US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[Simon_Jester]

He's not a criminal. He's a designated individual under the Authorization for Use of Force Against Terrorists.

Text of the act:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So, how exactly did President Obama "determine" that al-Awlaki "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on September 11, 2001?" Or that he "harbored such organizations or persons?" Will that be coming out in a Revised 9/11 Commission Report that explains al-Awlaki's involvement?

Or is this a bullshit argument, since al-Awlaki has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks?

Moreover, Congress passing a law does not make something constitutional. It is still unconstitutional to deprive American citizens of their lives without due process of law.

Is "the president determines" due process? If not, then it is this act of Congress which is unconstitutional, at least when it is applied to American citizens. Congress does not get to pass out free "screw the Constitution" passes, you see.

Even if he WERE a criminal, while you are correct that merely inspiring another to commit a crime, al-Awlaki's involvement goes much deeper. Depending on the exact criminal statutes that are used in the relevant jurisdiction, it's easy to see him convicted for inciting (or, in the more modern formulation, encouraging) the commission of crimes or having been an accessory to crimes.

So what would they pin on him? Incitement to commit attempted murder via setting own genitalia on fire with improvised underwear bomb?

Man, have we gotten so lame and vindictive that we're executing people for that?

And guess what? The President is the Commander in Chief of the country's armed forces. He is fully qualified to make the determination as to when to employ military force against enemies of the country. That is one of the central powers of the Presidency. Part and parcel to that is the ability to determine who is a military enemy of the United States.

So, can he apply that power of his office as Commander in Chief arbitrarily, and without limit? Does he get to decide that Michael Moore is now a military enemy of the United States because he saw a cartoon parody of the guy wearing a suicide vest when he watched Team America: World Police? Does he get to decide that everyone on Sarah Palin's campaign mailing list is a military enemy of the United States because of the infamous crosshair ad?

Where are the fucking limits on this? I feel I, as an American citizen, have a right to know this, so that I can avoid being killed.

(and that speaks to the problem of treating counterterrorism as primarily military in nature) in such a way that it can be independently evaluated. We just have a closed system of the alphabet-soup agencies and the executive, able to kill whoever they want as long as they can rally public support against them and cross their fingers when telling people how they've got all sorts of evidence. And Congress handed that authority right to them.

1. That is within Congress' power to do.
2. It is within the President's power to use the nation's military forces.
3. THIS IS A GOD DAMNED WAR. What the fuck do you think we did with Nazis or Vietcong or North Koreans or Iraqis? Read them their Miranda rights before shooting at them? Enemy combatants do not have due process rights.

1) No, it isn't; Congress doesn't have the power to sentence American citizens to death without due process of law.
2) It is not within the president's power to use the armed forces to make himself a tyrant. What insurance do we have against him doing exactly that, if he may select and kill American citizens whenever he pleases, based purely on his own opinion that they are enemies of the United States?
3) Who identifies American citizens as enemy combatants? How is this decision made, and by what authorities? Who gets to review their decisions? If this were being done by the simple rule of "if he's on the battlefield shooting at our troops he's an enemy combatant," that would be easy. Because you could identify enemy combatants as "the enemies who are engaged in combat." But when "enemy combatant" can mean "rabblerouser who's never touched a weapon in his life" or "person whose words inspire some of the people fighting on the other side," or things even vaguer than that... well, who decides? What is the review process?

They don't show it because they're under no obligation to show it. He's an enemy combatant. He's not entitled to due process. He's not entitled to a trial. If he surrenders himself, then he can have a trial and all the evidence that you want, but right now he hasn't surrendered, so it's irrelevant.

So, there will be no examination of the basis on which people have decided to kill him until he surrenders himself to the people who have already resolved to kill him, and feel no particular obligation to honor the legalities in the process?

Does this not strike you as something of a Catch-22?

---

What concerns me is... who decided that al-Awlaki is a target for the military, to be killed without warning?

The President, with the knowledge and consent of Congress.

This is not due process of law. "Congress says so" is not due process in and of itself; Congress can pass and has passed laws which violate the Constitution.

Moreover, even your basis for asserting that Congress has given Obama powers which he can use to kill al-Awlaki is based on an absurd lie: the claim that al-Awlaki is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

What security do we have that this decision-making process will not be applied arbitrarily to innocent American citizens, or even to domestic political opponents of the US government?

The political process.

What security does this grant?

Many political processes throughout history have led to vile, murderous tyranny. One-party states with death squads killing and intimidating the opposition are hardly an unusual failure state for a democracy; we have seen this over and over throughout the Western world in the past two centuries.

What legal requirements must the president pass in order to use this power you claim he has to, say, assassinate the leadership of a rival political party? Who will stop him from doing so, if he should not do so? What will happen if he does do so?

The logic in identifying bin Laden as a military target is made simpler by the fact that he is not an American citizen, and by the fact that the states where he could claim citizenship or residency had formally declared him persona non grata.

HOW? How does that make it simpler? Citizenship has nothing at all to do with the determination that al-Awlaki is a military target.

Osama bin Laden has no rights under the US Constitution. Al-Awlaki has rights under the US Constitution. The US Constitution is a binding legal document which applies to the US government. Therefore, it is simpler for the US government to justify assassinating bin Laden (who has no rights under the binding legal document) than to justify assassinating al-Awlaki (who has rights under the binding legal document).

NO. He's not entitled to due process. I've made this point repeatedly. Absolutely no SCOTUS case, or any other source of law, stands for the proposition that enemy combatants are so entitled. With good reason: it makes NO SENSE during an armed conflict to extend this right to the enemy. In fact, in a great many circumstances, individual soldiers on the ground, subject to the rigors and confusion of battle, are tasked to decide whether or not the people around them are enemy combatants. What process do they get? THIS IS PART OF THE EXERCISE OF MILITARY FORCE. There's really no getting around it. You cannot deny members of the Executive Branch the prerogative to determine who is hostile and who is not during an armed conflict. It is part and parcel of having a military.

So, is there anything stopping Barack Obama from assassinating leaders of the Republican Party right now? I mean, if he has an unlimited power to determine who is hostile and who is not... why can't he suddenly turn into a right wing nutjob's worst nightmare, with actual black helicopters and rounding up Christian fundamentalists and throwing them into concentration camps and shit like that?

