US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[Shroom Man 777]

Hmmm... so I guess the CIA and British intelligence have reliable information that he is a weapon-man of destruction. H'okay.

[Serafina]

Actually, saying "kill all filthy americans" is good enough for me, but probably not for you.

It doesn't matter whether it's "good enough for you", or for me for that matter.
What DOES matter is whether it is good enough for US law enforcement. Please cite the federal law stating that the incitement of violence via speech is punishable by death or prolonged time in prison. Or actual evidence that he is actively waging something that can be vaguely compared to war against the United States (hint: terrorism is not equal to war - it's a crime and should be punished as such).

Again, saying "kill all filthy americans" is no more legal ground for lawless assassination than saying "kill all filthy Muslims" or "kill all filthy gays".

[TheHammer]

Does this mean Arab nations have the right to behead Ann Coulter? Isn't she doing exactly what George W. Bush did? A leader of the American propaganda machine encouraging global crusade, helping promote war, promising freedom to those that carry out? The only thing separating the two, is that to this point Coulter doesn't have invasions associated with her name. Like I said before, you don't need to be the guy holding the M4 or riding the Humvee...

I imagine if Arab nations had the ability to strike at Ann Coulter, assuming they considered her a threat, then they would do so.

[Serafina]

Does this mean Arab nations have the right to behead Ann Coulter? Isn't she doing exactly what George W. Bush did? A leader of the American propaganda machine encouraging global crusade, helping promote war, promising freedom to those that carry out? The only thing separating the two, is that to this point Coulter doesn't have invasions associated with her name. Like I said before, you don't need to be the guy holding the M4 or riding the Humvee...

I imagine if Arab nations had the ability to strike at Ann Coulter, assuming they considered her a threat, then they would do so.

Shroomy was asking whether they have the RIGHT to do so, not whether they would if they could. Because according to your logic, to do so would be a moral, just and legal action.
Also, it's nice to see that you think that all "Arab nations" are amoral scumbags

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe someone else also said "kill all Muslims" and some Arabs responded with a manned civilian air vehicle attack at a building containing this guy, while incurring regrettable collateral damage?

Oops.

Actually, saying "kill all filthy arabicans" is good enough for you, but probably not for me.

[TheHammer]

Actually, saying "kill all filthy americans" is good enough for me, but probably not for you.

It doesn't matter whether it's "good enough for you", or for me for that matter.
What DOES matter is whether it is good enough for US law enforcement. Please cite the federal law stating that the incitement of violence via speech is punishable by death or prolonged time in prison. Or actual evidence that he is actively waging something that can be vaguely compared to war against the United States (hint: terrorism is not equal to war - it's a crime and should be punished as such).

Again, saying "kill all filthy americans" is no more legal ground for lawless assassination than saying "kill all filthy Muslims" or "kill all filthy gays".

The difference is he is doing more than just "saying it". He's actively coordinating people to do it. We can debate all day about this, but simply put, if you are a member of Al Qaeda then you are a legitimate target. You keep wanting to shoe horn this as a simple matter for "law enforcement". It comes back to the same debate people have over the killing of Bin Laden. Fighting international terrorism is unique. It is neither an all out war, nor is it simply a matter of "arresting" terrorists like common criminals. It will combine elements of both. Meaning some terrorists get missles from predator drones, and some will get trials. The ones that WANT a trial are free to surrender.

[TheHammer]

Does this mean Arab nations have the right to behead Ann Coulter? Isn't she doing exactly what George W. Bush did? A leader of the American propaganda machine encouraging global crusade, helping promote war, promising freedom to those that carry out? The only thing separating the two, is that to this point Coulter doesn't have invasions associated with her name. Like I said before, you don't need to be the guy holding the M4 or riding the Humvee...

I imagine if Arab nations had the ability to strike at Ann Coulter, assuming they considered her a threat, then they would do so.

Shroomy was asking whether they have the RIGHT to do so, not whether they would if they could. Because according to your logic, to do so would be a moral, just and legal action.
Also, it's nice to see that you think that all "Arab nations" are amoral scumbags

Let me put it this way. If those Arab nations truly believed Coulter represented a threat to their lives and liveliehoods by planning and encouraging attacks on their people, then YES they'd be morally justified in doing so.

