Obama the pioneer

[Broomstick]

And those of us like me who were opposed to the Iraq war since day one? Is it our fault too?

I was not one of the people waving that flag. Even in my Lolbertarian state, I do not recall doing so.

I rather suspect that those of us who are Americans on this forum are the exception to many general statements made here about Americans. As long as both sides of an argument keep that in mind we can spare some hurt feelings all around. Unfortunately, English doesn't distinguish between "you, an individual", "you, inclusive of everyone in a group" and "you in a general sense but with exceptions".

The problem is, and always has been, that a citizen against a war that is underway typically has limited means of doing anything about it. Past a certain point you're not talking about peaceful protest and marching down main street with a legal permit anymore, you're talking about things that are illegal, dangerous, and just as morally suspect the government conducting extra-legal executions without trial.

As far as due process being eliminated/side-stepped - it may well have happened before but the information was successfully kept under wraps. It's getting harder to keep secrets these days. Certainly habeus corpus was openly disregarded during the US Civil War. It certainly wouldn't shock me to find out that 70 or 150 years ago the US government did some targeted killing, it's not like the folks back then were paragons of moral virtue.

I'm not surprised Obama didn't roll back the abuses started under Bush II. It's very hard to give up power. And that line that power corrupts? It sure does, and I'm also pretty sure that explains some of Obama's shift post-election. I still think that swapping Romney for Obama would be a bad idea, as I'd expect him to just do more of the same but with greater intensity and be convinced that he's doing the right thing for the right reason no what the carnage that ensues.

[Sea Skimmer]

If you use it (as it has been done) to keep US citizens from returning home? Do I need to bring up that 18 year old kid who was tortured in IIRC Kuwait and then denied re-entry into the US for four months when the torture uncovered nothing?

I'd love to see specifics on that which precluded him from using any other method other then commercial airline to travel. Just the other month a kid did in fact travel to Mexico and cross into the US after having problems with the no fly list. In fact that list doesn't even stop charter/private flight, purely commercial airliners out of fear of hijackings.

There need not be a law specifically regarding air traffic. We are a signatory of he Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is binding, and includes a right to travel and return to one's nation of citizenship.

A right of travel does not equal a right to travel in any manner one desires, just like freedom of speech does not equal a right to be heard at any time and place you choose.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'd love to see specifics on that which precluded him from using any other method other then commercial airline to travel. Just the other month a kid did in fact travel to Mexico and cross into the US after having problems with the no fly list. In fact that list doesn't even stop charter/private flight, purely commercial airliners out of fear of hijackings.

He was not free to travel. After he was tortured by kuwaiti officials at the behest of our government, he was held against his will in a deportation facility, but denied entry into the US. He was not permitted to fly, or enter the US by other means, for four months.

http://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/kuwait_2/

[Gaidin]

Are you two talking about the no-fly list in the same context?

[Darth Wong]

I know there are those who will just sniff "anti-American", but it's difficult for me to see the outrage about incidents like this and not snicker. This is supposed to be a terrifying "precedent" in a country which performed the infamous Tuskegee experiments on black men and imprisoned an entire race in the 1940s without trial?

I just think Americans have an inflated notion of just how expansive and indomitable their individual rights are: one which is seriously at odds with the history.

[Broomstick]

As a general rule, Americans really suck at history. This accounts for some of it.

I know we had several threads around the time of the Iraq War outbreak where various posters stated their positions. It would be interesting to go back and see who said what but there are so many threads that have mentioned it over the years that sorting out the relevant information is a bit tedious. I know at least one regular poster has publically admitted, later on, that his prior support for the war was wrong.

Anyhow - one important thing to remember about the US is the gap between theory and practice. The constitution is the theory of how the government should work. The actual practice (often called history) shows that in reality the government and nation has often fallen short of the ideal.

[TheHammer]

The only precedent set here is the use of assassinations against citizens who happen to be impossible to put on trial without risking many more lives. If you're going to talk about precedent and law, then you have to remember how specific legal language tends to be. You can't seriously believe that this would be interpreted in any reasonable sense as a precedent for arbitrarily assassinating any citizen who annoys the government.

Wild-eyed fearmongering doesn't look any better coming from liberals than it does coming from Michele Bachmann.

I think thats it in a nutshell. This same topic is dredge up every other month or so and we are all supposed to believe that the sky is falling because Obama authorized the killing of a guy like Awlaki. Ignoring the extenuating circumstances, ignoring the fact that the world is better off with him dead. And instead believe that this will somehow lead to Presidents arbitrarily assassinating American citizens anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

If Awlaki remains the poster child for this "abuse of power" then I don't think that argument is going to gain much traction...

[Mr Bean]

I know there are those who will just sniff "anti-American", but it's difficult for me to see the outrage about incidents like this and not snicker. This is supposed to be a terrifying "precedent" in a country which performed the infamous Tuskegee experiments on black men and imprisoned an entire race in the 1940s without trial?

The Tuskegee experiments were hidden not public and the jailing the entire Japanese population was possibly only due to simple racism (The same kind that lets Steve King hold his Muslims are all evil terrorist hearings and retain office) you'll note that we did not round up the entire German population despite there being actual German agents in America.

[Darth Wong]

I know there are those who will just sniff "anti-American", but it's difficult for me to see the outrage about incidents like this and not snicker. This is supposed to be a terrifying "precedent" in a country which performed the infamous Tuskegee experiments on black men and imprisoned an entire race in the 1940s without trial?

