afghanistan, I would not have a problem with that. Because then there's no question of him being uniquely targeted for death by the government, and by its very nature his actions make his intent to kill Americans as blatant as possible.

It's when it's possible for someone to sign a document saying "kill this man" and have the government adopt a systematic policy of carrying out that order no matter how long it takes, no matter where the man chooses to go or what he chooses to do, that I think there's a chilling effect. Especially when that decision can be made without proof, or without a need to present that proof for examination later on, as is the case with al-Awlaki.

So in other words, you'd be MORE comfortable with a decision that had been made by a nameless cold, tired, scared, hungry, stressed out and confused soldier than you would be if it had been made by a large group of calm, rational people after reviewing an extensive intelligence file, the requisite international legal standards as put forth by the ICRC? This makes absolutely no sense. None. If a decision can be made using standards that are designed so they are easy to apply, why can that same decision not be made by an officer or group of officers who have time to think it over?

The review of the proof might be an open-and-shut case, but in this case there was plenty of time for there to be such a case. The decision to kill al-Awlaki was not made under any kind of time pressure or urgency, nor was there any obvious danger from taking some time several months ago to present the case for why he needs to die.

To whom? Who would defend such a "case?" You are simply going about this entire situation in an ass-backwards manner and assuming that your solution is correct. There is no legal, doctrinal, or moral reason for the judiciary to be involved in such a decision, and the law is very clear in these regards.

If he's so obviously a "legitimate military target" that you are prepared to accept his status as such without even seeing the evidence the state has against him, then surely it wouldn't be hard for the state to prove his status by presenting the evidence, right?

It may well be, because the information that they relied upon may well have been gathered by identifiable intelligence agents whose lives would be endangered by the presentation of such evidence.

Would you be opposed to a case being brought against the US government in that court, then, under the circumstances?

I guess that I think that it would be retarded. I'm not opposed to it because I think this falls outside the ICJ's jurisdiction, or anything, but rather because I cannot see any purpose at all to this particular hearing.

There may well be difficult cases under international law, where someone stretches the boundaries of the definition of a legitimate military target, but Awlaki was not one of them, and the US obviously complied with rules of proportionality and distinction. According to WikiLeaks, there's not even a question of sovereignty with respect to Yemen because the Yemenese Government actually green-lighted these types of operations. Bringing a case could not possibly clarify the law in this respect because none of the legal determinations that the US made when selecting Awlaki as a military target fall anywhere close to any legal boundaries. I don't see any purpose to wasting resources in this manner. Awlaki is self-evidently a legitimate military target, even from the publicly available information out about the guy. He was known to be involved in Al Qaeda operations and had published materials in Al Qaeda's magazine. More to the point, he had been listed by the UN as an individual associated with Al Qaeda (see UNSC Resolution 1267), conclusively establishing such a link for the purposes of state action under international law.

Frankly, if it came down to it, the strike would probably have been legal even if Awlaki hadn't been a legitimate military target, because Samir Khan was also present, also killed, and very obviously a lawful military target. (Let's ignore the issue that Awlaki was actually the target and simply assume that he was a bystander who happened to be present). The rules of distinction and proportionality would probably have allowed the US to carry out an attack on Khan, even knowing that another person was present, because this was likely their only opportunity to execute such a strike with so few civilians present (since Khan was presumably also holed up for months in a city or township surrounded by human shields).

Only after the state had already decided that al-Awlaki had committed a potentially capital offense, by crossing that line, could they decide whether or not to try to arrest him. And only after deciding it would be hard to arrest him could they decide to assassinate him. By the time we got to the "it would be difficult to arrest him in Yemen" step, the government has already decided it's OK to kill al-Awlaki.

That's the really disturbing part. Normally you have to have some kind of trial before you can mark a citizen for lawful death at the hands of the state.

This is true when the individual in question is accused of committing a crime. Even then, it's true only when the person is captured--people who are resisting arrest using deadly force, for example, can be killed.

But the statement is completely false when the person in question is a legitimate military target.

The government never determined that he had committed "a potentially capital offense." He was a legitimate military target from the get-go.

Again, what concerns me is the limit of the state's power to label individuals as "legitimate military targets." What is the limit? How wide a net can the state cast when looking for such?

We've talked about this issue before, Simon. Shall I respond with links to the relevant threads, or shall I assume that you are trolling because no matter how often I try to beat this into you your response is to forget the discussion the next time we have such a talk? The ICRC sets the standards for what is a legitimate military target and what is not. Awlaki isn't even close to the boundary between target and not-target.

When dealing with a tangle of loosely connected international (or domestic) groups, some of which are violent and some of which aren't, which members of which groups become "legitimate military targets?"

Well, obviously there's more to it then this, but people can only be eligible to become legitimate military targets when they're affiliated with a group that is involved in an ongoing armed conflict with the government in question. Again, we've had this discussion repeatedly.

What would it look like if the current US government policy about "legitimate military targets" who can be assassinated at will had been applied to previous eras when the US was experiencing civil unrest?

Like when? You mean like during the Civil War? Because that is literally the only time that leaps to mind in which the US has been involved in an ongoing armed conflict which was even arguably the product of civil unrest.

What will it look like in the future, if this thinking is applied to civil unrest in the US in the future?

Like when? You mean like in a redux version of the Civil War?

Al-Awlaki's death raises all these questions, and the government's refusal to acknowledge hard limits on its own power in these matters is what disturbs me more than the man's death itself does.

[/quote]

The government hasn't refused to acknowledge such limits at all. Indeed, we know that they wrote an extensive legal memo detailing those limits and determining whether Awlaki fell within them or not. Awlaki's death raises none of these questions because he's not a close case. He's a clear affiliate with al Qaeda, al Qaeda is self-evidently involved in an ongoing armed conflict with the US, and he was targeted with clear attention to distinction and proportionality. Moreover, he was a lawful and legitimate military target because he was making an effective contribution to military action and his destruction, capture or neutralization offered a definite military advantage.