Legality in international affairs depends greatly on cooperation between nations, and to be quite frank, on the strength of your military and the influence your country holds. In this particular case, Yemen, the country in which he is hiding, has already ordered Anwar to be captured "dead or alive", and tried to kill him themselves so legality would not seem to be an issue.

Maybe someone else also said "kill all Muslims" and some Arabs responded with a manned civilian air vehicle attack at a building containing this guy, while incurring regrettable collateral damage?

Oops.

Actually, saying "kill all filthy arabicans" is good enough for you, but probably not for me.

I'm not interested in debating collateral damage, merely U.S. justification for targeting Anwar Al-awlaki.

[Edi]

Fighting international terrorism is unique.

Bullshit. It's no different from fighting the Mafia and other organized crime. The only ones who pretend that terrorism is in this respect somehow unique are Americans and specifically the brand of them represented by you and your ilk, meaning morons.

[Akhlut]

The difference is he is doing more than just "saying it". He's actively coordinating people to do it. We can debate all day about this, but simply put, if you are a member of Al Qaeda then you are a legitimate target. You keep wanting to shoe horn this as a simple matter for "law enforcement". It comes back to the same debate people have over the killing of Bin Laden. Fighting international terrorism is unique. It is neither an all out war, nor is it simply a matter of "arresting" terrorists like common criminals. It will combine elements of both. Meaning some terrorists get missles from predator drones, and some will get trials. The ones that WANT a trial are free to surrender.

Do you or do you not support extrajudicial assassinations of the organizers of Operation Rescue, whose rheoteric and propaganda and planning have resulted in the deaths of innocent men and women in the US? Yes or no?

What about the extrajudicial assassination of Snoop Dog, a man who releases propaganda and encourages recruitment for the violent terrorist organization known as the Crips, who are responsible for hundreds of deaths of US citizens, as well as the operation of illegal drug smuggling and sales, as well as attacks on uniformed state and federal workers? Yes or no?

[TheHammer]

The difference is he is doing more than just "saying it". He's actively coordinating people to do it. We can debate all day about this, but simply put, if you are a member of Al Qaeda then you are a legitimate target. You keep wanting to shoe horn this as a simple matter for "law enforcement". It comes back to the same debate people have over the killing of Bin Laden. Fighting international terrorism is unique. It is neither an all out war, nor is it simply a matter of "arresting" terrorists like common criminals. It will combine elements of both. Meaning some terrorists get missles from predator drones, and some will get trials. The ones that WANT a trial are free to surrender.

Do you or do you not support extrajudicial assassinations of the organizers of Operation Rescue, whose rheoteric and propaganda and planning have resulted in the deaths of innocent men and women in the US? Yes or no?

What about the extrajudicial assassination of Snoop Dog, a man who releases propaganda and encourages recruitment for the violent terrorist organization known as the Crips, who are responsible for hundreds of deaths of US citizens, as well as the operation of illegal drug smuggling and sales, as well as attacks on uniformed state and federal workers? Yes or no?

Not familiar enough to comment on either one. Not interested in debating them either.

As I've said, I don't believe in a one size fits all morality and world view. My views in this particular case are for this particular case.

[Serafina]

The difference is he is doing more than just "saying it". He's actively coordinating people to do it. We can debate all day about this, but simply put, if you are a member of Al Qaeda then you are a legitimate target. You keep wanting to shoe horn this as a simple matter for "law enforcement". It comes back to the same debate people have over the killing of Bin Laden. Fighting international terrorism is unique. It is neither an all out war, nor is it simply a matter of "arresting" terrorists like common criminals. It will combine elements of both. Meaning some terrorists get missles from predator drones, and some will get trials. The ones that WANT a trial are free to surrender.

Do you or do you not support extrajudicial assassinations of the organizers of Operation Rescue, whose rheoteric and propaganda and planning have resulted in the deaths of innocent men and women in the US? Yes or no?