The Tuskegee experiments were hidden not public and the jailing the entire Japanese population was possibly only due to simple racism (The same kind that lets Steve King hold his Muslims are all evil terrorist hearings and retain office) you'll note that we did not round up the entire German population despite there being actual German agents in America.

Of course it was due to simple racism. The point I'm making is that it's laughable for people to say this is some sort of scary "precedent", as if the country has been squeaky-clean till now.

[Sea Skimmer]

He was not free to travel. After he was tortured by kuwaiti officials at the behest of our government, he was held against his will in a deportation facility, but denied entry into the US. He was not permitted to fly, or enter the US by other means, for four months.

http://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/kuwait_2/

I see nothing in the article saying what you want it to mean, and looking elsewhere it appears he was in police custody at all times until he flew back to the US. So no, he was not blanket denied a right to return to the US. He was denied use of a commercial aircraft only and Kuwait refused to allow him to do anything else. Show me someone blocked at the border with a valid passport. It may well have happened, but I've sure never heard of it.

I know there are those who will just sniff "anti-American", but it's difficult for me to see the outrage about incidents like this and not snicker. This is supposed to be a terrifying "precedent" in a country which performed the infamous Tuskegee experiments on black men and imprisoned an entire race in the 1940s without trial?

Hey, we didn't imprison all the Japanese, by the power of logic and reason all the ones living on Oahu around our extensive Japanese sneak attack ravaged military and naval bases were left in place. Too important to the war effort to move! Best part is the US supreme court upheld doing it all too, not even deferring to the whim of the head of the army but just the head of the army on the west coast, and somehow people complain about the modern court like its the worst one ever.

[Simon_Jester]

I guess I don't see the outrage because you guys stampeded into a war, and in war, civilian liberties get curtailed. If you didn't like that, then you shouldn't have cheered and waved flags about starting a war back in 2003. So I guess my attitude on this is "well, if Americans don't like this quasi-martial law state that they're in, it's their own damned fault for choosing it".

How broad is this definition of "you guys?" Did all Americans stampede into a war and embrace all these consequences?

What about the 100 million or so Americans who always thought the war was a bad idea, always thought the abuse of civil liberties was a bad idea, and opposed it steadily throughout the past decade? What were we supposed to do, rise up in rebellion over this issue?

To me, this argument sounds like "well, you decided to live in this house, so don't go complaining now that somebody set it on fire." It just doesn't make any sense; how is it my fault that someone else did something wrong? Am I morally to blame when my side loses an election now?

Oh please, spare me the "I didn't vote for it" shtick. For one thing, people who supported the Iraq War are mysteriously far less common today than they were in 2003.

Yeah; I was still one of them. I wobbled a bit in 2004-05, before I was on this forum at all, but I never came out as pro-waterboarding, or pro-indefinite detention, or pro-assassination of Americans. Not here, not elsewhere.

I understand that you want to call me on my history-revising bullshit. Too bad I haven't got any on this issue.

But more to the point, that's the way democracies work: if you lose the vote, then things don't go your way and yes, you are in fact forced to live with the consequences of that decision even if you didn't agree with it.

I am forced to live with it. Where did you get the idea that I'm forced to like it?

How would politics even work then? Once the losers lost the election, they're supposed to 'quit whining' because it's their fault they lost and the country did something they didn't want. Complaining about it or criticizing it is just whining, so you shouldn't do it.

We'd have to vote on every issue once- one man one vote one time only, and after that it's settled forever, no takebacks.

What kind of democracy is that, anyway?

I know there are those who will just sniff "anti-American", but it's difficult for me to see the outrage about incidents like this and not snicker. This is supposed to be a terrifying "precedent" in a country which performed the infamous Tuskegee experiments on black men and imprisoned an entire race in the 1940s without trial?

Both of those since got ruled on by courts. The government can't do those things. It did them, and it isn't allowed to do them again. There are new laws against them.

The killing of Al-Awlaki is a new civil rights issue. I am disturbed by it, because it's a big violation, and because the courts haven't been willing to touch it yet.

Now, did you catch me saying "worst thing ever?" You did not. Did I say it was the worst civil rights violation in American history? I did not. It's not the worst violation in American history. It's probably not the worst in anyone else's history either, unless there's some country out there which is so tiny its government never had the wherewithal to have anyone covertly killed. Maybe Andorra.

It's still a violation of civil rights. I still object to it. Why do you have a problem with that?

Of course it was due to simple racism. The point I'm making is that it's laughable for people to say this is some sort of scary "precedent", as if the country has been squeaky-clean till now.

That's not what the word "precedent" means. See here. In particular, part two, "any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations."

Now that one American citizen has been killed overseas for being a Very Bad Man (TM), that sets a precedent. Obama, and other presidents, are likely to say "We did it that time, and got away with it. So it's okay to do it again." Sort of like how beating and torturing the one 9/11 attacker we caught became a justification for beating and torturing anyone affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and eventually just random Arabs who happened to get picked up and fingered as terrorists.


But this is not the same thing as saying "this is the worst abuse ever."

"This sets a precedent" is not the same as "this is the worst thing that ever happened."

[Elfdart]

I was not one of the people waving that flag. Even in my Lolbertarian state, I do not recall doing so.