What is stopping him, if he has unlimited power to define American citizens as enemies of the state and do as he pleases to them?

Is the only thing that stops him his own sense of decency? If so, are you really that comfortable knowing that your life and freedom depend in perpetuity on American political leaders having a sense of decency?

The process by which al-Awlaki has been placed under a de facto death sentence is secret, having been made entirely behind closed doors as an internal executive branch decision.

He has not been placed under a de facto death sentence. If he surrenders, he cannot be killed by the Executive without a judicial action. But he hasn't surrendered. That's the whole god damned point.

But the US government is under no obligation to allow him to surrender- he may be bombed from the air at any time; he may be shot on sight long before he gets close enough to communicate a wish to surrender. While he need not be killed, he may be killed at any time.

Because he has been designated an enemy combatant by some undefined process that can be applied at will by the president to any American citizen at any time.

Who is responsible for this power of life and death over American citizens? How are we to be sure that this sort of thing won't be applied, in future, to anyone the president of the United States, or his subordinates, would like to see dead?

Again, al-Awlaki's citizenship has absolutely no relation with his designation as an enemy combatant. None.

So, the president can identify American citizens as "enemy combatants" at will. He is not answerable to anyone, no one has veto power over this, and this permits him to issue binding orders to the US military to kill that person by any means available.

Did I get that right?

If so, does the Fourth Amendment even mean anything? Or does it only apply to people the state hasn't gotten around to making it inapplicable to?

There really should be some security here beyond "the innocent have nothing to fear; don't become an enemy of the state and you won't be killed."

No, there shouldn't be. You cannot have a military that bars its members from employing force on their own volition. The most you can do is define the scope of their authority to implement force. What you propose is totally antithetical to the concept of an effective military. It makes ZERO sense to obligate the military to seek judicial approval for the application of force in the field.

What field? How is al-Awlaki even in "the field?" Where are the limits of this "field" on which we are fighting terrorism? Can someone tell me where this war zone is, so that I may avoid it? Is "the field" restricted to places where people are shooting at American troops? Can it be arbitrarily extended at any time by one side of the war? Which side? Is there any place which is sacrosanct from being declared part of "the field?"

Suppose Barack Obama declares the headquarters of the Republican National Convention to be a battleground in the war on terror, and orders his troops to bomb it.

Clearly, this cannot happen, it is unacceptable and unthinkable. Surely, he will not do this thing.

But why not? What will prevent him from doing so? Luck? His sense of decency? His presumed inability to form military units willing to obey such an order? What makes it unthinkable that the president would use force against his political opponents? What legal assurances do we have that the military can ignore such an order without themselves being liable to punishment for mutiny?
___________________________

To make matters worse, how do we identify enemy combatants? When enemy combatants are shooting at us, it is easy: "enemy combatant" means "the man who is engaged in combat with us." He is made an enemy by simple, irrefutable evidence such as the bullets flying past our heads. Or by the uniform he is wearing, or some such thing.

But what rigorous process is used to declare random people enemy combatants? What security is there that this will not be abused?

Never before in American history was a president said to have the power to arbitrarily identify, mark for death, and kill American citizens without trial. Not even in far more desperate wars. What changed?

Moreover, your criticism obviously devolves to "the Constitution does not provide sufficient checks and balances; I think there should be more." That is NOT a legal argument--it is the exact opposite of one. You have consistently attempted to frame your claims in the context of legal doctrine, but you have consistently misstated the law in your efforts to do so.

Nonsense. The problem here is not that there are not enough checks and balances in the Constitution, it is that they are ignored in your pro-tyranny argument.

Congress passed a law which can be interpreted as permitting the president to do something unconstitutional (deprive American citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process). This has happened before- it is why we have checks and balances, in this case why we have judicial review. Unfortunately, in this case, the Supreme Court has failed its responsibility to rule on this law and protect the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens, but that just means they are derelict of duty, not that there is a flaw in the Constitution.

And now, you have misapplied this law to someone not covered under its provisions, extending it to say that the president of the United States may commit this unconstitutional act at any time, at will, on a whim. This did not happen because of some flaw in the Constitution. It happened because you are an advocate of tyranny,* and a liar.**

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution in this case. There are merely things wrong with the branches of our government and their failure to uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution. And things wrong with you.

*I will not say "fascist" because there are many elements of fascism missing from your argument, such as anti-intellectualism and glorification of the State as the personification of the national Will. You are not a fascist. You are merely an advocate of tyranny.
**I say "liar" because it strains belief that you missed the key passage in the extremely short law you cite, the one saying that the law in question, unconstitutional though it may be, applies to "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" I believe you know damn well what this law says, and are stretching it to apply to other things because you want more tyranny.

[Master of Ossus]

Has Awlaki carried out an actual attack that killed U.S. citizens?

Directly? No. But he's been tied to several, including the September 11th attacks--something which the President in his sole discretion may determine to authorize the use of military force against someone.

Trolling? The US is unable and unwilling to prosecute when it suits their national interest.

... You mean when the country is involved in an armed conflict?

Therefore, no nation may rely on the US to prosecute such people or for justice to be served at all. End of story, all Americans who call for the deaths of others and are not prosecuted are legitimate military targets.

Do you actually have a point to make or are you going to continue spewing bullshit until the thread explodes?

This doesn't even make logical sense. Even if the US were unable and unwilling to prosecute under certain circumstances that would not make it unable and unwilling to prosecute "at all." Again, you are deliberately misstating the relevant legal principles.

The fact that they never carried out attacks personally does not matter; as far as we know, Awlaki did not personally take part in any attacks.

But the threat is real, do you disagree?

