US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[K. A. Pital]

Hezbollah is in an armed conflict. It has a right to kill people who are deemed a threat. End of story.

IF THEY ARE LAWFUL TARGETS, YOU DISHONEST DIPSHIT.

Your incessant drive-bys (which invariably and deliberately ignore the governing law involved) are growing so tiresome that I feel no further need to respond. Suffice it to say, what you are doing is obviously trolling, and is a deliberate effort to derail the thread.

And this assumes that Hezbollah is involved in an "ongoing" armed conflict, which seems like something you could argue either way about.

The lawfulness and the threat level is decided by the leader of the organization in his sole discretion. So no, I'm not trolling, but you are, with all your long-winded descriptions. Yes, you can kill and assassinate people in war - everyone knows that. It does not require special legal justification other than being in a war.

However, you should then admit that anyone who is in a war can legally assassinate people as well. Not just the USA, everyone. TheHammer was more honest than you.

[Alyeska]

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship ... p_780.html

There are statutes in the US legal code to strip someone of citizenship for serving in a foreign army at war with the US. However, these are laws, which are under the province of the judiciary. It is up to the courts to decide if al-Awlaki can legally be killed, and then up to the executive branch to do it. It is not up to the executive branch to do both- to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Now, in the case of an American citizen who is captured as part of a foreign army, we can take him home and have a trial. He can be arrested on charges of treason, or breaking statutes, or whatever. Simple.

If an American citizen is actively fighting on a battlefield and is killed by soldiers without getting the chance to announce his citizenship, that is simple- the soldiers are not at fault, because they had no way to distinguish him from any of the other enemy soldiers.

But when we make a specific, premeditated attempt to kill an American citizen using our armed forces, it is different. In that case, we need some legal judgment to provide "due process:" to ensure that his rights under the Constitution have not been cast aside, that this person is in fact an enemy and not an innocent person the president happens to want dead.

At the very least, there should be a warrant out, or something- some kind of judicial review of al-Awlaki's case in which the evidence on which Obama wants him dead is made public.

Like you said earlier. A court makes the determination, then the executive branch does the work. It sounds like most of the pieces to do this are already in place, but there is practically no separation of powers and its all given to the executive branch to do what it wants with no check and balances for protection.

[Simon_Jester]

Which is my huge concern.

I mean shit, it's as if we decided to make the police department responsible for deciding on the spot who to convict, as a snap decision.

That's not a police force, that's a state-sponsored lynch mob.

[Samuel]

The lawfulness and the threat level is decided by the leader of the organization in his sole discretion. So no, I'm not trolling, but you are, with all your long-winded descriptions. Yes, you can kill and assassinate people in war - everyone knows that. It does not require special legal justification other than being in a war.

No, it has to be in accordence with international law.

Who decides? What ensures that the president cannot simply assert that you, MoO, are a terrorist? What ensures that he cannot, on the basis of this unproven assertion, have you killed?

The same requirement that prevents the military from killing orphans and declaring them enemy combatants- international law. I have a feeling I'm going to be repeating those 2 word alot.

So, if the president makes tyrannical decisions, and starts declaring ordinary domestic political opponents as terrorists and having them killed... he is responsible for punishing himself for the war crime?

See, this is why I keep saying you are an advocate of tyranny.

Except it requires the military to carry them out and the military have the right to disobey illegal orders or orders contray to the constitution.

In World War Two, the US fought countries which had declared war on it, or which it had declared war on. These countries had uniformed armed forces and well defined territories under their control. It was not difficult for us to realize that the guys wearing German uniforms in France were our enemies while random people in, say, Paraguay were not.

German troops during the Battle of the Bulge wore American uniforms. Irregular terrorists fought on in civilian clothing. Military targets were disgused and dispersed in civilian areas, requiring mass bombing to dig out.

Yes, the Constitution and the federal laws take precedence over the state laws. However, this clause does not state that treaties trump laws, or that laws trump treaties; that must be decided on a case by case basis.

In short, "unconstitutional" is a much stronger argument against the legitimacy of an act of Congress or executive order than "violates a treaty we signed." For the US government to break a treaty is not forbidden under the Constitution.

Tough shit. The constitution says treaties shall be suprem law of the land. It doesn't say "treaties are lesser laws".