I'm so proud of you.

Also: we have had plenty of wars. This is America, it is sort of our bag. Even in the depths of the horrors of WW2, or the paranoid frenzy of the cold war that lasted almost 50 years, the curtailing of civil liberties never extended to the erasure of due process. Ever. Not in this country. I think it safe to say that even those who supported the war did not sign on for this--and if they would now...well... Then the US is no longer a country I want to live in.

Since others have already brought up the herding of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps I don't need to. As far as assassinations go, read up on the case of Fred Hampton.

What makes the drone killings different is their brazenness. When Hampton was rubbed out, the FBI, Chicago PD and others had the good taste to lie and deny everything. Now John Wilkes Obama does victory laps after not only having an American citizen whacked, but after blowing up the man's son and even attacking funerals. The last president who pulled this kind of crap was JFK and look what happened to him. If anything invites blowback, it's assassinations since as the various shooting sprees demonstrate, any fucktard can do it.

I think thats it in a nutshell. This same topic is dredge up every other month or so and we are all supposed to believe that the sky is falling because Obama authorized the killing of a guy like Awlaki. Ignoring the extenuating circumstances, ignoring the fact that the world is better off with him dead. And instead believe that this will somehow lead to Presidents arbitrarily assassinating American citizens anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

If Awlaki remains the poster child for this "abuse of power" then I don't think that argument is going to gain much traction...

Typical KKK apologist, circa 1920:

They dredge up the subject of lynching every other month or so and we are all supposed to believe that the sky is falling because the local authorities authorized the killing of a guy like Lige Daniels -ignoring the extenuating circumstances, ignoring the fact that the world is better off with him dead. And instead believe that this will somehow lead to authorities arbitrarily lynching American citizens anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

If Daniels remains the poster child for this "abuse of power" then I don't think that argument is going to gain much traction...

Nice going, asshole.

[TheHammer]

I think thats it in a nutshell. This same topic is dredge up every other month or so and we are all supposed to believe that the sky is falling because Obama authorized the killing of a guy like Awlaki. Ignoring the extenuating circumstances, ignoring the fact that the world is better off with him dead. And instead believe that this will somehow lead to Presidents arbitrarily assassinating American citizens anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

If Awlaki remains the poster child for this "abuse of power" then I don't think that argument is going to gain much traction...

Typical KKK apologist, circa 1920:

They dredge up the subject of lynching every other month or so and we are all supposed to believe that the sky is falling because the local authorities authorized the killing of a guy like Lige Daniels -ignoring the extenuating circumstances, ignoring the fact that the world is better off with him dead. And instead believe that this will somehow lead to authorities arbitrarily lynching American citizens anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

If Daniels remains the poster child for this "abuse of power" then I don't think that argument is going to gain much traction...

Nice going, asshole.

Are you fucking shitting me? Trollism of this magnitude takes a great deal of sacrifice of your own personal integrity so I hope you really think its worth it. Oh where to begin... Awlaki's story is well known, which is why I've refrained from rehashing the whole thing. But lets hit on just some of the key differences shall we?

1) The situation of the men in question was entirely different: Daniels was in custody in a jail. Awlaki was amongst his Al Qaeda compatriots on foreign soil, thus making live capture very unlikely. Daniels was no longer a threat to society, Awlaki very much still was. Had Awlaki surrendered and then been shot to death on the flight to whatever prison they were going to keep him in you might have a better argument.

2) The known information about the men in question was entirely different: Daniels didn't have youtube videos where he openly praised the deaths of white women and actively recruited more people to perpetuate further attacks. Even if you wish to debate to what level he "planned" attacks, Awlaki was very publicly active and successful as a recruiter for Al Qaeda.

3) The entities involved were entirely different: Whether you believe it or not, the government is accountable to the people. A lynch mob is not. If the President arbitrarily orders an assassination of someone and isn't able to justify it the American people will be in an uproar and he'll go down as the tyrant you are trying to make him out to be. A lynch mob is motivated by impulsive anger, whereas the government is far more calculating (whether you agree with their conclusions or not).

The only similiarity between the two situations is that "people died". The fact that you would actually post those two situations as though they were even REMOTELY related shows such a stark lack of critical thinking that I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse. But thank you, because I think you've kind of proven my point about ignoring the extenuating circumstances...

[K. A. Pital]

The entities involved were entirely different: Whether you believe it or not, the government is accountable to the people. A lynch mob is not.

However, one may say that the lynch mob actually represents "the people" more directly. You know... like a violent grassroots movement of sorts. A perverse example of civil society. What then?

If the President arbitrarily orders an assassination of someone and isn't able to justify it the American people will be in an uproar

Like all the GLADIO activities totally made the American public get so worried about the CIA's pet ex-fascist terror cells murdering people... uh... not. In fact, parliamentary investigations are running only now. The whole thing is just... a blank spot. And that's it.

So no, sorry, your idealism is misplaced.

[Elfdart]

Are you fucking shitting me? Trollism of this magnitude takes a great deal of sacrifice of your own personal integrity so I hope you really think its worth it. Oh where to begin... Awlaki's story is well known, which is why I've refrained from rehashing the whole thing.

No, you've "refrained from rehashing the whole thing" because you don't know what you're talking about.

But lets hit on just some of the key differences shall we?

Do we have to? I find your pearl-clutching tedious already.