[quote='WIkipoodia"]On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was one of a group of five people arrested on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.[13][80] Al-Awlaki blamed the U.S. for pressuring Yemeni authorities to arrest him. He was interviewed around September 2007 by two FBI agents with regard to the 9/11 attacks and other subjects, and John Negroponte, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, told Yemeni officials he did not object to al-Awlaki's detention.[46] His name was on a list of 100 prisoners whose release was sought by al-Qaeda-linked militants in Yemen.[60] After 18 months in a Yemeni prison, he was released on December 12, 2007, following the intercession of his tribe, an indication by the U.S. that it did not insist on his incarceration, and—according to a Yemeni security official—because he said he repented.[46][47][60][80][103] He reportedly moved to his family home in Saeed, a tiny hamlet in the rugged Shabwa mountains.

So what happened? Either the charges were false, the US couldn't insist on his extradiction (and as it seems it never tried), or Awlaki really was involved in a kidnapping plot. If he was, that's clear as day the US should have extradicted him or pressured Yemen into keeping him behind bars, if there was solid evidence of his involvement. If there was none, what evidence there is that's enough to kill him without trial?[/quote]

For the last fucking time, al-Awlaki is not a criminal. He's a military target. You cannot speak in terms of requiring evidence or proof or substantiation for such individuals because that is not the relevant legal standard to be applied--we're at an entirely different place in the law. I have no idea how you and so many others are consciously ignorant of this concept.

No. You said that attacking American citizens is not justified because the US can and is willing to prosecute them. However, neither Coulter nor other, more clear cases like Luis Posada Carilles who actively carried out terror attacks, are in jail or served a summary death sentence for their activities. Clearly the US justice system is a failure and other nations should reserve the right to kill off militant American citizens or foreign citizens who are militant, but hide in America.

Again, Coulter is not a military target because there is no real threat associated with her activities--a distinction which you have studiously ignored even though it is self-evidently a prerequisite for a finding that an armed conflict is ongoing. Moreover, the refusal to prosecute someone on some charge is not a blanket statement that the country is unwilling or unable to prosecute others on entirely separate charges. I wouldn't terribly object if Cuba surgically killed Carilles, for example.

If this is so, and this is what one nation can do, then all other nations can do the same and it is perfectly legal (a position I have nothing against, it is quite strong when you look for a legal basis). I just want you to follow it to a logical conclusion.

That strikes me as being rather out of character. You and logic obviously have more of a long-distance relationship.

Who determines the "level" and "realism" of the threat? The same person who makes the decision to kill? In this case hypothetically: Saddam Hussein's government determines that Coulter is a threat and assassinates her. Is it legal?

There must be an ongoing armed conflict.

[K. A. Pital]

Directly? No. But he's been tied to several, including the September 11th attacks--something which the President in his sole discretion may determine to authorize the use of military force against someone.

Proof of his 9/11 involvement? And let me stop here and wait. The US president, in his sole discretion, has the right to both DETERMINE if someone is a terrorist (not just 9/11, no - "any terrorist act" like the one on 9/11) and also KILL HIM with the use of military force of the USA. That's a good recipe for killing anyone the president hates. The US president is the judge, the jury and the prosecution and the defense in one man. He is the law when it comes to killing terrorists. Sorry, but I don't trust him; US president at a time said God told him things. I think that man belongs to a madhouse rather than the post of the president of the USA; any accusations he made are subject to doubt.

... You mean when the country is involved in an armed conflict?

No, I mean when it wants to. The US may be in war or peace. It does not matter. The US did not formally declare war on nations, but it still entered wars. And according to your concept, a one-sided declaration of an "armed conflict" is enough for that to arise. Therefore, any nation can declare that there is an armed conflict between their nation and Organization X and proceed to kill members thereof.

Do you actually have a point to make or are you going to continue spewing bullshit until the thread explodes? This doesn't even make logical sense. Even if the US were unable and unwilling to prosecute under certain circumstances that would not make it unable and unwilling to prosecute "at all." Again, you are deliberately misstating the relevant legal principles.

Even if Yemen is unable to prosecute under certain circumstances, that doesn't make it unable and unwilling to prosecute at all (indicated by Awlaki's actual capture, BTW). Whoop de fuck, idiot.

But the threat is real, do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree, because who determines reality of the threat? The US president? I don't trust his judgement, no matter if it's "legal" or not.

For the last fucking time, al-Awlaki is not a criminal. He's a military target. You cannot speak in terms of requiring evidence or proof or substantiation for such individuals because that is not the relevant legal standard to be applied--we're at an entirely different place in the law. I have no idea how you and so many others are consciously ignorant of this concept.

Who and on what basis decided that Awlaki is a target? Maybe tomorrow Obama decides that I am a target because tomorrow I can write a tract on how killing Americans is good. Why does the President of the USA have a right to solely decide who is a realistic threat?

I wouldn't terribly object if Cuba surgically killed Carilles, for example.

Good! We're getting somewhere.

That strikes me as being rather out of character. You and logic obviously have more of a long-distance relationship.

Why? See above. You say that the US president has a right to determine who is a realistic theat. So that means a President (or, more generally, the head) of any nation has the right to determine who is an "enemy combatant" against his nation deserving death. German president may determine that a US citizen is a realistic terror threat and surgically kill him. Truth or lie?

There must be an ongoing armed conflict.

There is; there's a jihad declared against America, if you failed to note. Something you cited as additional proof Awlaki is an enemy combatant. No?

[Master of Ossus]

Oh, look, a lie right off the bat.

You DO know what a lie is, right?

This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy- if he isn't already a military target, then he becomes one by trying to fight back against a country targeting him for death.

So? Moreover, as I have repeatedly pointed out, he has plenty of other options--if he surrenders, he's no longer a lawful military target, and the scope of the threat is obviously real.

So the relevant legal standards are that meeting with terrorists is proof that you yourself are one? Or that supporting the actions of an individual means that you are complicit in that individual's actions? So, I guess Father Charles Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were Nazi combatants against the US, who ought to have been killed in their beds by the OSS, but Roosevelt was just too much of a wimp to go beyond censoring Coughlin's radio and newspaper communications. Hell, this makes Pius XII a Nazi combatant too! Oh, but you're just going to ignore the implications of your response, that these are completely reasonable standards of evidence.

The relevant legal standards are that a nation that is engaged in an ongoing armed conflict is entitled to use force against its enemies, including the use of deadly force, up to the point when the target effects a surrender.