However, since AFATA already violates the Constitution if it is being applied to American citizens, this is beside the point.

No, if it obeys international treaties it is acceptable.

Why is Chomsky immune to this power, when al-Awlaki is not?

International law.

[K. A. Pital]

No, it has to be in accordence with international law.

Which law? Why? The US president decides who is a threat. Also, he decided that the US is in a state of war. So there's no other "deciders", only THE DECIDER.

International law.

No. The US president decides who is a threat. He also decides the level of realism of the threat and he also decides (with the US military, too) that the US is in a state of war. There are no other deciders and no other judges than the US president and the US government.

This means that there's no legal body that controls their actions. None, nada, nil.

[Master of Ossus]

The lawfulness and the threat level is decided by the leader of the organization in his sole discretion.

Bullshit. You are now confusing the classification of the target as an individual associated with the September 11 attacks under US domestic law with the classification of the target as lawful under international law.

I spelled this out VERY clearly.

The lawfulness of the targeting of al-Awlaki requires that it be lawful under BOTH US domestic law (which it is--see the AUTM) AND under international law (which it is--he's a lawful target under the Geneva convention, lawful targets by definition can be the target of lethal force during an ongoing armed conflict).

Do you have some sort of mental disease which prevents you from grasping the possibility of there being multiple necessary conditions? Here's how virtually all of our interactions have gone, in this thread:

Me: For X to be true, several necessary conditions must be met

• .
  You: That's ridiculous. Here's a circumstance in which one of those conditions was kinda, sorta, maybe met if I squint real hard for long enough and where you would obviously disagree with X. Therefore you are wrong.
  Me: Uh... not actually. Your circumstance satisfies perhaps one of these conditions. You have totally ignored this [these?] other condition.
  
  

  So no, I'm not trolling, but you are, with all your long-winded descriptions. Yes, you can kill and assassinate people in war - everyone knows that. It does not require special legal justification other than being in a war.

  
  
  You can't even get the legal language correct when it's been expressly detailed for your benefit earlier in the thread and on something which is totally unambiguous. An assassination is not legal, even in times of war. An assassination is BY DEFINITION an unlawful killing.
  
  

  However, you should then admit that anyone who is in a war can legally assassinate people as well. Not just the USA, everyone. TheHammer was more honest than you.

  
  
  I didn't read through TheHammer's posts in this thread, but given that you and any pretense of honesty parted company a long time ago I rather doubt that this statement is true.

[Samuel]

Which law? Why? The US president decides who is a threat. Also, he decided that the US is in a state of war. So there's no other "deciders", only THE DECIDER.

Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention which deals with legitimate military targets.

[Master of Ossus]

No, it has to be in accordence with international law.

Which law? Why? The US president decides who is a threat. Also, he decided that the US is in a state of war. So there's no other "deciders", only THE DECIDER.

Which is true UNDER U.S. DOMESTIC LAW. GOD.

International law.

No. The US president decides who is a threat. He also decides the level of realism of the threat and he also decides (with the US military, too) that the US is in a state of war. There are no other deciders and no other judges than the US president and the US government.

This means that there's no legal body that controls their actions. None, nada, nil.

This is how you respond? Samuel very accurately and very succinctly explained to you what was wrong with your post, and you simply declare that he's wrong?

Are you denying that international law exists? If so, why are we even having this discussion on international law?

[Zinegata]

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."

It's not as simple as that.

The said megalomaniac's (Marcos) son is now a Philippine Senator. His daughter is a governor. They attended the funeral of Corazon Aquino (who led the revolution to oust Marcos) and were not shunned.

(And note: I'm not exactly a Marcos supporter. I'm just stating facts. But hey, in this thread saying unpleasant facts seems to mean that you support those unpleasant facts!)

Moreover, let's not pretend that the majority of Filipinos are pissed off at America here. The Filipino dream, it's often said, is to move to America and have the American dream.

Reality is much more complicated. So yes, you can in fact prefer "love, peace, and justice" but realize that the world doesn't work that way and realpolitik requires unpleasant stuff like assassinations.

So really, stop pretending that this is a debate. This is just a lynch mob that couldn't handle the truth. So they're just engaging in pointless character assassination because it lets them think that they're actually changing the world.

They're not. They're just fat slobs wasting time on the Internet too, and relying on stupid generalizations and even outright lies to make up for the fact that all their whining hasn't actually changed anything.