1) The situation of the men in question was entirely different: Daniels was in custody in a jail.

And how did he end up in jail? Oh that's right! Because the authorities caught him and arrested him. If they had announced ahead of time that they had a raging hard-on to kill him, he probably would have tried to run and hide or possibly fight back -especially if (as in the case of Awlaki) the authorities made it clear to his relatives and lawyers trying to represent them that they needed to call back after he gets killed. It says quite a lot that police and deputies a hundred years ago -in Texas!- at least went through the motions of due process more so than the current occupant of the White House.

Awlaki was amongst his Al Qaeda compatriots on foreign soil, thus making live capture very unlikely.

That's funny, since US forces had no problem taking thousands of Al-Qaeda suspects alive in Afghanistan and elsewhere (of course the overwhelming majority of these hapless characters were innocent). You don't think they turned themselves in, do you?

Daniels was no longer a threat to society, Awlaki very much still was.

A threat to do what?

Had Awlaki surrendered and then been shot to death on the flight to whatever prison they were going to keep him in you might have a better argument.

If you had taken a break from your chronic case of the vapors and read the article, then you would know that Obama and his hit-men had no intention of taking him alive, period.

2) The known information about the men in question was entirely different: Daniels didn't have youtube videos where he openly praised the deaths of white women and actively recruited more people to perpetuate further attacks. Even if you wish to debate to what level he "planned" attacks, Awlaki was very publicly active and successful as a recruiter for Al Qaeda.

You've seen evidence that he planned anything? Where?

And how exactly did he recruit anyone? Offer them money for tuition or something? The only thing the government has produced is their own claim that Awlaki condoned the use of force against America. Since no evidence has been produced to back this claim and Uncle Sam's say-so is worthless, I call bullshit on the claim that Awlaki was guilty of anything. On top of that, here's another dog that didn't bark:

The US is a police state where the government can and does trump up any number of charges against people it suspects of wrongdoing. That's why it's been such a long-running joke that they could indict a ham sandwich if they chose to do so. Yet Awlaki wasn't charged with so much as a parking ticket when John Wilkes Obama put him on the death list (Dems really do need to apologize to Sarah Palin, by the way). He was never on the FBI's Most Wanted list either. That's pretty damning evidence that he did nothing illegal, let alone so heinous and dangerous that he had to be killed as soon as possible without due process.

So the only thing the Assassin-in-chief's apologists can fall back on is that Awlaki wrote nasty things on Teh Interwebz -something that would earn almost everyone who posts in internet forums like this one a blind date with a predator drone.

3) The entities involved were entirely different: Whether you believe it or not, the government is accountable to the people. A lynch mob is not.

Most lynch mobs were either incited by the authorities (who were often eager to join in the fun themselves) or acted with their consent. That's why in Mark Twain's famous essay on the subject, he could cite only TWO instances where the authorities stopped a lynching.

If the President arbitrarily orders an assassination of someone and isn't able to justify it the American people will be in an uproar and he'll go down as the tyrant you are trying to make him out to be. A lynch mob is motivated by impulsive anger, whereas the government is far more calculating (whether you agree with their conclusions or not).

So an extrajudicial killing that is calculated is superior?

The only similiarity between the two situations is that "people died".

No, you have cases where people were killed without due process and the after-the-fact excuses are very similar:

1) The rule of law is inconvenient.

2) The SOB deserved it anyway.

3) Who are going to side with, one of us or one of them?

4) You're a bad person for not buying #1, #2 and #3.

The fact that you would actually post those two situations as though they were even REMOTELY related shows such a stark lack of critical thinking that I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse. But thank you, because I think you've kind of proven my point about ignoring the extenuating circumstances...

Well, fuck you too.

[TheHammer]

Are you fucking shitting me? Trollism of this magnitude takes a great deal of sacrifice of your own personal integrity so I hope you really think its worth it. Oh where to begin... Awlaki's story is well known, which is why I've refrained from rehashing the whole thing.

No, you've "refrained from rehashing the whole thing" because you don't know what you're talking about.

But lets hit on just some of the key differences shall we?

Do we have to? I find your pearl-clutching tedious already.

No, as I fucking said I've not rehashed it because its been done to death. There have been at least two or three threads on Awlaki already and nothing new has been gleened since then. Go back and re-read them if you really want to make an issue out of it.

Also Please refrain from piecemeal one line quoting its fucking irritating enough to try and read your posts as it is.

1) The situation of the men in question was entirely different: Daniels was in custody in a jail.

And how did he end up in jail? Oh that's right! Because the authorities caught him and arrested him. If they had announced ahead of time that they had a raging hard-on to kill him, he probably would have tried to run and hide or possibly fight back -especially if (as in the case of Awlaki) the authorities made it clear to his relatives and lawyers trying to represent them that they needed to call back after he gets killed. It says quite a lot that police and deputies a hundred years ago -in Texas!- at least went through the motions of due process more so than the current occupant of the White House.

Awlaki was amongst his Al Qaeda compatriots on foreign soil, thus making live capture very unlikely.

That's funny, since US forces had no problem taking thousands of Al-Qaeda suspects alive in Afghanistan and elsewhere (of course the overwhelming majority of these hapless characters were innocent). You don't think they turned themselves in, do you?