What about the extrajudicial assassination of Snoop Dog, a man who releases propaganda and encourages recruitment for the violent terrorist organization known as the Crips, who are responsible for hundreds of deaths of US citizens, as well as the operation of illegal drug smuggling and sales, as well as attacks on uniformed state and federal workers? Yes or no?

Not familiar enough to comment on either one. Not interested in debating them either.

As I've said, I don't believe in a one size fits all morality and world view. My views in this particular case are for this particular case.

Seriously, could you get any more arbitrary?

So on what basis are we supposed to judge whether killing someone without trial is okay? Whom will you grant such power that he can arbitrarily ignore the foundations of law?

[Simon_Jester]

The difference is he is doing more than just "saying it". He's actively coordinating people to do it.

Citation needed.

We can debate all day about this, but simply put, if you are a member of Al Qaeda then you are a legitimate target.

How do we establish who is and is not a member of Al Qaeda? What is the definition of a member of Al Qaeda? Is anyone cited as an inspiration by a member of Al Qaeda themselves a member of Al Qaeda? Is it possible that some American citizen might be falsely accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, either by the government or by Al Qaeda themselves? Would they retain their constitutional rights after the accusation was made, or would the accusation itself be sufficient proof, so that they can now be killed at any time?

Who is responsible for trying American citizens for the crime of being members of Al Qaeda, for determining whether they really are members of Al Qaeda, what they are responsible for, and what they've actually done that does or does not justify killing them?

Is this decision made by the courts? By the CIA? By the president?

What is the formal decision making process here? How do we ensure that it is not abused- that the government cannot trump up random bullshit charges of "being an al Qaeda agent" against innocent people and kill them, as a way of intimidating people into obeying it? What limits, what checks and balances, are there on this?

Do you or do you not support extrajudicial assassinations of the organizers of Operation Rescue, whose rheoteric and propaganda and planning have resulted in the deaths of innocent men and women in the US? Yes or no?

What about the extrajudicial assassination of Snoop Dog, a man who releases propaganda and encourages recruitment for the violent terrorist organization known as the Crips, who are responsible for hundreds of deaths of US citizens, as well as the operation of illegal drug smuggling and sales, as well as attacks on uniformed state and federal workers? Yes or no?

Not familiar enough to comment on either one. Not interested in debating them either.

As I've said, I don't believe in a one size fits all morality and world view. My views in this particular case are for this particular case.

The problem is that governments make things called laws, you see, which apply more than once. You do not get to run your government by making up the rules as you go along to justify whatever it amuses you to do today, then by ignoring the rules tomorrow.

When a nation is fighting for its life, then a considerable amount of inconsistency can be forgiven- but the US is not fighting for its life here; it is merely fighting to avoid being injured. There's a difference.

We are under an obligation not to set precedents today that may be abused by madmen and tyrants twenty years from now. Because of that, it is very important to lay down the law on this: to define when it is or is not permitted to do something like this.

If you don't want to make and defend rules that say "the President can order American citizens killed whenever he pleases," you should not be defending the idea that the president can order American citizens killed whenever he pleases.

[Stravo]

I'm not going to insert myself into the ongoing debate but only wish to raise a point that I think is being missed by the side that is pro this practice.

This is not so much about the man in question as it is about the principle. I don't give a shit about this man, if he died today I wouldn't pause however the fact that precedence is being set on the outright extra-judicial assasination of an American citizen should give everyone pause.

You can argue until you're blue in the face how on some level he deserves it, what else is the US to do, he's an avowed enemy of the US, he is a terrorist. That does not evade the singular point that he is an American citizen and as such he is entitled to certain rights that the government cannot decide to take away. To paraphrase a dead pope - American civil rights is not a cafeteria. You cannot pick and choose who gets to have them or which ones they are entitled to. Everyone gets certain protections from their government including the right to Due Process.

He did not get his day in court, he did not get to tell his side of the story. His guilt was unilaterally decided by a single man and assassins were sent to kill him. How would you like it if your father is mowing the lawn one day and Obama sends a sniper team from Quantico to take him out because he did not like some blog posts he published? A little different now, huh?