It was an analogy, you idiot. Mao Zedong was not considered a fighter for the NVA, despite inspiring North Vietnamese strategy, if you absolutely demand that this be treated one-hundred-percent as military.

So what is the proof that has been presented to show that he incited or served as an accessory to crimes? Oh, there's no proof, because proof requires a trial. There's only supposition that this is the case.

Again, you are insisting on a level of proof which is simply inapposite to the relevant legal standard. You cannot demand that a member of the executive present a judicial case prior to applying force against an enemy during an ongoing armed conflict.

So where is the evidence that has been shown to determine that, by international law, he is a military target? That's the problem with your boneheaded desire to make this purely military; terrorism is so sticky that it must be handled at least partly as a crime in order to sort out who is a military target in the first place!

Why?

The US is asserting that he is a military target, without providing evidence publicly that this is the case.

Because they don't have to. That is a totally separate aspect of the law, recognized both domestically and internationally.

You do realize that I could, if in the right position, similarly assert you as a military target by taking your postings on racial profiling to conclude that you actively encourage the mistreatment of and discrimination against Arabs and Persians as my sole evidence and declaring you to obviously be a threat to Arabs and Persians worldwide? There's nothing there to explain how al-Awlaki was a military target before the US started trying to kill him as of yet. Instead there is simply the assertion that he was, because...

No, because first of all there is no ongoing armed conflict, and second of all because nothing that I have said in those posts constitutes anything resembling a hostile act. Your targeting of me would be unlawful, under international law.

In contrast, you yourself have acknowledged al-Awlaki's actions which are sufficient to designate him as an enemy combatant, just as Osama bin Laden was--he realistically encouraged military and terrorist attacks on American targets.

You are aware that Nazi saboteurs in the US got trials, you troglodyte?

Yes. AFTER THEY SURRENDERED.

It is possible, when nations are led by people somewhat committed to ideals rather than to petty vengeance and a thirst for blood, pain, and death, to do more than killkillkill. I realize that your brain may have difficulty fitting something so complex it at once. But there is still the question of whether treating this as a war on an ideal (or a war on an organization of undetermined size or reach, if you're pretending that the War on Terror is really the war on al-Qaeda exclusively) is a smart decision or the best one. I mean, it's a question you have resolved firmly in the way that, unsurprisingly, offers the most death, but not everybody has made up their minds that it is clearly best prosecuted as a war rather than a policing effort.

This is bullshit on SO many levels. For one thing, I am presenting the position of international law, which asserts that the killing of al-Awlaki is entirely legal. It also happens to be legal under US domestic law. For another, I have never claimed that the War on Terror "is really the war on al-Qaeda exclusively." I don't even know where you got this. I've merely stated that al-Awlaki, and OBL, are obviously legitimate military targets under international law and are therefore not entitled to due process. Finally, international law does not "offer[] the most death," and even if it did, last time I checked people tend to treat it as somehow sacrosanct.

[qote]My point is that there is no way for anybody to check on this who is not committed to the system. The CIA produces intelligence which is fed to the president which is used to determine who to kill- with no ability for anybody else to interrupt this from outside. In other words, this is oligarchal, much like the majority of our national defense. Do you realize that removing the effective ability of Americans to influence foreign policy meaningfully means conceding any sort of democracy in that area? If Americans are totally divorced from foreign policy, then it becomes dependent on bureaucrats, producing a grotesque, undemocratic oligarchy that has what checks upon it? Explain how exactly this method can be independently examined.[/quote]

This has nothing to do with anything. Americans are not "totally divorced from foreign policy." The very fact that we're having this discussion demonstrates this conclusively. That national defense is oligarchical under international law is neither here nor there. International standards are the standards. It's really not relevant that you don't like them, or that they make you uncomfortable, or that you stay up at night because you're worried about the monster that lives in your closet. Again, if any of the American determinations were later found to be violative of international law, then they could be prosecuted for warcrimes for violating international law, but the US has carefully remained within the standards proscribed--it's almost like they're trying to respect their international obligations, for some reason.

Again, you're just objecting to the standards imposed by international law. It really has nothing at all to do with America, except insofar as that we're currently looking at American conduct and how it fits squarely within those rules.

By putting him in prison and hoping he gets shived before he comes up for parole, or discreetly encouraging inmate hostility against him to increase the chances of that, and/or by the simple method of not being able to publish while imprisoned.

No, I mean, how are his "other crimes" being used to silence him? Moreover, for what I hope is the last time, he's not a criminal--he's not being treated as such. He's obviously being treated as an enemy combatant during an ongoing armed conflict.

Why should he surrender? The US declared him an enemy and tried to kill him. The US tortures people that it takes into custody. Explain why he should surrender himself if innocent, and why he should have faith in an American justice system that a significant proportion of is willing to abrogate its own basic principles to fight the crime he is accused for. Go right ahead.

You're putting the shoe on entirely the wrong foot. No country has an obligation to encourage people to surrender, or even give them an opportunity to do so during an armed conflict. The obligations kick in as soon as the surrender is effected.

So where is this for al-Awlaki? If calling for the death of Americans makes him a military target as you suggested in your smarmy reply to me, then Coulter and a number of other people are similarly military targets of the Iranian government, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a military target of every government that has a vested interest in protecting the religious freedom of its citizens. If it doesn't, then what is the criterion? It is completely secret and concealed. Why should I trust the US government on this, then? A blind faith in a government that has been willing to abrogate its supposed foundations? Efforts to lull the proles into a state of blind faith in their "betters" who make the real decisions? What toxic beliefs do you wish to present here?

There has to be an ongoing armed conflict, dumbass, and so there must be some realistic threat of the application of military force. The US obviously is involved in such a conflict.

[K. A. Pital]

There has to be an ongoing armed conflict, dumbass, and so there must be some realistic threat of the application of military force. The US obviously is involved in such a conflict.

For the umpteenth time, there is a conflict. And the US carried out hostile acts against Iran, including the support of sanctions. As we found out before, a formal declaration of war is not necessary for a conflict to exist; neither must both parties be nation-states. So technically Iran or even Hezbollah can designate targets for assassination if the threat is deemed realistic (according to the principles you noted, the head of state or an organization in his sole discretion can determine who is a realistic threat).