[Terralthra]

Actually what I was implying was that whatever it is you were saying was rather unintelligable. I'll let this quote from Billy Maddison explain it better:

"No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. "

Please stop using colors for emphasis. Arbitrary colors are not universally visible on all color backgrounds, and highlighting the text for visibility is similarly not universally available.

[Master of Ossus]

No, he wasn't. I know that. That's part of my point.

He was killed because he was a dangerous radical, or an inciter of terror, or an enemy combatant, or a lawful military target, or whatever the phrase du jour is for people the state thinks would be better off dead because they're associated with a group the state considers dangerous. There are a lot of phrases like that, and they seem to keep cycling round and round- our enemies are military targets, except when that would imply that we have to treat them as POWs in an armed conflict, at which point they become something else.

Okay, stop. Several of these actually have distinct legal meanings which you must separate in order to actually understand the discussion.

An enemy combatant is a person who is fighting for an opposing armed group. This designation is used to evaluate the person's status for a variety of provisions of the Geneva Convention (for instance, whether the person can be detained or moved from certain areas, how they must be treated, etc.). It is not the proper test for evaluating whether or not someone may be lawfully targeted by forces of a state in exercising the state's right to self-defense.

A lawful military target almost necessarily includes all enemy combatants, but it also includes certain materials, structures, and pieces of infrastructure. This is the correct distinction to use when determining whether or not someone may be lawfully targeted by a nation which is exercising its right to self-defense.

Someone who incites terror is guilty of a crime. This is entirely tangential to the discussion at hand.

A dangerous radical is not a legal term--it is a descriptor that is, again, entirely tangential to the discussion at hand.

For the purposes of a legal discussion, these terms are not interchangeable. While some or all of them might be applied to Awlaki (or others), only one is relevant to whether or not his killing was lawful or not, and it is quite precisely defined by International Humanitarian Law.

That's another thing I don't like- the way the War on Terror has acted to abolish legalities and replace them with a maze of interlocking terms that add up to "we do what we like."

It has done no such thing. The legalities of the strike are very clear, and international law on the matter is very clear. You are confusing non-legal arguments with legal ones, which hopelessly muddles your analysis. When you actually read a legal memo or brief that discusses this subject (as opposed to popular media upon which you seem to be entirely reliant), you will see no such confusion in terms.

But yes, I understand that al-Awlaki was not killed because he had committed a crime. He was killed because someone in the US government put him on an enemies list. We can make a pretty good guess as to why he wound up on an enemies list. Certainly there was no lack of effort on his part to wind up on one. He worked pretty hard to define himself as an enemy.

I am still not satisfied with any answer I can recall to the basic question:

Who assures us that these enemies lists are being drawn up responsibly?

In this particular case, that would be the UN Security Council which specifically listed him as a member of Al Qaeda, remember?

In most cases, it is a member of the Executive Branch acting alone, which can then be challenged by the ICJ or other court of competent jurisdiction.

Who holds the people who make the lists accountable for what amounts to signing these people's death warrants? Why are they so allergic to accountability or review?

That would be the ICJ, and they're not.

And where are people getting the serene confidence that this will not wend its way back into our domestic politics, as has happened in so many other countries suffering from civil unrest?

Because civil unrest is easily distinguishable from an ongoing armed conflict, and an ongoing armed conflict is a prerequisite condition to establishing someone as a legitimate military target.

The Third Geneva Conventions (1949) covers this at considerable length (I focus only on their discussion of armed conflicts of a non-international character, since that's clearly what you're most preoccupied with).

PARAGRAPH 1. -- APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

1. ' Introductory sentence -- Field of application of the Article '

A. ' Cases of armed conflict. ' What is meant by "armed conflict not of an international character"? The expression is so general, so vague, that many of the delegations feared that it might be taken to cover any act committed by force of arms -- any form of anarchy, rebellion, or even plain banditry. For example, if a handful of individuals were to rise in rebellion against the State and attack a police station, would that suffice to bring into being an armed conflict within the meaning of the Article? In order to reply to questions of this sort, it was suggested that the term "conflict" should be defined or -- and this would come to the same thing -- that a list should be given of a certain number of conditions on which the application of the Convention would depend. The idea was finally abandoned, and wisely so. Nevertheless, these different conditions, although in no way obligatory, constitute convenient criteria, and we therefore think it well to give a list drawn from the various amendments discussed; they are as follows (13):

[p.36] (1) That the Party in revolt against the de jure Government possesses an
organized military force, an authority responsible for its acts,
acting within a determinate territory and having the means of
respecting and ensuring respect for the Convention.

(2) That the legal Government is obliged to have recourse to the regular
military forces against insurgents organized as military and in
possession of a part of the national territory.

(3) (a) That the de jure Government has recognized the insurgents as
belligerents; or
(b) That it has claimed for itself the rights of a belligerent; or
(c) That it has accorded the insurgents recognition as belligerents
for the purposes only of the present Convention; or
(d) That the dispute has been admitted to the agenda of the Security
Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations as being a
threat to international peace, a breach of the peace, or an act
of aggression.

(4) (a) That the insurgents have an organization purporting to have the
characteristics of a State.
(b) That the insurgent civil authority exercises de facto authority
over the population within a determinate portion of the national
territory.
(c) That the armed forces act under the direction of an organized
authority and are prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war.
(d) That the insurgent civil authority agrees to be bound by the
provisions of the Convention.