The key detail you have ignored is that US forces take prisoners alive when they are willing to surrender and can be captured without great risk to the soldiers themselves. Not when they have the protection of an entire tribe and operate from foreign soil. Had Awlaki surrendered he wouldn't have been killed without trial. The fact that his capture was unfeasiable was one of the criteria for targeting him. But you already knew that.

Daniels was no longer a threat to society, Awlaki very much still was.

A threat to do what?

Had Awlaki surrendered and then been shot to death on the flight to whatever prison they were going to keep him in you might have a better argument.

If you had taken a break from your chronic case of the vapors and read the article, then you would know that Obama and his hit-men had no intention of taking him alive, period.

Awlaki was a threat to recruit more terrorists to Al Qaeda as he had done with the underwear bomber and the fort hood shooter. The underwear bomber is only a joke because his device failed. Had it succeeded no one would be laughing.

I've read plenty of articles on the matter since this isn't the first time this has been brought up. And numerous times it has been noted that the infeasability of capture is what lead to him being targeted for killing. So no, I don't accept the premise that had the opportunity presented itself that the Obama administration wouldn't have taken him alive. It would have been in their best interest to do so because you can't interrogate a corpse.

2) The known information about the men in question was entirely different: Daniels didn't have youtube videos where he openly praised the deaths of white women and actively recruited more people to perpetuate further attacks. Even if you wish to debate to what level he "planned" attacks, Awlaki was very publicly active and successful as a recruiter for Al Qaeda.

You've seen evidence that he planned anything? Where?

And how exactly did he recruit anyone? Offer them money for tuition or something? The only thing the government has produced is their own claim that Awlaki condoned the use of force against America. Since no evidence has been produced to back this claim and Uncle Sam's say-so is worthless, I call bullshit on the claim that Awlaki was guilty of anything. On top of that, here's another dog that didn't bark:

He's admitted as much in his own statements. He called for the killing of Americans everywhere in the world. He had in deeds renounced any ties or citizenship to this nation. So what if he hadn't gotten around to the paper work? Hell, since he was technically an American Citizen didn't the US government simply grant the man his jihadi wish?

If you are really ignorant of the situation, you can google all of this, or simply look through past threads. But i suspect you already knew all of it anyway.

The US is a police state where the government can and does trump up any number of charges against people it suspects of wrongdoing. That's why it's been such a long-running joke that they could indict a ham sandwich if they chose to do so. Yet Awlaki wasn't charged with so much as a parking ticket when John Wilkes Obama put him on the death list (Dems really do need to apologize to Sarah Palin, by the way). He was never on the FBI's Most Wanted list either. That's pretty damning evidence that he did nothing illegal, let alone so heinous and dangerous that he had to be killed as soon as possible without due process.

So the only thing the Assassin-in-chief's apologists can fall back on is that Awlaki wrote nasty things on Teh Interwebz -something that would earn almost everyone who posts in internet forums like this one a blind date with a predator drone.

Your incessant anti government whining aside, its pretty well accepted that he was key in "inspiring" the underwear bomber, the Fort hood shooter among others. He was the religious leadership who put their minds at ease by saying that "Yes Allah does want them to kill infidels". I'd consider that to be recruitment. You can consider it to be whatever the fuck you wish.

Further, I'll point out that he and had already been tried and convicted in absentia in his other "home" country of Yemen for "plotting to kill foreigners". And that a judge in that country had ordered him brought in "dead or alive" But you already knew all this too.

3) The entities involved were entirely different: Whether you believe it or not, the government is accountable to the people. A lynch mob is not.

Most lynch mobs were either incited by the authorities (who were often eager to join in the fun themselves) or acted with their consent. That's why in Mark Twain's famous essay on the subject, he could cite only TWO instances where the authorities stopped a lynching.

Oh fucking spare me. The reason authorities failed to stop lynch mobs also had a great deal to do with the fact that they would be completely unable to do so. Your own article states that a thousand people marched on the jail. Were the authorities going to prevent them from taking Daniels even if they wanted to?

If the President arbitrarily orders an assassination of someone and isn't able to justify it the American people will be in an uproar and he'll go down as the tyrant you are trying to make him out to be. A lynch mob is motivated by impulsive anger, whereas the government is far more calculating (whether you agree with their conclusions or not).

So an extrajudicial killing that is calculated is superior?

Yes it is. Its all about motivation. It takes a lot of money and effort to kill someone. Why would they do so if he was the "non-threat who was guilty of nothing" that you try to make him out to be? This was not a case of mistaken identity as perhaps occured with other militants captured overseas. This was a very public, very outspoken, very influential member of Al Qaeda.

The only similiarity between the two situations is that "people died".

No, you have cases where people were killed without due process and the after-the-fact excuses are very similar:

1) The rule of law is inconvenient.

2) The SOB deserved it anyway.

3) Who are going to side with, one of us or one of them?

4) You're a bad person for not buying #1, #2 and #3.

The fact that you would actually post those two situations as though they were even REMOTELY related shows such a stark lack of critical thinking that I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse. But thank you, because I think you've kind of proven my point about ignoring the extenuating circumstances...

Well, fuck you too.

1) The rule of law doesn't exist to cover a situation such as Awlaki. At least, not in the context that you could be stripped of citizenship, or tried in absentia. At best he would fall under rules of warfare and as an acknowledged member of a group in open arms against the United States was a legitimate miltary target.

2) Yes he deserved it.