[K. A. Pital]

Me: Uh... not actually. Your circumstance satisfies perhaps one of these conditions. You have totally ignored this [these?] other condition.

Which other conditions I have ignored with the Hezbollah, DPRK or Cuba examples?

You can't even get the legal language correct when it's been expressly detailed for your benefit earlier in the thread and on something which is totally unambiguous. An assassination is not legal, even in times of war. An assassination is BY DEFINITION an unlawful killing.

Maybe it's a problem with language, however, I'm pretty sure that the term "liquidation" that is used when special forces are sent to kill an enemy officer is pretty much assassination. During wartime it was and is perfectly legal to kill officers this way; I have not heard about people put on trial for such wartime assassinations (I don't fucking care if you use some other word to describe it).

I didn't read through TheHammer's posts in this thread, but given that you and any pretense of honesty parted company a long time ago I rather doubt that this statement is true.

You doubt? Iraq and the US were in a war. Is it legal for Iraqi military to assassinate US politicians? Are you so fucking dense that you seem to demand that OTHER NATIONS follow the domestic laws of the US? That's not a requirement for your own nation, but suddenly others must follow the laws of the US of A? And it's me who's bullshitting?

I want a clear answer that would indicate: all nations have a right to assassinate enemy combatants when they are in a state of war. And by "enemy combatants" I mean any person who is a "realistic threat" even if he was not directly involved in attacks. Because that is EXACTLY what you said, in your own fucking words: Awlaki is a real threat and therefore he's an enemy combatant even if he didn't personally kill a single American. Sort of like a military officer who never shot enemies on the frontline, right?

So you should stop weaseling out. Do other nations have a right to such actions, or only the USA?

Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention which deals with legitimate military targets.

In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

So if I decide that Object X contributes to military action, its destruction offers a military advantage, it is legal to kill Object X. End of story. Like I said, you haven't even thought about it.

Are you denying that international law exists? If so, why are we even having this discussion on international law?

Read above. The protocol allows for a broad choice of "legitimate military targets". A very broad choice.

[Master of Ossus]

Which other conditions I have ignored with the Hezbollah,

You ignored the requirement that the target be a lawful one.

DPRK

You ignored the requirement that the target be a lawful one. (And you're really stretching the definition of "ongoing armed conflict," here, if not outright ignoring it).

or Cuba examples?

You ignored the requirement that the target be a lawful one and ignored the requirement that the conflict be ongoing. Admittedly, that one's closer, but I also didn't object nearly so vociferously to that one.

I also note that you quietly omitted such other instances of your behavior as your comparison of Ann Coulter to Osama bin Laden and Noam Chomsky to al-Awklaki, which both ignored the requirement that the target be lawful--Chomsky and Coulter meet NONE of the NECESSARY criteria for lawfulness; bin Laden and al-Awlaki meet all of them.

Maybe it's a problem with language, however, I'm pretty sure that the term "liquidation" that is used when special forces are sent to kill an enemy officer is pretty much assassination. During wartime it was and is perfectly legal to kill officers this way; I have not heard about people put on trial for such wartime assassinations (I don't fucking care if you use some other word to describe it).

Those are not assassinations. Wartime killing of officers is the exercise of the lawful application of military force. I have already described this in the thread in considerable detail.

You doubt? Iraq and the US were in a war. Is it legal for Iraqi military to assassinate US politicians? Are you so fucking dense that you seem to demand that OTHER NATIONS follow the domestic laws of the US? That's not a requirement for your own nation, but suddenly others must follow the laws of the US of A? And it's me who's bullshitting?

Before I launch into this, I don't really know what this has to do with anything. I didn't read TheHammer's posts (as I just stated before you launched into this), but I assume that it's related to this.

Is it legal for Iraqi military to assassinate US politicians? Again, I assume that by "assassinate" you mean "target for use of lethal force." And it depends on the politician. Are they a lawful target or not?

I have NEVER required that OTHER COUNTRIES follow US domestic law. I have absolutely no idea where you got this claim. My statements regarding Obama, the US military, etc. following US domestic law are relevant only because they are subject to US domestic law AS WELL AS international law when engaged in an ongoing armed conflict.