The US also carried out hostile acts against Pakistan. So the Pakistani leader can, if he so desires, to destroy people who were involved in "instigating" these attacks - he can order the assassination of CIA analysts who supported and propagandized the idea of strikes against Pakistan to the US president. It would be fully legal. Cuba or Venezuela can surgically kill Luis Posada Carilles, and Iran can kill Coulter in the end, if they make a case that she has inspired George Walker Bush to initiate a crusade in the Middle East to "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". They will determine if the threat of her inspiration of the Bushist terror in the Middle East is real.

Like I said before, I am not arguing that this position is inconsistent or wrong. However, I want this to be done to a logical conclusion.

If someone is decided by a foreign head of state to be a realistic threat, he can be assassinated as an enemy combatant. This also means that North Korea can assassinate people in South Korea they think are a threat and these actions will not be illegal. Why? Let's see: the armed conflict is still there, there's only a ceasefire. The leader (Kim Jong Il) has a right to use full force of the DPRK army and special services to kill realistic threats.

Drumbeat, curtain. All nations have equal rights, all national leaders have equal rights, and thus any national leader may behave the same as the US leader in a war against terrorist organizations or other nations, which may include any nations, the USA itself even.

And it does not matter if you personally think there's no "realistic threat" from Coulter, actually. Not you, but the President of Iran, in his sole discretion, has the right to determine the level of the threat and its realism, and then order actions or decide against it.

[Metahive]

That's what I kept talking about. If the President is given the right to unilaterally decide that certain people "need killin'" then there's no way to guarantee, other than the respective President's personal sense of lawfulness and human decency that this will only be applied to baddies like Bin Laden and, excuse me, being a decent human being has never been an entry requirement to become POTUS.

[PeZook]

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

A lot of people have probably said the same thing in Weirmar Germany in 1925. I mean really, it was a nation that was one of the more progressive ones towards Jew integration. Really, what insane idiot could ever suggest the German state would be gassing these people en masse within two decades?

That's crazy talk!

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

It's about the approach to justice, not equivalence between the two people. Their status before the law is similar ; You are saying that if the President decides to kill someone, he probably has a good reason to do so because he's the President, and the President surely will never be racist fuck, right?

Did you perhaps miss you have a Congress that's full of teabaggers? Not that long ago, the CIA was abducting German citizens and flying them off to brutal interrogation sites but whatever, the President will never abuse his power!

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.

Oh, what a nice way to weasel out of the debate without actually conceding your point.

[Shroom Man 777]

I think it is really dangerous for big government to be able to regulate (by drone strike) the small businesses of these people's lives. al-Awlaki is trying to make his own enterprise, and those communists are trying to shut him down. It reeks of socialism.

[Broomstick]

The wikipedia article had iron-clad evidence he had called for Jihad against the US, including the killing of US citizens.

Calling for the death of Americans automatically earns one a death sentence? I thought you need, uh, kill someone to get a death sentence. Not just call for someone's death.

Actually, in a significant number of US states even killing someone doesn't get you the death penalty, as those states have abolished capital punishment.

So, no, calling for death doesn't earn any sentence. However, engaging in actions to bring about death is a crime. The speech is not a crime, the action might be. So the question is, are the actions those that bring to harm to others or not? Supposedly, the courts are supposed to decide that.

[Thanas]

I'd have a lot more faith in the US Government on this issue if they haven't been shown to mess up quite often, but even when they knew they did mess up did they press on with the torture. After all, better to throw somebody under the bus than to lose face and reveal the secret torture sites, right? Why should this be any different? With no independent judiciary oversight, how can neutrality be guaranteed in this matter?

[Akhlut]

And yet where else on Earth do we find "murder gangs" who are organized to anything like the same degree, so indifferent to profit and risk avoidance, and with so much support among certain sectors of the population?

They might not be as risk-avoidant as the Crips or the Mafia, but they're definitely making a shitload of money via opium. They're making a profit and using it. It might not like how the Mafia or Crips use it for women, their own drugs, and fat cribs while al Qaida and the Taliban use it for more weapons and indoctrinating children into their radical form of Islam, but it's still there.

Large terrorist organizations may be criminals, but they are very strange criminals, a distinct subspecies of criminal and one that shares many of the traits of a rebellion, guerilla army, or other ideologically motivated armed faction. It is necessary to recognize this, and to some extent adopt the appropriate language and frame of reference for fighting such a large and capable opponent.

I don't know; the drug cartels of Mexico are gangs who only have the ideology of "sell drugs, make money, fuck women," yet they have sophisticated weaponry and strategy on their side and they are regular problems for Mexican authorities. I'd assume they'd be easier for the US to handle solely because they wouldn't use suicide tactics, but they still have access to RPGs, assault rifles, and a bunch of other weapons that al Qaida and the Taliban uses. Would you also describe the cartels as being composed of soldiers fighting something of a war with the Mexican government? (note: this is a legitimate question)

[TheHammer]

There has to be an ongoing armed conflict, dumbass, and so there must be some realistic threat of the application of military force. The US obviously is involved in such a conflict.

For the umpteenth time, there is a conflict. And the US carried out hostile acts against Iran, including the support of sanctions. As we found out before, a formal declaration of war is not necessary for a conflict to exist; neither must both parties be nation-states. So technically Iran or even Hezbollah can designate targets for assassination if the threat is deemed realistic (according to the principles you noted, the head of state or an organization in his sole discretion can determine who is a realistic threat).

You are correct, they absolutely could. And they probably have.

The US also carried out hostile acts against Pakistan. So the Pakistani leader can, if he so desires, to destroy people who were involved in "instigating" these attacks - he can order the assassination of CIA analysts who supported and propagandized the idea of strikes against Pakistan to the US president. It would be fully legal. Cuba or Venezuela can surgically kill Luis Posada Carilles, and Iran can kill Coulter in the end, if they make a case that she has inspired George Walker Bush to initiate a crusade in the Middle East to "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". They will determine if the threat of her inspiration of the Bushist terror in the Middle East is real.

Yes they could. And they'd also suffer the retaliation both military and economical that such an act would incur. I don't know how much the U.S. government would really care about the deaths of Carilles or Coulter, but I'm sure there would be retaliation.