3) Yes in this particular case it was an "Us" or "them" situation.

4) You're simply fucking ignorant if you don't see the extenuating circumstances.

[Thanas]

If the President arbitrarily orders an assassination of someone and isn't able to justify it the American people will be in an uproar

What evidence has he brought fourth that justifies it? All he has got so far is "guy was hanging out with some bad people" and "trust me".

1) The rule of law doesn't exist to cover a situation such as Awlaki.

That is what all idiots who want to act ouside the law claim, however there is no convincing legal argument to prove this. The constitution does not have a clause like "oh but in case circumstance Y happens amendment [fill in the blank] does not apply anymore."

[Mr Bean]

TheHammer I can respond to your post with two simple questions.

Was Awlaki charged with any crime? Was a warrant issued to bring Awlaki bring for questioning?
If the answer to both of those is "no" then there exists no legal justification to even ask Awlaki to come back to the United States. Let alone kill him.

That is the thing that makes the Awlaki case unique. He was not charge he was simply added onto a kill list and killed during the second attempt. No attempt was made to use any legal process. And please don't tell me that once you leave the United States suddenly no laws apply to you and your forever beyond the reach of law enforcement.

[TheHammer]

If the President arbitrarily orders an assassination of someone and isn't able to justify it the American people will be in an uproar

What evidence has he brought fourth that justifies it? All he has got so far is "guy was hanging out with some bad people" and "trust me".

We are really going to do this again?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/radical-muslim ... d=12089807

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/mi ... o-10-years

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-awl ... 14641294#6

No, there was FAR more out there than "trust me" when it comes to the deeds of Awlaki. That may be the case for many imprisoned at Guantanamo, and may indeed be the case for many others targeted and killed in drone strikes. But that is not the case for Awlaki.

1) The rule of law doesn't exist to cover a situation such as Awlaki.

That is what all idiots who want to act ouside the law claim, however there is no convincing legal argument to prove this. The constitution does not have a clause like "oh but in case circumstance Y happens amendment [fill in the blank] does not apply anymore."

That is precisely the point. The founders wouldn't have imagined a situation such as this. Where we would be wringing our hands over someone who has essentially renounced his citienship both verbally and in deeds, and yet we have those who would bend over backwards to protect his rights.

"Hey, if a US citizen is opening fighting against the United States, inciting and planning attacks, is it ok to kill him?"

The question is so fucking asinine and yet you are asking it anyway.

TheHammer I can respond to your post with two simple questions.

Was Awlaki charged with any crime? Was a warrant issued to bring Awlaki bring for questioning?
If the answer to both of those is "no" then there exists no legal justification to even ask Awlaki to come back to the United States. Let alone kill him.

That is the thing that makes the Awlaki case unique. He was not charge he was simply added onto a kill list and killed during the second attempt. No attempt was made to use any legal process. And please don't tell me that once you leave the United States suddenly no laws apply to you and your forever beyond the reach of law enforcement.

I'm not saying that at all. He was sentenced to 10 years in Yemen and refused to surrender (see second article posted above). If Yemen was unable to bring him to justice in their own country, how could we expect to do so? Other than via drone strike, or a massive commando operation that would likely would have resulted in the deaths of numerous special forces and numerous members of Awlaki's own tribe.

[Thanas]

No, there was FAR more out there than "trust me" when it comes to the deeds of Awlaki. That may be the case for many imprisoned at Guantanamo, and may indeed be the case for many others targeted and killed in drone strikes. But that is not the case for Awlaki.

No there was nothing in evidence that has been verified through the legal process, by an independent judge or even by neutral third parties. You got nothing.

That is precisely the point. The founders wouldn't have imagined a situation such as this. Where we would be wringing our hands over someone who has essentially renounced his citienship both verbally and in deeds, and yet we have those who would bend over backwards to protect his rights.

No, you idiot. That is not how this works.

I'll note that the Founders were no strangers to treason or taking arms against their own country. Heck, this happened several times during the revolution. Benedict Arnold ring a bell? Given that precedent, that they did not consider anything like this is just idiotic. Oh wait, maybe they did and that is where the whole thing of treason comes from?

I'm not saying that at all. He was sentenced to 10 years in Yemen and refused to surrender (see second article posted above).

Since when does a Yemeni "court" decide things for the US?

[TheHammer]

No, there was FAR more out there than "trust me" when it comes to the deeds of Awlaki. That may be the case for many imprisoned at Guantanamo, and may indeed be the case for many others targeted and killed in drone strikes. But that is not the case for Awlaki.

No there was nothing in evidence that has been verified through the legal process, by an independent judge or even by neutral third parties. You got nothing.

Yes none of it is legit. The emails were faked, the intelligence was faked. And Lets ignore Awlaki's own words in his own videos calling for the deaths of Americans. Just exercising his freedom of speech right?

So it wasn't admitted in court? I don't give a fuck. An active enemy force is not afforded a court of law. Targets aren't approved by judges before missions to destroy those targets are carried out. Awlaki, as an admitted member of AQAP, was a legitimate military target.

That is precisely the point. The founders wouldn't have imagined a situation such as this. Where we would be wringing our hands over someone who has essentially renounced his citienship both verbally and in deeds, and yet we have those who would bend over backwards to protect his rights.

No, you idiot. That is not how this works.