I want a clear answer that would indicate: all nations have a right to assassinate enemy combatants when they are in a state of war. And by "enemy combatants" I mean any person who is a "realistic threat" even if he was not directly involved in attacks. Because that is EXACTLY what you said, in your own fucking words: Awlaki is a real threat and therefore he's an enemy combatant even if he didn't personally kill a single American. Sort of like a military officer who never shot enemies on the frontline, right?

YES. A MILITARY OFFICER ON THE FRONT LINE IS A LAWFUL TARGET UNTIL AND UNLESS HE SURRENDERS. GOD.

So you should stop weaseling out. Do other nations have a right to such actions, or only the USA?

Where the fuck have I argued otherwise?

Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention which deals with legitimate military targets.

In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

So if I decide that Object X contributes to military action, its destruction offers a military advantage, it is legal to kill Object X. End of story. Like I said, you haven't even thought about it.

Are you denying that international law exists? If so, why are we even having this discussion on international law?

Read above. The protocol allows for a broad choice of "legitimate military targets". A very broad choice.

Yes, it does. Why does this mean that international law does not exist?

[Samuel]

So if I decide that Object X contributes to military action, its destruction offers a military advantage, it is legal to kill Object X. End of story. Like I said, you haven't even thought about it.

Except it doesn't work that way. Remember Nuremburg? Killing civilians served a military purpose (the dead cannot help partisans), but it was still deemed a war crime. There are, in fact, standards.

Maybe it's a problem with language, however, I'm pretty sure that the term "liquidation" that is used when special forces are sent to kill an enemy officer is pretty much assassination.

"to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons."
"Murder is the unlawful killing"

[K. A. Pital]

You ignored the requirement that the target be a lawful one.

I didn't. I read that Protocol time and again. International law allows to select a broad spectrum of lawful targets. Would getting rid of government officials before the Iraq war be acceptable?

You ignored the requirement that the target be a lawful one. (And you're really stretching the definition of "ongoing armed conflict," here, if not outright ignoring it).

Why? Ceasefire is not a peace treaty (which people run into time and again).

You ignored the requirement that the target be a lawful one and ignored the requirement that the conflict be ongoing. Admittedly, that one's closer, but I also didn't object nearly so vociferously to that one.

Yes, the Cuba one does not have an ongoing conflict. To be fair, however, the conflict between Cuba and the terrorist organization Posada was a member of (the CIA, in other words) might be still counted as ongoing. You allowed ongoing conflicts to include non-state bodies as parties.

I also note that you quietly omitted such other instances of your behavior as your comparison of Ann Coulter to Osama bin Laden and Noam Chomsky to al-Awklaki, which both ignored the requirement that the target be lawful--Chomsky and Coulter meet NONE of the NECESSARY criteria for lawfulness; bin Laden and al-Awlaki meet all of them.

Coulter actually does, if you stretch it. One: a conflict. There's one between (1) US and Afghanistan (2) US and Iraq. Two: lawful target. Coulter is an instigator of U.S. agression, and while she's not a soldier of the US that goes to Afghanistan or Iraq and kills people, she could be related to that. By the Protocol, you could make a case to kill her if you could argue that she furthers enemy goals and her elimination would give you a military advantage. And as for Chomsky, no, until he is chosen as a "lawful target", you can't kill him. But what is required for that? Simply an assessment that would indicate his death would hinder enemy military efforts and further your own ones. You just need to designate him as a military threat. It is hard with Chomsky, because he's not one. But it is far easier with Islamic clerics. What if a cleric preaches Jihad? He furthers enemy goals! Off with his head.

Those are not assassinations. Wartime killing of officers is the exercise of the lawful application of military force. I have already described this in the thread in considerable detail.

Yeah, I know, but it is far more simple to call them legal assassinations or liquidations.

Before I launch into this, I don't really know what this has to do with anything. I didn't read TheHammer's posts (as I just stated before you launched into this), but I assume that it's related to this. Is it legal for Iraqi military to assassinate US politicians? Again, I assume that by "assassinate" you mean "target for use of lethal force." And it depends on the politician. Are they a lawful target or not? I have NEVER required that OTHER COUNTRIES follow US domestic law. I have absolutely no idea where you got this claim. My statements regarding Obama, the US military, etc. following US domestic law are relevant only because they are subject to US domestic law AS WELL AS international law when engaged in an ongoing armed conflict.