All of these are pretty obvious criteria. I see little danger of a genuine confusion, in this regard.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Your nation, that is not under threat of physical annihilation and champions itself a defender of democracy

Full stop, right there. Just based, so far, upon the lack of reaction by the majority of the populace of this nation, democracy is exactly what is being touted. Apparently, 51% of the sons-of-bitches in this nation approved whacking al-Awlaki. That is Democracy in Action and exactly why its called Mob Rule.

[CrateriaA]

Your nation, that is not under threat of physical annihilation and champions itself a defender of democracy

Full stop, right there. Just based, so far, upon the lack of reaction by the majority of the populace of this nation, democracy is exactly what is being touted. Apparently, 51% of the sons-of-bitches in this nation approved whacking al-Awlaki. That is Democracy in Action and exactly why its called Mob Rule.

No, this isn't mob rule. This is Corpratist State Crony Capitalist Oligarchy. If it was mob rule (your little AC land) they wouldn't be fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq- likely they'd be fighting in the USA.

[PeZook]

Full stop, right there. Just based, so far, upon the lack of reaction by the majority of the populace of this nation, democracy is exactly what is being touted. Apparently, 51% of the sons-of-bitches in this nation approved whacking al-Awlaki. That is Democracy in Action and exactly why its called Mob Rule.

That's...a surprisingly good point, actually

I guess the US likes to thinks it champions what we usually think of as democracy, that is "representiative republic of limited prerogatives and beholden to rule of law".

[Eleas]

When pressed, you revert to expressing how little sympathy you feel for their fate.

What actually happened is that Bakrusta said all people are deserving of sympathy and MP said that he doesn't agree. But why let facts get in the way of bullshit?

I'll assume this is an honest question, seeing as how you clearly ignore the fact of context mattering. In answer to that question, we should let facts get in the way of bullshit -- your bullshit, to be specific -- because facts advance the discussion. Your ignoring the meaning behind Bakustras words does not; it merely obfuscates the issue, rather in the same way your unwillingness to meet the rest of my points does.

[Samuel]

When pressed, you revert to expressing how little sympathy you feel for their fate.

What actually happened is that Bakrusta said all people are deserving of sympathy and MP said that he doesn't agree. But why let facts get in the way of bullshit?

I'll assume this is an honest question, seeing as how you clearly ignore the fact of context mattering. In answer to that question, we should let facts get in the way of bullshit -- your bullshit, to be specific -- because facts advance the discussion. Your ignoring the meaning behind Bakustras words does not; it merely obfuscates the issue, rather in the same way your unwillingness to meet the rest of my points does.

page 8

Yes, I do in fact feel some sympathy for people that are murdered, as I feel that they deserve it by virtue of being human.

For the record, I would tend to consider bad things happening to bad men because of their bad actions to be the definition of karmic justice.

I completely and totally accurately reported what the two were saying... and you declared I was slinging bullshit.

As for why I'm not responding to your points, I was under the impression you were capable of reading the fucking thread. Marshal Purnell and MoO have covered your points and it is redundent for me to do so as well. Would you like for me to copy and paste their posts since you seem entirely unable of reading them yourself?

You have repeatedly stated that it was legitimate and alluded to a legal process being held, sans evidence. You have not proven this by logic other than the notion of any member of an armed resistance being fair game or that it's been done before. When pressed, you revert to expressing how little sympathy you feel for their fate. It does give the impression of you defining their rights by how well you like them.

If the (international) legitimacy is not in question, then pray tell, which (international) definitions are you using? What clearly delineated rules permit the US to legally wage war against an enemy with no soldiers, according to international rules? In short, what underpins your iron certitude?

No, I have said a legal process was not required. Congress has defined Al Qaeda as an enemy the President is authorized to use military force against. Al-Awlaki was beyond question a member of Al Qaeda, having gone to Yemen to put into effect his self-declared intention of waging war against the Unites States. Ergo he was legitimate military target. No trial is necessary to engage such.

International law doesn't even enter into the equation. The invasion of Afghanistan was authorized by the UNSC under the UN Charter as a case of self-defense. Al Qaeda was, effectively, an auxiliary force for the Taliban and can be engaged as such. We have no particular need for authorization to operate in Yemen beyond the support of the Yemeni government, which has welcomed American involvement. Even if not, the US can invoke the right to self-defense by preemptive action under the UN Charter, as Al Qaeda has undoubtedly demonstrated both the means and the will to attack the United States. The particulars of how to treat captured Al Qaeda are ambiguous given the stateless nature of the organization, but it is blindingly obvious to any serious observer that military force is objectively required to fight Al Qaeda effectively.

[Eleas]

page 8

Yes, I do in fact feel some sympathy for people that are murdered, as I feel that they deserve it by virtue of being human.

For the record, I would tend to consider bad things happening to bad men because of their bad actions to be the definition of karmic justice.

I completely and totally accurately reported what the two were saying... and you declared I was slinging bullshit.

Because you were. This was not the sum total of their exchange. It ignores the context and intent of Bakustra's point, namely that MarshalPurnell's idea about "karmic justice" was delivered in the context of what should be legally permitted. Try to keep up. Please. And while you're at it, try to spell Bakustra's chosen handle correctly. Mockery is one thing, but this just comes across as lazy.

As for why I'm not responding to your points, I was under the impression you were capable of reading the fucking thread. Marshal Purnell and MoO have covered your points and it is redundent for me to do so as well. Would you like for me to copy and paste their posts since you seem entirely unable of reading them yourself?

<snip redundancy>

*patient sigh* No, those points were indeed answered to my satisfaction. I was referring to the fact that you accused me of hypocrisy and also of failing to meet Chocula's arguments, before weaseling away from acknowledging you'd done so. Remember?