Why? Because you can relate to it. This asshole Anwar's story is completely unsympathetic and precisely because of that he is the poster child for why our rights need to be preserved. The minute we make exceptions to how rights are enforced well, then, let's not call them rights. Let's just call them privileges, because that's what they will turn into. Privileges the government deigns to give us until they don't feel like extending them to certain people.

That's what this is all about not the smoke screen of terrorism, Anwar, etc.

[TheHammer]

Fighting international terrorism is unique.

Bullshit. It's no different from fighting the Mafia and other organized crime. The only ones who pretend that terrorism is in this respect somehow unique are Americans and specifically the brand of them represented by you and your ilk, meaning morons.

Terrorists are unique in their goals and tactics. Unless you care to point out the last time the mafia sent in suicide bombers or declared open season on the citizens of a particular nation. As I said, some aspects of terror are fought via traditional law enforcement means such as arrests and the freezing of assets. Other's are fought with bullets, missiles, and other military hardware.

At your pathetic name calling and attempt to poison the well.

[TheHammer]

Seriously, could you get any more arbitrary?

So on what basis are we supposed to judge whether killing someone without trial is okay? Whom will you grant such power that he can arbitrarily ignore the foundations of law?

We judge it on a case by case basis. People are killed on the battlefield all the time without trial. Why should Al-Awliki, who is a member of an organization of which we've already killed countless members, be given a special exemption?

[TheHammer]

Citation needed.

As noted in previous posts, The wikipedia article sums several of them up nicely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki.

How do we establish who is and is not a member of Al Qaeda? What is the definition of a member of Al Qaeda? Is anyone cited as an inspiration by a member of Al Qaeda themselves a member of Al Qaeda? Is it possible that some American citizen might be falsely accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, either by the government or by Al Qaeda themselves? Would they retain their constitutional rights after the accusation was made, or would the accusation itself be sufficient proof, so that they can now be killed at any time?

It is certainly possible. And if their is some serious debate as to whether a persion is a member of Al Qaeda, then certainly you would take that into account before putting them on a targeting list. In this particular case however, by his own admission he's a member of Al Qaeda and supporter of terrorist attacks against the United States. That kind of makes it an easy call.

Who is responsible for trying American citizens for the crime of being members of Al Qaeda, for determining whether they really are members of Al Qaeda, what they are responsible for, and what they've actually done that does or does not justify killing them?

Is this decision made by the courts? By the CIA? By the president?

If they are able to be captured, then they should be tried according to appropriate laws i.e. for murder, accessory to murder, terrorist activities etc. If they are active and essentially uncapturable they should be treated as any other dangerous fugitive and dealt with accordingly. I've already cited Supreme Court precendent on the matter in earlier posts.

What is the formal decision making process here? How do we ensure that it is not abused- that the government cannot trump up random bullshit charges of "being an al Qaeda agent" against innocent people and kill them, as a way of intimidating people into obeying it? What limits, what checks and balances, are there on this?

The courts are already a check and balance on this. Anwar would be free to surrender and face trial. Then the government would be forced to present evidence as to the crimes he has committed. His refusal to do so, and the threat he represents as long as he is free, is reason enough to kill him if capture is not reasonabley attainable.

The problem is that governments make things called laws, you see, which apply more than once. You do not get to run your government by making up the rules as you go along to justify whatever it amuses you to do today, then by ignoring the rules tomorrow.

When a nation is fighting for its life, then a considerable amount of inconsistency can be forgiven- but the US is not fighting for its life here; it is merely fighting to avoid being injured. There's a difference.

We are under an obligation not to set precedents today that may be abused by madmen and tyrants twenty years from now. Because of that, it is very important to lay down the law on this: to define when it is or is not permitted to do something like this.

If you don't want to make and defend rules that say "the President can order American citizens killed whenever he pleases," you should not be defending the idea that the president can order American citizens killed whenever he pleases.