Okay. So this means other nations, so as long as they follow the Protocol when choosing targets, can do so? That's essentially my only question.

YES. A MILITARY OFFICER ON THE FRONT LINE IS A LAWFUL TARGET UNTIL AND UNLESS HE SURRENDERS. GOD.

"On the front line"? That requirement is not even in the Protocol. He can be deep in the rear. He's still a legal target.

Yes, it does. Why does this mean that international law does not exist?

No, quite contrary. I just wanted to make sure we're applying the standard universally.

Except it doesn't work that way. Remember Nuremburg? Killing civilians served a military purpose (the dead cannot help partisans), but it was still deemed a war crime. There are, in fact, standards.

The only thing you need to do it is to never get in a Nuremberg situation, i.e. remain the victorious party in wars. Not hard when you're the USA. Also, your soldiers are immune to international prosecution, so you can crap on the international law.

But none were tried for killing officials and officers. That's not a crime. So if you prove that Object X is an enemy official in a position of power, not just a mere civilian, you can kill him - even if he is a civilian - and it would be legal.

[PeZook]

You know, I find it disingenios that Ossus is trying to pretend war does not require a standard of evidence. The Nuremburg trials have been concerned exclusively a very much legal proceeding over the laws of war, which seems to indicate that some standard of evidence is necessary.

But that aside, while it's been well established by now that international law does not put an obligation for any sort of due process to be given to "lawful targets", it doesn't mean you can't introduce a more structured process, or that you shouldn't. Polish resistance also had an assassination program during WWII, and they actually had underground courts examining evidence against potential targets, including Nazi occupiers before any assassination was carried out. And they were operating in deep conspiracy against direct occupation, fighting for national survival. Why? Because it was the right thing to do. They didn't have to set up underground courts ; It was, in fact, very risky to do so. They still did.

The fact of life is that the US is not fighting for its life here. It is the most powerful country on Earth, Al Quaeda will never be able to actually destroy or even seriously threaten it. Additionally, the US is claiming to have the moral high ground, to protect democracy, freedom and apple pie etc. In fact, calling the whole thing an actual war governed by the laws of war etc. is often considered a total joke, especially since Al-Quaeda isn't even a single organization.

They could definitely afford to determine al-Awlaki's status as per the Geneva Conventions (which BTW do put an obligation to determine a combatant's status in front a tribunal if the guy's status is unknown...) in a more public, more transparent way with more oversight. They didn't do it, which makes people leery at their high and mighty claims to moral high ground, national self defence etc.

[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."

It's not as simple as that.

So, you're saying that a citizen of the Philippines can't be angry at Ferdinand Marcos for all the shit he pulled?

The said megalomaniac's (Marcos) son is now a Philippine Senator. His daughter is a governor. They attended the funeral of Corazon Aquino (who led the revolution to oust Marcos) and were not shunned.

Ms. Aquino also died 20 years after Marcos did and 23 years after the revolution; two decades and a lot of improvement in the nation can do a lot to put bad blood to rest, especially if a lot of people consider Ferdinand's children to have not been complicit or who have done more good than harm during Marco's regime.

(And note: I'm not exactly a Marcos supporter. I'm just stating facts. But hey, in this thread saying unpleasant facts seems to mean that you support those unpleasant facts!)

It'd help if TheHammer didn't outright approve of assassinating a man without due process of law, hold near-contradictory opinions, or otherwise try to stop people from asking him why it looked like he was supporting might makes right views.

Moreover, let's not pretend that the majority of Filipinos are pissed off at America here. The Filipino dream, it's often said, is to move to America and have the American dream.

I never said the majority were, I said, very sarcastically, that Filippinos have every right to be angry at the US. If they aren't, great, that's their own decision to make after examining things; if they are angry, that's very understandable in light of US occupation and US support of strongman regimes in the area. I was saying that if a Philippines citizen is angry, then it is legitimate.

So really, stop pretending that this is a debate. This is just a lynch mob that couldn't handle the truth. So they're just engaging in pointless character assassination because it lets them think that they're actually changing the world.

It's not my fault TheHammer holds stupid and contradictory opinions.

They're not. They're just fat slobs wasting time on the Internet too, and relying on stupid generalizations and even outright lies to make up for the fact that all their whining hasn't actually changed anything.