I'll note that the Founders were no strangers to treason or taking arms against their own country. Heck, this happened several times during the revolution. Benedict Arnold ring a bell? Given that precedent, that they did not consider anything like this is just idiotic. Oh wait, maybe they did and that is where the whole thing of treason comes from?

Yes and I'm sure that during the times while those men were actively fighting against the continentals that they were worried about bringing them in alive to put on trial...

No, they were legitimate military targets same as Awlaki.

I'm not saying that at all. He was sentenced to 10 years in Yemen and refused to surrender (see second article posted above).

Since when does a Yemeni "court" decide things for the US?

Considering he was hiding/operating in Yemen, that most of his crimes were plotted from Yemin, and that he held dual Yemeni/American citizenship it has bearing. The idea that he was never afforded the chance to defend himself in court is a false dilema. He chose not to because he felt he was immune to prosecution under the protection of his tribe. Yes it was a Yemeni court, but it was still a court of law.

And you cut off the key point I was trying to make:If he couldn't be captured by the government authorities of the country he was occupying, what options did that leave the US? Aside from simply letting him continue his activities you've got drone strike or commandos attempting to take him alive, the second of which likely would have failed in its mission in addition to getting a lot of soldiers and tribesmen killed. Unless you can suggest a better option...

[Thanas]

Yes none of it is legit. The emails were faked, the intelligence was faked. And Lets ignore Awlaki's own words in his own videos calling for the deaths of Americans. Just exercising his freedom of speech right?

Again, saying nasty things on the internet is not legal grounds for execution. Even inciting violence does not carry a straight death sentence.

So it wasn't admitted in court? I don't give a fuck.

Thank you for finally admitting what we already know about you.

That is precisely the point. The founders wouldn't have imagined a situation such as this. Where we would be wringing our hands over someone who has essentially renounced his citienship both verbally and in deeds, and yet we have those who would bend over backwards to protect his rights.

No, you idiot. That is not how this works.

I'll note that the Founders were no strangers to treason or taking arms against their own country. Heck, this happened several times during the revolution. Benedict Arnold ring a bell? Given that precedent, that they did not consider anything like this is just idiotic. Oh wait, maybe they did and that is where the whole thing of treason comes from?

Yes and I'm sure that during the times while those men were actively fighting against the continentals that they were worried about bringing them in alive to put on trial...

No, they were legitimate military targets same as Awlaki.

First off, thank you for conceeding that the consitution does in fact apply here. Second, since when does saying nasty things about people make you a valid legitimate military target? By that standard, the NYT is a valid legitimate military target.

Considering he was hiding/operating in Yemen, that most of his crimes were plotted from Yemin, and that he held dual Yemeni/American citizenship it has bearing. The idea that he was never afforded the chance to defend himself in court is a false dilema. He chose not to because he felt he was immune to prosecution under the protection of his tribe. Yes it was a Yemeni court, but it was still a court of law.

It was not an american court, nor did it conform to any real standards and as such there is no way that it fulfills the due process clause.

And you cut off the key point I was trying to make:If he couldn't be captured by the government authorities of the country he was occupying, what options did that leave the US? Aside from simply letting him continue his activities you've got drone strike or commandos attempting to take him alive, the second of which likely would have failed in its mission in addition to getting a lot of soldiers and tribesmen killed. Unless you can suggest a better option...

I am sure any second now the USA will level the ghettos of Washington DC with a hellfire missile swarm because law enforcement is unable to capture certain gang members. This happpens all the time. BTW, you might have a point if Awlaki would have been shooting at american soldiers. He was not. there is no evidence he ever picked up arms or ever engaged US forces.

[Channel72]

So it wasn't admitted in court? I don't give a fuck. An active enemy force is not afforded a court of law. Targets aren't approved by judges before missions to destroy those targets are carried out. Awlaki, as an admitted member of AQAP, was a legitimate military target.

I'm pretty sympathetic to this line of reasoning as well. Forget Awlaki for a moment; suppose someone like David Koresh or Timothy McVeigh walls himself up in some heavily armed and guarded compound in Texas or whatever. While the military wouldn't be involved, law enforcement agencies probably wouldn't hesitate to just kill their target onsite unless he did something clearly indicating surrender. How many times have police forces just basically "executed" their targets, when circumstances on the ground indicated this would be much less costly in terms of human lives and manpower than trying to arrest the target? The difference with Awlaki is that he wasn't charged or found guilty of anything by the Judicial branch of government; but given the fact that he wasn't on US soil and so law enforcement had no access to him, why is it so ridiculous that the Executive Branch of government, being in command of the military and all, made the same sort of judgment call that law enforcement officials often have to make domestically?

Despite the fact that there are numerous significant differences between the situation with Awlaki and domestic terrorists, the important point is that due process is still fucking subject to logistics: it's ridiculous to expect a government to always be subservient to the exact letter of the law, given that legislators, being human, simply aren't capable of predicting all outliers and exceptional cases.

[TheHammer]

Yes none of it is legit. The emails were faked, the intelligence was faked. And Lets ignore Awlaki's own words in his own videos calling for the deaths of Americans. Just exercising his freedom of speech right?

Again, saying nasty things on the internet is not legal grounds for execution. Even inciting violence does not carry a straight death sentence.

Why do you keep softening this to "saying nasty things". Calling someone a worthless piece of shit is saying a "nasty thing". Incitement to violence with the intent that said violence will be carried out is far more than a "nasty thing".