[MarshalPurnell]

Because you were. This was not the sum total of their exchange. It ignores the context and intent of Bakustra's point, namely that MarshalPurnell's idea about "karmic justice" was delivered in the context of what should be legally permitted. Try to keep up. Please. And while you're at it, try to spell Bakustra's chosen handle correctly. Mockery is one thing, but this just comes across as lazy.

No, the exchange went roughly;

Me *aside*: All these overwrought posts make it sound like people sympathize with al-Awlaki.

Bakustra: I do sympathize with al-Awlaki! I sympathize with everyone who was murdered without due process! Why shouldn't any decent person?

Me: Because he was an asshole. And so were the Nazis. So fuck them.

Bakustra *gasp*: You support war crimes! You want us to just rape and murder people if they're bad!

*People call Bakustra out on his bullshit*

Me: No, I said I didn't sympathize with them. And al-Awlaki wasn't murdered anyway.

[Samuel]

Because you were. This was not the sum total of their exchange. It ignores the context and intent of Bakustra's point, namely that MarshalPurnell's idea about "karmic justice" was delivered in the context of what should be legally permitted. Try to keep up. Please. And while you're at it, try to spell Bakustra's chosen handle correctly. Mockery is one thing, but this just comes across as lazy.

Ah "context". Or as I like to call it "being able to make claims that you don't have to provide quotes".

Lets look at what MarshalPurnell actually said shall we?

First MP reiterates the evidence that Anwar was guilty.
page 7

He declared himself at war with the United States and took obvious, effectual steps to pursue that end. He did not go to Yemen to play tourist, and did not join Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for their fabulous dental plan. He had established links to Nidal Hassan and Umar Abdulmatallb, including the latter placing him on site at an Al Qaeda training camp, and openly boasted about how they were good "students" while proclaiming a desire for more of the same. The government had some other intelligence indicating he was taking an operational role and so placed him on a list of Al Qaeda targets in Yemen to be hit to degrade the operational capabilities of Al Qaeda; note of course that the fellow propagandist Salman Khan, definitively linked to Al Qaeda by his editorial control over Inspire magazine, was not placed on the list. In any case one would have to be deliberately obtuse (or remarkably stupid) to ignore the mass of evidence showing the al-Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda and had joined the same to wage war on America.

Then Bakustra brings up sympathy.

If you do believe that the US did the wrong thing and acted illegally against al-Awlaki, then why shouldn't you feel sympathetic to someone who was murdered without a chance of ever receiving justice? Tell me, would Allied atrocities be right if they managed to kill or torment or rape people who sincerely believed in the Nazi cause? Would it be wrong to feel sympathy for someone gunned down while surrendering if they voted NSDAP in 1932? The actions of al-Awlaki and his beliefs do not change whether people should feel sympathy for him if he was indeed murdered without chance of justice. Otherwise, we could justify atrocities as long as the people we did them to did evil or supported it. Is that what you really want to endorse?

MP responds repeating the evidence and explaing why he is not sympathetic to Anwar.

page 8

Al-Awlaki was, by his own words, waging war on America. And then he went to a warzone and joined an organization that exists to wage war on America. Prima facie evidence of being a combatant is all that is necessary in a state of hostilities to eliminate a combatant. Evidence like membership in a military or paramilitary force. It seems rather less certain to kill someone because he is wearing a uniform, than because he openly proclaimed his hostility in a series of videotape interviews.

Put more bluntly, his adherence to Al Qaeda is not in issue. He was an asshole who supported violent terrorist attacks against innocent people. Whether he merely "inspired" them or actively planned them, he was still a morally reprehensible monster and one who took active steps to kill innocent people. The domestic justice system could not deal with him because he fled to a warzone and surrounded himself with like-minded combatants, in doing so taking up arms against the American government. Fuck him. Fuck him in the ass with a Hellfire missile.

Bakustra declares everyone deserves sympathy

So only two of you managed to grasp that I was asking a specific question of Purnell, about why it was bad to sympathize with al-Awlaki. His answer was that no, you shouldn't, because liberalsliberalsliberals. Also, he personally is A-OK with abrogations of justice if the person is bad enough. Yes, I do in fact feel some sympathy for people that are murdered, as I feel that they deserve it by virtue of being human. A war crime is a war crime, even against unrepentant Nazis, and so is unjust. If a man who killed somebody is himself murdered in prison, an evil has been done against him, and I feel some sympathy for him.

MP disagrees

For the record, I would tend to consider bad things happening to bad men because of their bad actions to be the definition of karmic justice. I see no reason to waste sympathy on the reprehensible, especially those who have condoned and encouraged the murder of innocent people or who have murdered a bunch of other people. That does not mean I think war crimes are the way to deal with such people, but I am not going to feel any compassion for them when the price of their actions comes due. The failures of due process in the trial of Saddam Hussein didn't make him any less of an asshole, and the summary execution of Waffen SS personnel didn't make their list of atrocities any shorter, and Osama bin Laden being gunned down in the middle of the night didn't make him less responsible for 9/11. Fuck them.

I was referring to the fact that you accused me of hypocrisy and also of failing to meet Chocula's arguments, before weaseling away from acknowledging you'd done so. Remember?

No, I don't remember that. You know why? Because I never said that.

page 7

And this is why you are wrong. Because the special circumstances have been defined. Because the "right to kill anyone it wants" is not what is being argued. What the US did was entirely permisable under international law.

Rather than rebutting any of this you attack Count Chocula. It doesn't matter if what you said is true because it is completely and utterly irrelevant. There is a reason Ad Hominum is a logical fallacy, but you spend the time psycho-analyzing the Count instead of defending your own position. I guess principles mean you never have to examine them.

[Eleas]

Because you were. This was not the sum total of their exchange. It ignores the context and intent of Bakustra's point, namely that MarshalPurnell's idea about "karmic justice" was delivered in the context of what should be legally permitted. Try to keep up. Please. And while you're at it, try to spell Bakustra's chosen handle correctly. Mockery is one thing, but this just comes across as lazy.