Then why the fuck are you here, fattie? It's not like your masturbatory whining's going to do any good either. So go nut in your crying eyes and shut the fuck up if you feel that way about internet debates.

[TheHammer]

What assurances does anyone have of anything? As noted, the Obama administration went to great extent to determine whether his targeting was legal and have made no secret about it. They certainly must feel that it can defend it under existing laws. I assume that if someone were to abuse a power like this, they certainly wouldn't want it to be known publicly as it would likely not be legally defensible The real check on government is going to be through the media, of which there is plenty both foreign and domestic. If people start appearing on the list for questionable reasons, then you'll certainly see a backlash.

Even if we accept for this discussion Obama can be trusted with such power (and nevermind all those people who would be happy to dispute that point) we have zero guarantee the next guy is that trustworthy.

On top of that - what makes you think that such a list will always be made public? Far too easy to declare it secret for "national security", at which point the chances of a backlash drop significantly. How would you know to protest something you don't know about?

I agree that there should be some sort of official policy in place, and that a law passed with consent of congress would be best. In Lieu of that, I think the President is making the best call in this particular case. I don't know that a list will always be made public. I expect that if the power were abused that list would be kept secret.

[TheHammer]

So let me get this straight-ýou still have faith in a Government that, when it messes up, even refuses to compensate the victims with anything, not even an apology? Oh, and as for assurances as to why some power will not be abused? Publicity and judicial review. Neither of which are a given in this casse.

Seems to me it's gotten plenty of publicity. Anwar's father already made a court challenge to his son's name being on the list. As I understand, the case was dismissed, but it has had at least some judicial review.

Further, I have never purported that the government was perfect, nor that everyone in it is trustworthy. My one and only contention is that in the case they've made the right call.

And Hammer, you are not wiggling out from the legal challenges here. Note that in this very thread we have several lawyers, at least one police officer and others all saying you are wrong about the law. Your response is to say "Pfft, foreigners, who cares about you" (which is ironic, considering that Kamakazie Sith has probably spent way more time protecting US society during his service than you or go "LOL REALPOLITIK". Nevermind that you do not understand what that word means, I find your entire debating strategy so far utterly dishonest.

Who is wiggling out of anything? There may well be lawyers here, but there is hardly universal consensus. Obama is a lawyer too, and clearly he thinks its legal. His entire security counsel whom I'm sure have consulted with lawyers seem to think its legal. No appeal to authority is going to work there.

I've already said that even under domestic laws (which probably don't apply) his killing would likely pass legal challenge as justifiable use of lethal force against a dangerous fugitive citing previous SCOTUS decisions. Read through my past posts, and if you want to challenge that point feel free. I also believe that as an active member of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, that he is a legitimate military target as well. Others have concluded the same.

My "pffft foreigners" stance is specifically directed at Shroom and Metahive from whom all I hear is a bunch of whining and bitching about how evil America is, along with the numerous stereotypes and slurs associated with. I have no idea why you are name dropping Kamakazie Sith in with that group. Further, Not once have I used the word "REALPOLITIK" in my posts, although its clear I DO know what it means since others have attributed my words to having drawn from it. If you've got an example of me brushing asside any VALID point I'll be glad to go back and address it right now.

[Shroom Man 777]

Turns out it's precisely this might makes right bullshit that elicits this vitriol from the rest of the world, and turns out you're one fat stereotype with numerous other stereotypes inside, like some turducken of freedom lol. Turns out when you conform to those stereotypes, those stereotypes are no longer stereotypes but become factual observations? When its all based on observed behaviors of Hypocritical Pisspot Conservative Americans, it's not called a stereotype, it's called an Animal Planet documentary.

If you espouse views that go on about might makes right, how your country can do XYZ because it is hurf hurf so tough, then you're gonna step on some Irritating Enema Dialog. And then you whine about "slurs" and "stereotypes"? I thought you guys were all so powerful and the rest of the world had to deal with it. What a pussy. Hydrocephalic Platypus Cuckolding Americans should thicken their skin while they up-armor their Humvees.

[Broomstick]

In other words, Hammer, you're saying the ends justify the means, and because you approve in this case you're OK with it.