Like I said before, I am not arguing that this position is inconsistent or wrong. However, I want this to be done to a logical conclusion.

If someone is decided by a foreign head of state to be a realistic threat, he can be assassinated as an enemy combatant. This also means that North Korea can assassinate people in South Korea they think are a threat and these actions will not be illegal. Why? Let's see: the armed conflict is still there, there's only a ceasefire. The leader (Kim Jong Il) has a right to use full force of the DPRK army and special services to kill realistic threats.

Yes they could, and the cease fire would likely be over and the Korean Peninsula would be at war again. Thus, any leader who decides to take such an action would have to be ready and willing to suffer the consequences.

Drumbeat, curtain. All nations have equal rights, all national leaders have equal rights, and thus any national leader may behave the same as the US leader in a war against terrorist organizations or other nations, which may include any nations, the USA itself even.

That is your first mistake in this post... All nations do not have equal rights, nor do their leaders. Not in the real world, and not in the UN - hence the permanent members of the security council. That is the reason militaries exist in the first place. The more powerful your military and economy, the more "rights" you have. I know that's not fair, but such is the way of the world. If all international disputes could be solved via "fair trials" in some sort of international court of law, you have no need for armed conflict. The bottom line is, every nation will do what is in its own best interest, or at the very least what its leader's believe to be the best interest.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh, so you're another one of those might makes right shitpieces who are perfectly fine with this kind of reprehensible unaccountable crap because the USA is top dog. But, oh, come the day you fatsos are humbled, the fall will be all so sweet and watching the very same power might makes right people bitch and blubber like the bunch of beached whales they are, oh it will be so fantastic.

Unless you are consistent in your belief, and if you would be perfectly fine if a more powerful nation treats your nation like shit and gets away with it by virtue of might makes right and all the other stupid shit you've espoused. Because if that's the case, then I guess that would be cool.

It would be like, say, some asshole might makes right British imperialist who goes "Britain can do this and get away with it because it is so powerful" but when Britain became a small piece of shit country, and Den Xiaoping shoved that bitch Margaret Thatcher down a flight of stairs, the same Brit imperialist would go "China can do this and get away with it because it is so powerful and now we (UK) are small shits."

That would be admirable.

Too bad that's not the case and 9 times out of 10, these same realpolitik might makes right posers are just a bunch of fat crybaby fatherfuckers who'll blubber and whine whenever the tiniest perceived slight happens to their nation. Look at how OK they are when their own country blows up and kills so many foreign people, but look at how thin their skin gets when someone drops an Irritating Enema Dialogue or straks their stupid country. Their thin skin gets so easily pricked and all the stinking fat underneath just spills out, like a water balloon filled with used bacon grease and lard. It's like watching a pus-filled zit get squeezed and burst, because that's what your country is. A big fat pimple on the face of the Earth.

God bless America.

[TheHammer]

Oh, so you're another one of those might makes right shitpieces who are perfectly fine with this kind of reprehensible unaccountable crap because the USA is top dog. But, oh, come the day you fatsos are humbled, the fall will be all so sweet and watching the very same power might makes right people bitch and blubber like the bunch of beached whales they are, oh it will be so fantastic.

No, I just live in the real fucking world. You should visit some time.

Unless you are consistent in your belief, and if you would be perfectly fine if a more powerful nation treats your nation like shit and gets away with it by virtue of might makes right and all the other stupid shit you've espoused. Because if that's the case, then I guess that would be cool.

I could shake my fist at it and pretend that it makes a difference, or I can realize that things are the way they are and that life isn't fair. I realize the fact that the U.S. can and does do a lot of things other nations cant pisses a lot of people off, however simply acknowledging that fact isn't making a statement on my personal morality. I personally think it would be great if we lived in a world where justice was universal, and we all worked together for the good of mankind.

It would be like, say, some asshole might makes right British imperialist who goes "Britain can do this and get away with it because it is so powerful" but when Britain became a small piece of shit country, and Den Xiaoping shoved that bitch Margaret Thatcher down a flight of stairs, the same Brit imperialist would go "China can do this and get away with it because it is so powerful and now we (UK) are small shits."

That would be admirable.

Such a Brit would simply be acknowledging reality. As would I should I live to see the day that U.S. is no longer "top dog" as you put it. Then it might "suck for us", but it could also very well suck for all of you to find things could well be worse with some other super power at the top of the food chain.

Too bad that's not the case and 9 times out of 10, these same realpolitik might makes right posers are just a bunch of fat crybaby fatherfuckers who'll blubber and whine whenever the tiniest perceived slight happens to their nation. Look at how OK they are when their own country blows up and kills so many foreign people, but look at how thin their skin gets when someone drops an Irritating Enema Dialogue or straks their stupid country. Their thin skin gets so easily pricked and all the stinking fat underneath just spills out, like a water balloon filled with used bacon grease and lard. It's like watching a pus-filled zit get squeezed and burst, because that's what your country is. A big fat pimple on the face of the Earth.

God bless America.

We Americans like to call this Angry Foreigner Syndrome. And the typical response to this is simply to say, "Go fuck yourself".

[Shroom Man 777]

No, I just live in the real fucking world. You should visit some time.

No, you're a fat fuck living in a bloated society of over-privileged shits. The kind of shits you shit out that has oil in it, the really smelly one you get after eating too much greasy food. We, the people who live in the rest of the world who are pissed with your fatty nation's bullshit and who are the ones adversely affected by it, are the ones who live in the real world. Unless you think your fat cholesterol addled supersized states of murca are the "real" world - in which case you might be confused with a show on MTV.

I could shake my fist at it and pretend that it makes a difference, or I can realize that things are the way they are and that life isn't fair. I realize the fact that the U.S. can and does do a lot of things other nations cant pisses a lot of people off, however simply acknowledging that fact isn't making a statement on my personal morality. I personally think it would be great if we lived in a world where justice was universal, and we all worked together for the good of mankind.

Well, here's the voice of the rest of the world that America has pissed on. We're queuing up in a line, so when the day comes that your nation is down and out, we'll be using you for our human toilets.