Saying "the President can order American citizens killed whenever he pleases" is a bit of a straw man. There was a good deal of debate over this within the administration, and the entire national security council had to eventually sign off on Anwar's targeting. That's hardly something done on a whim. He's on a very short list, but I can't really find fault with the choice. I agree it is tough because there isn't truly a precedent to go from, however there is precedent for dealing with dangerous fugitives domestically who pose a serious threat of harm to people should they be allowed to escape. The SCOTUS has ruled that in those cases using deadly force is justifiable. I've cited that in earlier posts.

[TheHammer]

I'm not going to insert myself into the ongoing debate but only wish to raise a point that I think is being missed by the side that is pro this practice.

This is not so much about the man in question as it is about the principle. I don't give a shit about this man, if he died today I wouldn't pause however the fact that precedence is being set on the outright extra-judicial assasination of an American citizen should give everyone pause.

You can argue until you're blue in the face how on some level he deserves it, what else is the US to do, he's an avowed enemy of the US, he is a terrorist. That does not evade the singular point that he is an American citizen and as such he is entitled to certain rights that the government cannot decide to take away. To paraphrase a dead pope - American civil rights is not a cafeteria. You cannot pick and choose who gets to have them or which ones they are entitled to. Everyone gets certain protections from their government including the right to Due Process.

He did not get his day in court, he did not get to tell his side of the story. His guilt was unilaterally decided by a single man and assassins were sent to kill him. How would you like it if your father is mowing the lawn one day and Obama sends a sniper team from Quantico to take him out because he did not like some blog posts he published? A little different now, huh?

Why? Because you can relate to it. This asshole Anwar's story is completely unsympathetic and precisely because of that he is the poster child for why our rights need to be preserved. The minute we make exceptions to how rights are enforced well, then, let's not call them rights. Let's just call them privileges, because that's what they will turn into. Privileges the government deigns to give us until they don't feel like extending them to certain people.

That's what this is all about not the smoke screen of terrorism, Anwar, etc.

I get what the "big fear" is. That once we allow the government to kill the Al-Awliki's of the world that eventually such power would be abused. Much the same debate as taking out Bin Laden. That we will somehow "lose our soul" as Michael Moore put it. However, as long as the list is kept short, and the reasons for being put on the list made clear and undeniable, then I think such fears are unwarranted.

I looked it from the persepective of if I were President. We've got this guy recruiting terrorists, convincing them to commit attacks against citizens, who is also protected by his tribe so that he can continue these activities with relative impunity. I should sit back and just let that continue because of some idealistic notion that he "deserves a trial" even when such a course isn't realistic? I'd be absolutely glad to try this guy should he surrender himself. But I also would not be idle while he plots attacks, and recuits supporters. And I don't view it as inevitably leading to a circumstance were such assassinations would become common place, or any other slipper slope non sense you want to attribute.

[Serafina]

Seriously, could you get any more arbitrary?

So on what basis are we supposed to judge whether killing someone without trial is okay? Whom will you grant such power that he can arbitrarily ignore the foundations of law?

We judge it on a case by case basis. People are killed on the battlefield all the time without trial. Why should Al-Awliki, who is a member of an organization of which we've already killed countless members, be given a special exemption?

WHO judges it on a "case by case"-basis? Based on what criteria?
You know, you can not even draw out a basic procedure here. The one being currently used (Obama: Kill that guy, guy gets killed) is TOTALLY unacceptable.

Also, a kill on the battlefield is in NO WAY comparable for this. Because, you know, the other guy is actively fighting you right at that time (or a random civilian getting killed by accident). This is a deliberate assassination.

If they are able to be captured, then they should be tried according to appropriate laws i.e. for murder, accessory to murder, terrorist activities etc. If they are active and essentially uncapturable they should be treated as any other dangerous fugitive and dealt with accordingly. I've already cited Supreme Court precendent on the matter in earlier posts.

No, you have NOT, dipshit. What you have cited is an example where a police officer is trying to arrest someone and that person attempts to flee. No one even tried an arrest here. Big difference.

The courts are already a check and balance on this. Anwar would be free to surrender and face trial. Then the government would be forced to present evidence as to the crimes he has committed. His refusal to do so, and the threat he represents as long as he is free, is reason enough to kill him if capture is not reasonabley attainable.