I don't think that's good enough. Laws help keep honest men honest. If we truly have a need for "extra-judicial killing" (which I am not convinced we do, though I acknowledge it happens) perhaps we should develop some sort of review process performed in daylight so this sort of thing is no longer outside the bounds of law but regulated so that it applies only to the worst cases where there is truly no other alternative, with highly specific criteria to be met.

[TheHammer]

Turns out it's precisely this might makes right bullshit that elicits this vitriol from the rest of the world, and turns out you're one fat stereotype with numerous other stereotypes inside, like some turducken of freedom lol. Turns out when you conform to those stereotypes, those stereotypes are no longer stereotypes but become factual observations? When its all based on observed behaviors of Hypocritical Pisspot Conservative Americans, it's not called a stereotype, it's called an Animal Planet documentary.

If you espouse views that go on about might makes right, how your country can do XYZ because it is hurf hurf so tough, then you're gonna step on some Irritating Enema Dialog. And then you whine about "slurs" and "stereotypes"? I thought you guys were all so powerful and the rest of the world had to deal with it. What a pussy. Hydrocephalic Platypus Cuckolding Americans should thicken their skin while they up-armor their Humvees.

Thanas, Do you see what I'm talking about? A big paragraph of incoherent worthless bullshit. There is no cure for Angry Foreigner Syndrom, all you can do is what I'm going to do and thats ignore the people with it. That's not to say that I look down on all foreigners, or ignore their points. I've responded to you and Serafina numerous times. But Shroom and Metahive aren't worth any more of my time.

[Shroom Man 777]

In other words, Hammer, you're saying the ends justify the means, and because you approve in this case you're OK with it.

I don't think that's good enough. Laws help keep honest men honest. If we truly have a need for "extra-judicial killing" (which I am not convinced we do, though I acknowledge it happens) perhaps we should develop some sort of review process performed in daylight so this sort of thing is no longer outside the bounds of law but regulated so that it applies only to the worst cases where there is truly no other alternative, with highly specific criteria to be met.

Isn't it like a stupid police chief determining that a criminal is guilty and summarily declaring a death sentence, and sending a maverick Dirty Harry-esque cop to kill the guy? No trials, no shit, just like that? And it's not just citizens of your own city/country/nation that are within the jurisdiction of their assassination summary execution squads, but just about anyone on Earth on their "enemy" kill list.

That can lead to all sorts of nasty shit, such powers can and will be abused. Americans are just lucky that they're rich and fat and complacent, and that their government is doing these atrocities to other people. Of course, since Americans are the only ones who live in the REAL WORLD, those other people who are getting executed, or getting their sovereignty violated as the Americans execute people living in other countries, well... they're not living in the REAL WORLD so they're not really real people.

So hurr foreigners fuck'em who cares what they think haw haw, welcome to the real world, pal.

[TheHammer]

In other words, Hammer, you're saying the ends justify the means, and because you approve in this case you're OK with it.

I don't think that's good enough. Laws help keep honest men honest. If we truly have a need for "extra-judicial killing" (which I am not convinced we do, though I acknowledge it happens) perhaps we should develop some sort of review process performed in daylight so this sort of thing is no longer outside the bounds of law but regulated so that it applies only to the worst cases where there is truly no other alternative, with highly specific criteria to be met.

Just to be clear, I think a legal justification can be made for his killing. That being said, I agree whole heartedly on developing a review process for situations like this. However, in the mean time I think as long as men such as Anwar are the only ones put on the list we'll be just fine. The way congress is running right now he'd be more likely to die of old age before such a process were put in to place.

[Shroom Man 777]

How would your government determine that men such as Anwar are actually men such as Anwar? For all we know, the information they're using to sentence these people to death (by drone strike) is about as reliable as the information they used to sentence a country to invasion due to WMDs or some other shitty intelligence.

[K. A. Pital]

Like I said, it's not problematic if it's Noam Chomsky (everyone knows him, duh!), but what if that's an Islamic cleric who says JIHAAAD! on America?

Does he get an automatic sentence for saying that? It is far easier to convince the public - even using forged evidence - that a cleric is a terrorist. Proving otherwise would be painstakingly hard, because in the minds of many he'd become a valid target as soon as he said "Jihad".

[Shroom Man 777]

If they determine their unmanned drone assassinations as carefully as they do with their invasions that entail risking thousands of their own soldiers in a years long investment of blood, life and treasure, then I would be satisfied.