And again, there is evidence that he did more than simply incite attacks.

Awlaki allegedly helped a Bangladeshi-born British Airways employee named Rajib Karim plot an attack on British airliners. Karim was convicted in February 2011 of planning a "spectacular" bombing. Karim's brother had allegedly met with Awlaki in Yemen, and Karim and Awlaki had exchanged emails in early 2010 that show Awlaki's operational role in planning terror attacks. The emails were found on Karim's computer. Awlaki asked Karim, "Can you please specify your role in the airline industry, how much access do you have to airports, what information do you have on the limitations and cracks in present airport security systems." In a separate email, Awlaki told Karim that "our highest priority is the U.S.," and asked if it was possible to get a package or person on board a flight heading to the U.S." Karim was arrested on Feb. 25, 2010.

But, if you insist on handwaiving away because it "wasn't admitted in court" then I don't know what to tell you. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it's all some conspiracy if you want, and in fact I expect that you will.

Yes and I'm sure that during the times while those men were actively fighting against the continentals that they were worried about bringing them in alive to put on trial...

No, they were legitimate military targets same as Awlaki.

First off, thank you for conceeding that the consitution does in fact apply here. Second, since when does saying nasty things about people make you a valid legitimate military target? By that standard, the NYT is a valid legitimate military target.

Of course the constitution applies, however how it applies is at issue. You view it as an issue of a person's rights, and I view it as an issue under Presidential powers as commander-n-chief of the military to designate military targets. I expect that at some point SCOTUS will rule on this situation, and I consider it likely that given the circumstances they'll come down in favor of the government.

And again, your attempt to soften his role aside, Awlaki was an admitted member of AQAP - a militant organization participating in armed activites against the United States and our allies. That makes him a military target. His importance as part of that organization, and how best to deal with him is for the miltiary leadership to decide.

Considering he was hiding/operating in Yemen, that most of his crimes were plotted from Yemin, and that he held dual Yemeni/American citizenship it has bearing. The idea that he was never afforded the chance to defend himself in court is a false dilema. He chose not to because he felt he was immune to prosecution under the protection of his tribe. Yes it was a Yemeni court, but it was still a court of law.

It was not an american court, nor did it conform to any real standards and as such there is no way that it fulfills the due process clause.

Again, I don't care. He was in Yemen and subject to Yemeni laws. A Yemeni judge had ordered him brought to justice dead or alive. The US simply was providing assistance to the Yemeni courts in that matter. Yes I'm being partially facetious here, but the notion that he was "never convicted of anything" is a false one.

And you cut off the key point I was trying to make:If he couldn't be captured by the government authorities of the country he was occupying, what options did that leave the US? Aside from simply letting him continue his activities you've got drone strike or commandos attempting to take him alive, the second of which likely would have failed in its mission in addition to getting a lot of soldiers and tribesmen killed. Unless you can suggest a better option...

I am sure any second now the USA will level the ghettos of Washington DC with a hellfire missile swarm because law enforcement is unable to capture certain gang members. This happpens all the time. BTW, you might have a point if Awlaki would have been shooting at american soldiers. He was not. there is no evidence he ever picked up arms or ever engaged US forces.

Yes because we leveled the settlements of the tribe hiding awlaki.

Just because Awlaki wasn't holding a gun doesn't mean he wasn't a threat to US forces. The simple fact that he could convince 10 men to pick up guns and fight in his stead makes him a threat. Given his very public statements, if we had sent in special forces to try and take him alive do you think that he wouldn't have grabbed an AK and popped off a few rounds? I'm not aware of Bin Laden actually "picking up arms" against US forces either, but I could be mistaken. His last few minutes alive are a bit of a mystery.

[Mr Bean]

Incitement to violence with the intent that said violence will be carried out is far more than a "nasty thing".

Great then why was he not charged in incitement of violence (Making terrorististic threats it the statue if I recall)

And again, there is evidence that he did more than simply incite attacks.

But, if you insist on handwaiving away because it "wasn't admitted in court" then I don't know what to tell you. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it's all some conspiracy if you want, and in fact I expect that you will.

Great, then why was Awlaki not charged in that case as a co-conspirator, perhaps because this evidence your claiming existed did not exist.

Of course the constitution applies, however how it applies is at issue. You view it as an issue of a person's rights, and I view it as an issue under Presidential powers as commander-n-chief of the military to designate military targets.

So I as the President can declare an American citizen a "military target" at will? Remeber they were not attacking suspected and known AQAP strongholds, they were gunning for and trying to hit Awlaki specifically

Again, I don't care. He was in Yemen and subject to Yemeni laws. A Yemeni judge had ordered him brought to justice dead or alive. The US simply was providing assistance to the Yemeni courts in that matter. Yes I'm being partially facetious here, but the notion that he was "never convicted of anything" is a false one.

Please find evidence that any Yemeni judge order him brought in dead or alive. In 2010 he was charged in Yemen courts and the authorities began negotiating with tribal officials to hand Awlaki over for trial. No kill or capture order was ever issued by Yemen. This however again raises the issue on why an American citizen not charged in the United States was killed on behalf of Yemen, was this a job.

Yes because we leveled the settlements of the tribe hiding awlaki.

Yeah... we kinda did, the Awlakis have suffered ninety seven dead at US Drone strikes.