Ah "context". Or as I like to call it "being able to make claims that you don't have to provide quotes".

Lets look at what MarshalPurnell actually said shall we?

I apologize. I simply read things into the thread which weren't there, and I'm sorry for wasting your time and being an asshole about it.

I was referring to the fact that you accused me of hypocrisy and also of failing to meet Chocula's arguments, before weaseling away from acknowledging you'd done so. Remember?

No, I don't remember that. You know why? Because I never said that.

page 7

And this is why you are wrong. Because the special circumstances have been defined. Because the "right to kill anyone it wants" is not what is being argued. What the US did was entirely permisable under international law.

Rather than rebutting any of this you attack Count Chocula. It doesn't matter if what you said is true because it is completely and utterly irrelevant. There is a reason Ad Hominum is a logical fallacy, but you spend the time psycho-analyzing the Count instead of defending your own position. I guess principles mean you never have to examine them.

Thing is, my attack on Chocula was no ad hominem, nor did you specify where my lack of principles manifested itself. You ignored both rebuttals by snipping them, which I interpreted as intentionally dismissive. But that's beside the point; I feel I must concede. I dislike much of my conduct in this thread, beginning with my attack on Chocula which was emotionally driven and at the very least excessive. Rereading the thread I'm not able to counter the claims of Anwar al-Awlaki's death being legal, so I shouldn't have gone off half-cocked the way I did. It was a response out of emotion, not logic, and I apologize for dragging that into the thread. Finally, I should have kept my cool and not baited you the way I did.

[Samuel]

Thing is, my attack on Chocula was no ad hominem

page 7

Yes, if you believe saying "You should kill Americans" makes you a target for assassination, then all these people should've been dragged out of the crowd and shot in the head by the police.

You've got to realize, PeZook, this is not how Chocula thinks. For reasons unknown, he actually sees his post as some kind of refutal. See, all you have to do (in his mind) at any given time is to attack the opposite camp as you perceive it, and if you succeed in accusing said other camp of acting fully as vile as your own, yours is exonerated. Apparently.

Or maybe that's not it. Maybe it's simpler. Maybe it's that Chocula, being demonstrably without ethics himself, cannot comprehend why anyone would apply the same set of standards to their own camp as to the Enemy. This would account for his immediate assumption that Thanas means and desires that only conservatives should be shot (fully disregarding that Thanas simply applies the murderous neoconservative justifications in this thread in a consistent fashion). No, Thanas is clearly looking for flimsy excuses to Kill the Other. That's how Chocula himself rolls, after all.

Then again, we can always rely on Chocula to distort and/or sidestep the truth in whatever fashion is convenient before running away (usually to return with the same arguments in the forlorn hope nobody remembers them being refuted the last time around). It takes a special kind of chutzpah to claim the rhetoric of the left is comparable either in volume and viciousness to that of the right wing.

nor did you specify where my lack of principles manifested itself.

page 7

It doesn't matter if what you said is true because it is completely and utterly irrelevant. There is a reason Ad Hominum is a logical fallacy, but you spend the time psycho-analyzing the Count instead of defending your own position. I guess principles mean you never have to examine them.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

No, this isn't mob rule.

Actually, it very much is.

This is Corpratist State Crony Capitalist Oligarchy.

Democracies naturally become Oligarchies. Its their ultimate end.

If it was mob rule (your little AC land)

Ah yes, Anarchism which is defined as 'Without Rulers' is somehow "Mob Rule". Tell me another one.

[Eleas]

<snip>

Yes, those were my words. They first specifically attacked Chocula's argument for being irrelevant. That was the attack. Then, they continued with a personal attack, and went on, and on, and on in that vein, which was stupid of me. An insult isn't automatically an ad hominem, though. That would require me to avoid his point. Which I did not: I (as I see it) accurately described the logical flaws in Chocula's position. Then I insulted him, which is permissible under the rules even when it was stupid to do so.

nor did you specify where my lack of principles manifested itself.

page 7

It doesn't matter if what you said is true because it is completely and utterly irrelevant. There is a reason Ad Hominum is a logical fallacy, but you spend the time psycho-analyzing the Count instead of defending your own position. I guess principles mean you never have to examine them.

Precisely. This still doesn't make any sort of sense. My "position" as you call it is simply an (unpleasantly worded) recommendation that Chocula stop cluttering the issue, and even if I had engaged in an ad hominem, how would that make me unprincipled? Should I follow your lead and harp on about your use of the word "never", as well?

[Samuel]

Which I did not: I (as I see it) accurately described the logical flaws in Chocula's position.

If you apply the standards of agitating for violence then you should also support the US bombing Fox News, Limbaugh's studio and nearly every other extremist talking head. How about you argue for the bombing of Bush's home, considering his words actually resulted in warcrimes on a vastly higher scale than those of the dead scumbag.

Yeah, show some evidence of any of that bullshit you just pulled out of your ass, Thanas. Specifically, Fox News and Limbaugh since you didn't call any others out by name. Should we also bomb Brad Blanton of Luray, VA for saying this at the Occupy Wall Street march?

It sounds like Count Chocula doesn't consider Fox News on par with Al-Queda and is unset with the implicit accusation that only American conservatives are hate mongers. The rest is him is attacking Thanas for hypocricy. I could be giving Count Chocula too much, but as I said it is irrelevant because you focus on this rather than your position, which is the subject of this thread.
(see below)

My "position" as you call it is simply an (unpleasantly worded) recommendation that Chocula stop cluttering the issue, and even if I had engaged in an ad hominem, how would that make me unprincipled?