No, they are NOT a check and balance here. The courts were completely uninvolved in the process.
Also, nice procedure "okay, we give him a chance to surrender without telling him. If he doesn't, we are free to kill him".
That's like a cop spotting you on the street, but not calling "you there, stop" or anything like that - and then shooting you because you were walking away from him, thereby "attempting to escape". And since we do not need to prove your guilt in a court of law, the cops word that you were a suspect is clearly enough to justify him killing you, a "dangerous fugitive".

[TheHammer]

Seriously, could you get any more arbitrary?

So on what basis are we supposed to judge whether killing someone without trial is okay? Whom will you grant such power that he can arbitrarily ignore the foundations of law?

We judge it on a case by case basis. People are killed on the battlefield all the time without trial. Why should Al-Awliki, who is a member of an organization of which we've already killed countless members, be given a special exemption?

WHO judges it on a "case by case"-basis? Based on what criteria?
You know, you can not even draw out a basic procedure here. The one being currently used (Obama: Kill that guy, guy gets killed) is TOTALLY unacceptable.

What a gross oversimplifiction of the situation. Obama isn't running around ordering the deaths of people at random. As noted, there was an extensive process over the legality of targeting this guy. They had already missed opportunities to kill him because of that process. And because those opportunities were missed he's continued his activities.

Also, a kill on the battlefield is in NO WAY comparable for this. Because, you know, the other guy is actively fighting you right at that time (or a random civilian getting killed by accident). This is a deliberate assassination.

We launch cruise missiles at targets miles away and not "actively fighting" us. We drop bombs from several thousand feet on targets that pose no threat to the aircraft. As I said before, just because he didn't have an AK in his hands at the moment we try to take him out doesn't mean he's immune from targeting.

No, they are NOT a check and balance here. The courts were completely uninvolved in the process.
Also, nice procedure "okay, we give him a chance to surrender without telling him. If he doesn't, we are free to kill him".
That's like a cop spotting you on the street, but not calling "you there, stop" or anything like that - and then shooting you because you were walking away from him, thereby "attempting to escape". And since we do not need to prove your guilt in a court of law, the cops word that you were a suspect is clearly enough to justify him killing you, a "dangerous fugitive".

False dilema. Anwar is fully aware he is a wanted man by multiple nations, dead or alive. If he wishes to be taken alive, his only chance is to surrender.

If a cop were to shoot someone in the line of duty, he would have to go before a review board, and possibly a judge after the fact to show that it was justifiable. I'm sure the Obama administration is fully prepared to go to trial after Al-Alwiki's killing and show it was justifiable. Anwar's father has already challenged his presence on the list in court, although the case was dismissed. If and when his son is killed I'm sure he'll revisit the issue.

[Stravo]

[quote="TheHammer"]
I get what the "big fear" is. That once we allow the government to kill the Al-Awliki's of the world that eventually such power would be abused. Much the same debate as taking out Bin Laden. That we will somehow "lose our soul" as Michael Moore put it. However, as long as the list is kept short, and the reasons for being put on the list made clear and undeniable, then I think such fears are unwarranted. [quote]

I like how you sum it up as a "big fear" and put quotes around it as if that will somehow make the simple argument evaporate into thin air. It's not about losing our soul its about the president exercising powers he does not have. He cannot simply decide you no longer have Due Process rights just because you're an enemy of this country. He cannot create a short list, long list, a reasonable list, any fucking list at all of people who no longer get to have their rights.

Rights are not important when they are convenient. They are their most precious when they are inconvenient and if you argue that for security purposes rights should be curtailed then please don't call them rights anymore. Rights are intended to be a hindrance to the government. Is it a pain that the president can't just reach out and touch an American citizen preaching hate on the other side of the planet? Good. That's what it's meant for. Rights are not intended to be easy, convenient or simple. They are meant to protect us, you, me, the clansmen burning crosses on the front lawn. Everyone, even an Al-Qaeda scumbug terrorist.

If the president wanted him dead, he could do it if he wanted to through processes and procedures meant to protect all of us, but once you draw a line and say "these people are protected and not these." then you have opened the door for someone else to say "now these people and not those." It's that simple.