Such a Brit would simply be acknowledging reality. As would I should I live to see the day that U.S. is no longer "top dog" as you put it. Then it might "suck for us", but it could also very well suck for all of you to find things could well be worse with some other super power at the top of the food chain.

Or it could be awesome for us and we could go "phew at least these guys aren't like those stupid fat fuckers who were on top last time, god they were so fat they nearly broke the bed with how they jiggled their guts".

We Americans like to call this Angry Foreigner Syndrome. And the typical response to this is simply to say, "Go fuck yourself".

We call this The Rest Of The World Condition, which IS a typical response to America, wherein we simply say "YEAH FUCK AMERICA."

[Akhlut]

Yes, why should a Filipino be angry with the US? I mean, it's not like his country was ruled by a megalomaniac who embezzeled billions of dollars from the country with covert support from the US, and, when he was leaving the country due to revolution, it's not like the US gave him safe passage from the nation to die in peace within the US's borders. I mean, why should any Filipino or Filipina be angry at the US at all? Why, it's nonsensical and should be dismissed outright!

So, yeah. That's basically what you've been looking like for this entire thread. "Yeah, I fucking love peace and justice and shit, but extrajudicial killings of US citizens and realpolitik demonstrations of power are how the world works and fuck you guys for questioning it and questioning me about it."

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh you're just being stupid, Akhlut. Who cares what some shitpiece from some small country says, you're top dog, your country is the richest and the most prosperous, you're in THE REAL WORLD! Obviously the rest of those people living in the rest of the world aren't livin' in the REAL WORLD. Who gives a crap what the rest of the world thinks. You know why they're not living in the REAL world? Here's the secret. Americans don't think they are real people.

Typical. These are the same kind of people who try to hide their amoral shit by wiping it with scented tissue paper with words like "freedom" or "democracy" or "helping people" written on them with crayolas.

TheHammer, I appreciate your honesty though. At least you have the courage to admit that you're a true fucker. The other members of your psychotic cult are too cowardly to do so, sadly enough.

[Metahive]

We Americans like to call this Angry Foreigner Syndrome. And the typical response to this is simply to say, "Go fuck yourself".

Said like a true 'MERICAN!

Pal, I'd kindly ask you to not take your less-jackassy fellow countrymen hostage for your caveman attitudes since you're after all only representing a subspecies of American.

[Akhlut]

I'm sorry, Shroom, I can't hear you due to all the fatFREEDOM in my ears.

Also, I can't hear you because I'm laughing about the idea of a person who has likely lived his entire life in the developed world trying to tell someone who has lived in a country that has regularly been on the recieving end of realpolitik policies for about 500 years now about how realpolitik works. I mean, it's almost like irony or something.

[TheHammer]

No, I just live in the real fucking world. You should visit some time.

No, you're a fat fuck living in a bloated society of over-privileged shits. The kind of shits you shit out that has oil in it, the really smelly one you get after eating too much greasy food. We, the people who live in the rest of the world who are pissed with your fatty nation's bullshit and who are the ones adversely affected by it, are the ones who live in the real world. Unless you think your fat cholesterol addled supersized states of murca are the "real" world - in which case you might be confused with a show on MTV.

I'm actually in pretty good shape thank you very much. But don't let facts get in the way of your "angry ferener rant"

I could shake my fist at it and pretend that it makes a difference, or I can realize that things are the way they are and that life isn't fair. I realize the fact that the U.S. can and does do a lot of things other nations cant pisses a lot of people off, however simply acknowledging that fact isn't making a statement on my personal morality. I personally think it would be great if we lived in a world where justice was universal, and we all worked together for the good of mankind.

Well, here's the voice of the rest of the world that America has pissed on. We're queuing up in a line, so when the day comes that your nation is down and out, we'll be using you for our human toilets.

Keep hoping buddy. Say your prayers at night REALLY hard, and maybe, some day, it will be China on top and I'm sure things will be much better for you then.

Such a Brit would simply be acknowledging reality. As would I should I live to see the day that U.S. is no longer "top dog" as you put it. Then it might "suck for us", but it could also very well suck for all of you to find things could well be worse with some other super power at the top of the food chain.

Or it could be awesome for us and we could go "phew at least these guys aren't like those stupid fat fuckers who were on top last time, god they were so fat they nearly broke the bed with how they jiggled their guts".

Again, the real world would be useful for you to visit some time. Unless it happens to be your nation that is "top dog" (and sometimes not even then) things are likely to be worse. You look at the top contenders, China and perhaps India, and think things would be better? You must be joknig But I could be wrong, maybe Belgium will rise to power and bring about a new era of prosperity for all

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe YOU should visit the real world some time because you're apparently living in some fantasy land where you are somehow "better" than any of those other nations, which really isn't the case. You must be sticking your head in some really deep sand. Or you mistook a sandbag for a suppository, before you held your breath and dove right in.

EDIT:

Things won't change for the rest of us. But it will, for you and for the replacement (China/India). That reversal, with you in the shit, could be seen as "better". It is medicinal.

[TheHammer]

We Americans like to call this Angry Foreigner Syndrome. And the typical response to this is simply to say, "Go fuck yourself".

Said like a true 'MERICAN!

Pal, I'd kindly ask you to not take your less-jackassy fellow countrymen hostage for your caveman attitudes since you're after all only representing a subspecies of American.

BTW, Thanks for proving my point Metahive and Shroom on the rise of a new cultural slur. Keep on using it. I'm sure some of Shroom's postings will eventually make their way to Urban Dictionary.com THE authority on slurs, and then all my previous stances vindicated.

[Simon_Jester]

Can anyone check to see if TheHam here is a sockpuppet for ChocolateKiwii? I'm having fucking flashbacks here.

Because on that thread he started out all "mission to civilize" and "let's clean up the world..." but when people actually started asking him awkward questions about whether he had the right and qualifications to do so he turned into a blubbering shit-flinging lunatic whining about "how DARE you ingrates question AMERICAN RIGHTS made from AMERICAN MIGHT! RAAAH YOU ARE ALL CAVEMEN!"