[quote="Eleas]Because this is a thread in which precedent is made, and argued for, that a country that has already run roughshod over international law (and, incidentally, over my country's laws) for simple profit of its most rapacious elements, now has the moral right to kill anyone it wants to. Because of "special circumstances" that need not be defined. This is all irrelevant to you.[/quote]

Note that this quote is the one I respond to and specifically highlight, not your first post.

The reason I consider you unprincipled is that you made that statement on page 6 of this thread. There is a principle more important than intelligent debating, honesty, grammer or logic. It is called reading people posts.

I am amazed I have to explain this, but if you are going to take a position in a thread maybe you should actually read the fucking thread to see if people have already responded to your objections.

[Eleas]

It sounds like Count Chocula doesn't consider Fox News on par with Al-Queda and is unset with the implicit accusation that only American conservatives are hate mongers. The rest is him is attacking Thanas for hypocricy. I could be giving Count Chocula too much, but as I said it is irrelevant because you focus on this rather than your position, which is the subject of this thread.
(see below)

Fair enough.

The reason I consider you unprincipled is that you made that statement on page 6 of this thread. There is a principle more important than intelligent debating, honesty, grammer or logic. It is called reading people posts.

Sorry, but this is a bullshit definition of "principles" and you know it. I may have misread and misunderstood what other people said in this thread. Fair enough. We all come into the thread with different starting assumptions and positions, and that is why we debate in the first place. Yet you now simply try to redefine the concept of principled behavior into something far different, inventing a new meaning solely in order to score points. You saw my apology as weakness and, thinking I was down, kept kicking. I get that. Had you been less clumsy about it it might have worked.

I am amazed I have to explain this, but if you are going to take a position in a thread maybe you should actually read the fucking thread to see if people have already responded to your objections.

I did. I did not feel Marshal Purnell had explained himself with sufficient clarity, but I had to revise my opinion as the discussion wore on. I feel I should counter with the suggestion that you begin responding to other poster's posts instead of cutting off parts in what seems to be an arbitrary manner. Condensing a point is one thing. Omitting it is quite another.

[Samuel]

Sorry, but this is a bullshit definition of "principles" and you know it. I may have misread and misunderstood what other people said in this thread. Fair enough.

First page:

Al-Awlaki was a self-declared member of an armed terrorist group, actively involved in hostilities on the soil of an American ally. There is no question that the US has the right to use military force against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and affiliated groups. As a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, indeed as a senior officer of that organization, al-Awlaki was by definition a legitimate military target. His status as an American citizen was superseded by his status as an enemy combatant, armed and actively engaging in hostilities against the United States. He was killed on an active battlefield as an enemy combatant, not struck down in the homeland as part of a shadowy hit-list. There have been cases of American citizens raising up arms against their government before and the government did not hold trials for them before killing them in combat- this is ultimately no different.

Your position was demolished on the first page. Fortunately for me, you agree that reading people posts is principled behavior:

page 7

I seem to have struck a nerve. Tell me, why do you think I said what I did? Is it because I love to mock you? Not really. You're not that important. The reason is simple: I can't abide intellectual dishonesty and random bullshit in the face of a genuine threat to a large body of people, myself included. Your tendency toward counterfeit debating is irksome at the best of times; you have a track record of running away and then returning later acting as if the debate hadn't taken place, and of pretending to listen reasonably while in fact not bothering to read what's been said. By this you achieve a veneer of reasoning which allows you to masquerade as someone actually willing to debate, while in actual fact, you're just parroting talking points.

We all come into the thread with different starting assumptions and positions, and that is why we debate in the first place. Yet you now simply try to redefine the concept of principled behavior into something far different, inventing a new meaning solely in order to score points. You saw my apology as weakness and, thinking I was down, kept kicking.

This isn't about scoring points. This is about you entering a thread, spouting bullshit and being pissed you were called out for spouting the bs.

Different assumptions and positions are no excuse for not bothering to read. I am not attacking you because you said things that are false- I am attacking you because you said things that were shown to be false repeatedly by previous posters.

As for your psychoanalysis, that doesn't describe me at all. I hate arguing. It makes me queasy and upsets my stomach. I left spacebattles because of I got in an argument where people didn't bother to read my posts or position and I started having sleeping troubles. But once I start, I don't stop until I have been shown to be wrong or the opponent concedes.

I am also amused by your scathing psychoanalysis of Count Chocula and denouncement for not reading peoples posts and running away and pretending the debate never happened... given that Thanas, Bakustra and Simon_Jester did the exact same thing.

I did. I did not feel Marshal Purnell had explained himself with sufficient clarity

Al-Awlaki was a self-declared member of an armed terrorist group, actively involved in hostilities on the soil of an American ally. There is no question that the US has the right to use military force against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and affiliated groups. As a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, indeed as a senior officer of that organization, al-Awlaki was by definition a legitimate military target. His status as an American citizen was superseded by his status as an enemy combatant, armed and actively engaging in hostilities against the United States. He was killed on an active battlefield as an enemy combatant, not struck down in the homeland as part of a shadowy hit-list. There have been cases of American citizens raising up arms against their government before and the government did not hold trials for them before killing them in combat- this is ultimately no different.

Please tell me how this is unclear. Do the words have too many syllables for you?

I feel I should counter with the suggestion that you begin responding to other poster's posts instead of cutting off parts in what seems to be an arbitrary manner. Condensing a point is one thing. Omitting it is quite another.

Feel free to show where I have omited relevant information in this thread.

[Count Chocula]

It sounds like Count Chocula doesn't consider Fox News on par with Al-Queda and is unset with the implicit accusation that only American conservatives are hate mongers. The rest is him is attacking Thanas for hypocricy. I could be giving Count Chocula too much, but as I said it is irrelevant because you focus on this rather than your position, which is the subject of this thread.
(see below)

Fair enough.