No one is saying not to kill this asshole, we're saying there's ways to do it that don't potentially fuck everyone else. Are we so afraid of one man that we can say "please take our rights away as long as you keep me safe...from any boogie man you create."

[TheHammer]

I get what the "big fear" is. That once we allow the government to kill the Al-Awliki's of the world that eventually such power would be abused. Much the same debate as taking out Bin Laden. That we will somehow "lose our soul" as Michael Moore put it. However, as long as the list is kept short, and the reasons for being put on the list made clear and undeniable, then I think such fears are unwarranted.

I like how you sum it up as a "big fear" and put quotes around it as if that will somehow make the simple argument evaporate into thin air. It's not about losing our soul its about the president exercising powers he does not have. He cannot simply decide you no longer have Due Process rights just because you're an enemy of this country. He cannot create a short list, long list, a reasonable list, any fucking list at all of people who no longer get to have their rights.

Rights are not important when they are convenient. They are their most precious when they are inconvenient and if you argue that for security purposes rights should be curtailed then please don't call them rights anymore. Rights are intended to be a hindrance to the government. Is it a pain that the president can't just reach out and touch an American citizen preaching hate on the other side of the planet? Good. That's what it's meant for. Rights are not intended to be easy, convenient or simple. They are meant to protect us, you, me, the clansmen burning crosses on the front lawn. Everyone, even an Al-Qaeda scumbug terrorist.

If the president wanted him dead, he could do it if he wanted to through processes and procedures meant to protect all of us, but once you draw a line and say "these people are protected and not these." then you have opened the door for someone else to say "now these people and not those." It's that simple.

No one is saying not to kill this asshole, we're saying there's ways to do it that don't potentially fuck everyone else. Are we so afraid of one man that we can say "please take our rights away as long as you keep me safe...from any boogie man you create."

I put the "big fear" in quotes because I don't share that sentiment. The President and his advisors must feel that targeting Al-Awliki is legally justifiable. Its not as if its some big secret that he is being targeted. As previously noted, use of deadly force has been ruled reasonable under the fourth amendment for dangerous fugitives by the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that would probably be the tact they would take.

[Akhlut]

Not familiar enough to comment on either one. Not interested in debating them either.

As I've said, I don't believe in a one size fits all morality and world view. My views in this particular case are for this particular case.

Dipshit, you don't need to be familiar with them, they are totally analogous cases. Someone states a certain set of Americans needs to die (abortion providers, non-Crips and police officers) and other people listen and do so, precisely what you allege Anwar is doing. However, we can't go with your ethically and intellectually bankrupt "do what I want" style of government.The government cannot operate on a basis of doing what it likes when it likes. That is completely tyranny.

I put the "big fear" in quotes because I don't share that sentiment. The President and his advisors must feel that targeting Al-Awliki is legally justifiable. Its not as if its some big secret that he is being targeted. As previously noted, use of deadly force has been ruled reasonable under the fourth amendment for dangerous fugitives by the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that would probably be the tact they would take.

He's not a fugitive! No one's put an arrest warrant out for him or otherwise done anything through the legal system to justify this; it was an executive order, meaning it came solely from the executive; the judiciary had nothing to do with this when it should be the sole authority to issue warrants for this man's arrest.

Further, the man has no precedent of killing armed officials who try to capture him!

Plus, this is still setting precedent, dipshit. It doesn't matter if he's a "clear and present danger" today, this can very easily be applied to people that those who have authority to order assassinations just don't like. If you have the sort of blind, idiot faith to say "nah, the President surely won't abuse his authority," then you're too stupid to be discussing politics in the first place.

[PeZook]

I put the "big fear" in quotes because I don't share that sentiment. The President and his advisors must feel that targeting Al-Awliki is legally justifiable. Its not as if its some big secret that he is being targeted. As previously noted, use of deadly force has been ruled reasonable under the fourth amendment for dangerous fugitives by the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that would probably be the tact they would take.

Yeah, if the President feels it is reasonable to kill someone then there's no problem, right?