When his qualifications to do X and his right, in the sense of "is it appropriate, wise, and just for us to do X," were questioned... he fell back on "Well, we're doing X and that's how it is so you can all get fucked." Which was quite lame in my opinion, because it's not like Kiwii had anything himself to do with the sources of American military strength or economic power; that was created for him by generations of people with a grasp of how civilization works that went beyond "hit people over the head until I get my way."

So basically, this guy was doing the same thing Ham's doing, only now it's coming at us with an extra side order of pro-tyranny political theory thrown in.

And yet where else on Earth do we find "murder gangs" who are organized to anything like the same degree, so indifferent to profit and risk avoidance, and with so much support among certain sectors of the population?

They might not be as risk-avoidant as the Crips or the Mafia, but they're definitely making a shitload of money via opium. They're making a profit and using it. It might not like how the Mafia or Crips use it for women, their own drugs, and fat cribs while al Qaida and the Taliban use it for more weapons and indoctrinating children into their radical form of Islam, but it's still there.

Well yeah, but that's still a difference in mindset: there's a difference between revolutionaries who commit crime for funding and criminals who commit crime to increase their personal wealth. The acts are sometimes similar, but the difference in motives is critical.

Large terrorist organizations may be criminals, but they are very strange criminals, a distinct subspecies of criminal and one that shares many of the traits of a rebellion, guerilla army, or other ideologically motivated armed faction. It is necessary to recognize this, and to some extent adopt the appropriate language and frame of reference for fighting such a large and capable opponent.

I don't know; the drug cartels of Mexico are gangs who only have the ideology of "sell drugs, make money, fuck women," yet they have sophisticated weaponry and strategy on their side and they are regular problems for Mexican authorities. I'd assume they'd be easier for the US to handle solely because they wouldn't use suicide tactics, but they still have access to RPGs, assault rifles, and a bunch of other weapons that al Qaida and the Taliban uses. Would you also describe the cartels as being composed of soldiers fighting something of a war with the Mexican government? (note: this is a legitimate question)

The cartels are well armed, but, again, they do not have an ideological goal of "overthrow the government."

Here's how I see it. There are two kinds of violent groups: bandits and armies.

Bandits are out to rob people, and to use violence to prevent anyone from stopping them. The more powerful they become, the better they are at stopping the police from controlling them. When bandit groups become very large, they may be nearly impossible to control without breaking out the tools you'd use in a civil war... but even then, they do not attempt to replace or supplant the government. Ruling over the people is of no interest to them, so long as they have power to accumulate wealth by committing crimes.

Only in near-anarchic conditions (say, nationalist China c. 1920-1930) do you see bandits accumulating enough power, in a great enough power vacuum, that they start becoming a de facto government.

Armies are out to achieve some political objective- to limit or expand a nation-state's control, to fight for a particular conception of how their nation ought to be, and so on. As a rule, their goals don't really include making themselves rich- they might engage in a certain amount of looting, but it's not an objective that drives their decisions about where to fight and what to do. If they commit a crime, it will be pursuant to their political, not their financial objectives: they will be trying to kill people they think need killing for political reasons, destroy property that is of real or symbolic value to the cause they are fighting against, and so on.

Now, when armies are large they're the kind of uniformed military service we know and love. But we have to ask ourselves a question: what would a small army look like? What if the people who would like to form an army to fight for the cause of Doughnutism or whatever can only muster a couple of companies' worth of men? Obviously, only a fool would take such an "army" and lead it into formal battle against a much larger army.

For this reason, weak "army-like" forces will tend to go underground- to become guerillas, who rely on hidden bases and the tactics of revolutionaries to disrupt their foes. As a guerilla force becomes larger it starts looking more like a normal army: witness the IRA or Tito's partisans towards the end of their successful campaigns. As it becomes smaller relative to the size of what it seeks to defeat, it starts looking more like a terrorist organization, because it becomes so physically weak that its resources don't allow it to strike at military targets.

So my argument is that in terms of their psychological and sociological origins, terrorists are more like armies than they are like bandits. This does not mean that they cannot be dealt with by criminal law- an "army-like" terrorist group of a few hundred men is easily small enough to be handled by the police and not the army, which is a sign of just how small an "army" it has become.

But if we have any interest at all in understanding who these people are and where they come from, it's absurd to insist that they are just like bandit organizations of the same size. There's a difference between very large bandits (Mexican warlords) and very small armies (guerilla and terrorist movements).

[Metahive]

But don't let facts get in the way of your "angry ferener rant"

What facts exactly? So far all you've said were various permutations of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! and REALPOLITIK! Sloganeering isn't quite the same as presenting facts. Have you also not noticed that you're criticised for acting out exactly this attitude? Why else would you otherwise do your darndest to compound it by acting ever more "merican"?

BTW, Thanks for proving my point Metahive and Shroom on the rise of a new cultural slur. Keep on using it. I'm sure some of Shroom's postings will eventually make their way to Urban Dictionary.com THE authority on slurs, and then all my previous stances vindicated.

How's it slurring when it describes you and your ilk so accurately?

ETA:
Yeah, Simon, I agree, someone should definitely do an IP check on TheHammer. The resemblance is uncanny.

[Shroom Man 777]

It's good though, to see an Honest Platypus Cuckolding Animal go on blubbering about "hurf hurf the real world!" to make all that might makes right crap okay.

"Your country does shit to other people"

"WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD BUD"

Because, really, that's how these people think. Nobody really honestly gives a shit about the rest of the world. The only real world to them is America, the rest of the world really isn't real because to them the people living there aren't real people. That's the kind of mindset these people have. As long as they have power, that's all that matters. Then they can use this to justify atrocious acts to further acquire more power. Be it military strength, money, whatever. It's like the stroking hand of the free market.

Still, TheHammer is right. Absolutely right. Face it, guys, that is how America conducts its world affairs, how it pursues its foreign interests, that is what it does to the world. That is how America became numero uno, big shot, top dog, the mighty and the righty, etcetera.

All these disgusting things TheHammer has said? Well, they're all the disgusting things America has done.

Think about that. Look around you.

Apparently the high and mighty of your nation, and all nations really, are subscribing to TheHammer's newsletter.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that that makes them all a bunch of fatties.