Samuel hit the nail squarely on the head. Thanas brought up two well known liberal stalking horses, namely Fox News and Limbaugh, by name while also referring to an amorphous cloud of other "extremists." How conveeeeenient of him. I figured it was only proper to counter his bullshit with evidence of the other extremists, in their own words. The "hurr-durr conservatards iz teh HATESmongers" tone of his post, from a man whose favorite topic reply seems to be "sources?" annoyed me.

To reiterate: I was mocking Thanas. I had said all I had to say on Awlaki's Hellfiring a couple pages before that, and others (Samuel, MarshallPurnell, Simon_Jester, MoO, TheHammer, Andrew J.) did a much better job of explaining why Awlaki's killing was NOT illegal and is NOT a slippery slope.

And yes, Eleas, your "advice to PeZook" WAS an ad hominem attack. 100%, full stop. But you've apologized in a most manly fashion, so I'm not holding it against you...I'm sure we'll cross swords again over facts and perceptions!

[Eleas]

Your position was demolished on the first page. Fortunately for me, you agree that reading people posts is principled behavior:

<snip>

This isn't about scoring points. This is about you entering a thread, spouting bullshit and being pissed you were called out for spouting the bs.

Different assumptions and positions are no excuse for not bothering to read. I am not attacking you because you said things that are false- I am attacking you because you said things that were shown to be false repeatedly by previous posters.

Okay. Conceded.

As for your psychoanalysis, that doesn't describe me at all. I hate arguing. It makes me queasy and upsets my stomach. I left spacebattles because of I got in an argument where people didn't bother to read my posts or position and I started having sleeping troubles. But once I start, I don't stop until I have been shown to be wrong or the opponent concedes.

That describes me with a fair degree of accuracy. I feel I have to apologize again, which is starting to become a habit for me in this thread. I didn't mean to cause distress of that kind. (I did against Chocula, which is not to my credit, but that is a separate matter which I will address below.)

I am also amused by your scathing psychoanalysis of Count Chocula and denouncement for not reading peoples posts and running away and pretending the debate never happened... given that Thanas, Bakustra and Simon_Jester did the exact same thing.

I'm not, really. Looking back, the original post was written in a black rage, and after the initial catharsis, I was not proud of it. I still felt that, being my words, I had to defend them. That is a problem when it comes to positions and words which are indefensible.

As for Thanas, Bakustra and Simon_Jester, I fully expected them to return. At that point, tunnel vision had set in, and I stopped following what my side in the debate was saying.

I did. I did not feel Marshal Purnell had explained himself with sufficient clarity

<snip>
Please tell me how this is unclear. Do the words have too many syllables for you?

Conceded. I should have read what the posters actually said instead of what I thought they said.

I feel I should counter with the suggestion that you begin responding to other poster's posts instead of cutting off parts in what seems to be an arbitrary manner. Condensing a point is one thing. Omitting it is quite another.

Feel free to show where I have omited relevant information in this thread.

Conceded. What you cut was irrelevant to the thread.

To reiterate: I was mocking Thanas. I had said all I had to say on Awlaki's Hellfiring a couple pages before that, and others (Samuel, MarshallPurnell, Simon_Jester, MoO, TheHammer, Andrew J.) did a much better job of explaining why Awlaki's killing was NOT illegal and is NOT a slippery slope.

True.

And yes, Eleas, your "advice to PeZook" WAS an ad hominem attack. 100%, full stop. But you've apologized in a most manly fashion, so I'm not holding it against you...I'm sure we'll cross swords again over facts and perceptions!

Hopefully not with me acting like the giant douche I was. It wouldn't be unreasonable for you to hold it against me. My meds got mixed up, but that's not an excuse for the things I said. I saved this apology for last, but I really am sorry for spewing crap like that. I'll do my best not to be pointlessly offensive in the future.

[Samuel]

No hard feelings.

As for Thanas, Bakustra and Simon_Jester, I fully expected them to return. At that point, tunnel vision had set in, and I stopped following what my side in the debate was saying.

I have to apologize for this because I was referencing events you may not have been aware of or forgot (it has been 6 months). After Osama Bin Ladin was killed we had a similar topic. It was like this one, but much, much stupider.

[Vympel]

This is him saying the two are the same. I can get more from the article if you want, but I figured the opening paragraph was the way to go.

Go ahead. If you actually read the editorial post he's approvingly quoting - the one that actually refers to the brave and righteous murder of an American citizen solely because the US government says he's a terrorist (yes, I'm being sarcastic):-

It’s true that the assassination of Awlaki was carried out with the cooperation of the government of Yemen. That makes a difference. But would the U.S. have hesitated to kill him if Yemen had not approved? Remember: There was no cooperation from the Pakistani government when Osama bin Laden was killed in May.

It’s also true that there’s a big difference between an Al Qaeda operative who, according to U.S. officials, had been deeply involved in planning terrorist activities, and a duly credited ambassador of a sovereign country. Still, the fact remains that all nations ought to think long and hard before gunning down their enemies in other countries.

As the United States continues down the path of state-sponsored assassination far from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, all sorts of tricky moral questions are likely to arise. But this much is clear: The world is unlikely to accept that the United States has a right to behave as it wishes without accountability all around the globe and that other nations do not.

So much for your failed attempt to take Greenwald out of context by not quoting the whole thing.

[Samuel]

Go ahead. If you actually read the editorial post he's approvingly quoting - the one that actually refers to the brave and righteous murder of an American citizen solely because the US government says he's a terrorist (yes, I'm being sarcastic):-

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=151503

We did not kill Anwar because the government said he was a terrorist.

So much for your failed attempt to take Greenwald out of context by not quoting the whole thing.