You really don't seem to realize what precedent this sets, don't you? What if you get a crazy Tea Partier in office next, and he and his office full of crazy ideologues decide everyone preaching socialism is an enemy of the united states and thus fair game for Predator drones? Your President hasn't been issued with such powers for a very good reason.

Yeah, so long as the ability to murder people at will is not abused it will not be abuse. Perfect argument here, let's just make the President a tyrant with unlimited power, if he's a reasonable guy he will never abuse them and the government will work better.

There is literally no difference between arbitrary murder oh sorry "targetted killing" and arbitrary arrest, detention, harrasment by authorities etc.

The only difference is that you think al-Awlaki is guilty and so fuck him. I'm pretty sure a lot of angry white people thought the exact same thing about Marthin Luther King.

[TheHammer]

Not familiar enough to comment on either one. Not interested in debating them either.

As I've said, I don't believe in a one size fits all morality and world view. My views in this particular case are for this particular case.

Dipshit, you don't need to be familiar with them, they are totally analogous cases. Someone states a certain set of Americans needs to die (abortion providers, non-Crips and police officers) and other people listen and do so, precisely what you allege Anwar is doing. However, we can't go with your ethically and intellectually bankrupt "do what I want" style of government.The government cannot operate on a basis of doing what it likes when it likes. That is completely tyranny.

Actually, no I don't. They are a distraction from the debate at hand, so you can go fuck yourself.

I put the "big fear" in quotes because I don't share that sentiment. The President and his advisors must feel that targeting Al-Awliki is legally justifiable. Its not as if its some big secret that he is being targeted. As previously noted, use of deadly force has been ruled reasonable under the fourth amendment for dangerous fugitives by the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that would probably be the tact they would take.

He's not a fugitive! No one's put an arrest warrant out for him or otherwise done anything through the legal system to justify this; it was an executive order, meaning it came solely from the executive; the judiciary had nothing to do with this when it should be the sole authority to issue warrants for this man's arrest.

Actually, you're wrong. He's had a Yemeni judges order issued against him that he be captured dead or alive.

Further, the man has no precedent of killing armed officials who try to capture him!

The associates he's with right now (Al Qaeda) do. And his tribe has threatened to retaliate with force should any attempt be made to capture him.

Plus, this is still setting precedent, dipshit. It doesn't matter if he's a "clear and present danger" today, this can very easily be applied to people that those who have authority to order assassinations just don't like. If you have the sort of blind, idiot faith to say "nah, the President surely won't abuse his authority," then you're too stupid to be discussing politics in the first place.

I'm not an idiot of blind faith. Which is why I've said over and over again we have to judge such situations on a case by case basis. In this case, I consider such action to be justified and capable of passing legal challenge.

[TheHammer]

I put the "big fear" in quotes because I don't share that sentiment. The President and his advisors must feel that targeting Al-Awliki is legally justifiable. Its not as if its some big secret that he is being targeted. As previously noted, use of deadly force has been ruled reasonable under the fourth amendment for dangerous fugitives by the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that would probably be the tact they would take.

Yeah, if the President feels it is reasonable to kill someone then there's no problem, right?

You really don't seem to realize what precedent this sets, don't you? What if you get a crazy Tea Partier in office next, and he and his office full of crazy ideologues decide everyone preaching socialism is an enemy of the united states and thus fair game for Predator drones? Your President hasn't been issued with such powers for a very good reason.

I wonder what color the sky would be on such a world

Yeah, so long as the ability to murder people at will is not abused it will not be abuse. Perfect argument here, let's just make the President a tyrant with unlimited power, if he's a reasonable guy he will never abuse them and the government will work better.

There is literally no difference between arbitrary murder oh sorry "targetted killing" and arbitrary arrest, detention, harrasment by authorities etc.

The only difference is that you think al-Awlaki is guilty and so fuck him. I'm pretty sure a lot of angry white people thought the exact same thing about Marthin Luther King.

Surely you aren't equating al-Awlaki with Murtin Luther King?

I'm just about done with this thread. Its getting ridiculous, and redundant. I've made my statement and why I feel the way I do. I've got no more to be said on the matter.