It’s true that the assassination of Awlaki was carried out with the cooperation of the government of Yemen. That makes a difference. But would the U.S. have hesitated to kill him if Yemen had not approved? Remember: There was no cooperation from the Pakistani government when Osama bin Laden was killed in May.

It’s also true that there’s a big difference between an Al Qaeda operative who, according to U.S. officials, had been deeply involved in planning terrorist activities, and a duly credited ambassador of a sovereign country. Still, the fact remains that all nations ought to think long and hard before gunning down their enemies in other countries.

As the United States continues down the path of state-sponsored assassination far from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, all sorts of tricky moral questions are likely to arise. But this much is clear: The world is unlikely to accept that the United States has a right to behave as it wishes without accountability all around the globe and that other nations do not.

Thanks. You saved me the effort of reading that steaming pile of bullshit.

[Vympel]

We did not kill Anwar because the government said he was a terrorist.

Oh? So he was tried and sentenced to death on evidence determined as cogent by finders of fact then, was he?

Thanks. You saved me the effort of reading that steaming pile of bullshit.

Do you think this makes you look intelligent? Or is what the US does something other than state-sponsored assassination?

Would you like to call it Freedom-Killing?

[Samuel]

Oh? So he was tried and sentenced to death on evidence determined as cogent by finders of fact then, was he?

Look, if you aren't going to bother reading the thread to get the answers, why should I bother responding to you?

Do you think this makes you look intelligent? Or is what the US does something other than state-sponsored assassination?

Would you like to call it Freedom-Killing?

"Sigh"

This is for people who aren't Vympel who wan't to learn how not to argue.

Anyway, the reason I brought up Glenn's second article was to show the man wasn't reliable and to see if Vympel was intellectually honest. It is not a refutal of the claim that the US staged the Iranian terror plot. Vympel responces have been... illuminating.

Lets summarize the position's briefly.
I believe the killing of Bin Ladin and Anwar are legally different than the Iranian plot. Vympel does not and says that Glenn considered the differences. Lets go over it again since Vympel was to dense to get the hint.

It’s true that the assassination of Awlaki was carried out with the cooperation of the government of Yemen. That makes a difference. But would the U.S. have hesitated to kill him if Yemen had not approved? Remember: There was no cooperation from the Pakistani government when Osama bin Laden was killed in May.

It’s also true that there’s a big difference between an Al Qaeda operative who, according to U.S. officials, had been deeply involved in planning terrorist activities, and a duly credited ambassador of a sovereign country. Still, the fact remains that all nations ought to think long and hard before gunning down their enemies in other countries.

As the United States continues down the path of state-sponsored assassination far from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, all sorts of tricky moral questions are likely to arise. But this much is clear: The world is unlikely to accept that the United States has a right to behave as it wishes without accountability all around the globe and that other nations do not.

There are several things logically flawed with this. Lets go over them one by one.

First paragraph

It’s true that the assassination of Awlaki was carried out with the cooperation of the government of Yemen. That makes a difference. But would the U.S. have hesitated to kill him if Yemen had not approved? Remember: There was no cooperation from the Pakistani government when Osama bin Laden was killed in May.

Glenn is trying to show that the Iran and American actions are comparable... so he compares the two American examples.

Additionally he claims that the rationale given in one case doesn't count because it wasn't given in the other case.

This does not show that the American and Iranian actions are legally the same. In fact, the reason Vympel quoted this part eludes me.

Second paragraph

It’s also true that there’s a big difference between an Al Qaeda operative who, according to U.S. officials, had been deeply involved in planning terrorist activities, and a duly credited ambassador of a sovereign country. Still, the fact remains that all nations ought to think long and hard before gunning down their enemies in other countries.

Glenn states there is a "big difference". Of course he doesn't say what that difference is. The reason of course is that would undermine his entire case of hypocricy.

For those who don't know, one action is legitimate under international law and the other isn't. The reason this "big difference" that he brushes over is important is that for his case of hypocricy to be true, both would have to be in violation of international law OR both would have to be legitimate under international law.

Of course, since the man is completely intellectually dishonest he then claims that "nations should think hard about the example it gives". For those of you who are leftists don't do this. It comes of as being a santimonious prick who is making a position that is unfalsifiable and blames the US for anything that goes wrong.

For those of you curious why this is wrong, Glenn is claiming that legal actions should not be under taken because they will inspire illegal actions... amoung people who are not in any way target by the previous legal actions. There is no connection between the US action and the Iranian one.

Third paragraph

As the United States continues down the path of state-sponsored assassination far from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, all sorts of tricky moral questions are likely to arise. But this much is clear: The world is unlikely to accept that the United States has a right to behave as it wishes without accountability all around the globe and that other nations do not.

Glenn continues his intellectual dishonesty. What the US has conducted is legal under international law, so it isn't the US behaving as it wishes with no regard to the globe- in fact it gets even more hilarious when you realize he previously admits we were in Yemen at the behest of their government. It gets even more galling since he implied that our actions were legal in the second paragraph. The man has zero scruples.

There is also another fun weasel word "tricky moral questions". Because when you can't come up with a concrete claim, always cite moral questions. Why is abortion wrong? Tricky moral questions. Stem cell research? Tricky moral questions.

Vympel brought up ideological blinders and for that I am grateful. After all, it is so nice for an opponent to explain to you why they are wrong.

So lets look at the origional claim by Vympel about Glenn's action. Did Glenn consider the legal differences between the Iranian and American actions. NO. The closest he got was saying there was "big differences"... but than he continued with the claim the US actions were examples of the US doing whatever it wants. This shows that he does not consider them legally different.

Vympel will of course not be swayed by this. He considers killing terrorists "state sponsered assassination", a deliberately loaded word he uses because he can't argue the merit. Ironically he has previously brought up "poisoning the well", but the thing about ideological blinders is you can't see them.