Radical American Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

[MarshalPurnell]

It is instead an attack on the use of drone strikes against Al Qaeda, period, since his interpretation of the article would require the assumption that every member of Al Qaeda is a civilian and would require some adjudication beforehand that they are combatants (by whom?) before direct attack could be legal.

Indeed it would, unless they were engaging in hostilities at the actual time they were killed or are known to carry out a continuous combat function and thus lose their protection from direct attack. This is a problem, why?

Declared and acknowledged membership in an armed, organized group is sufficient grounds to consider the individual in question a member of an armed, organized group. The guidelines the ICRC put up, which you linked to, revolved around distinguishing when a civilian (someone, by definition, not a member of a party engaged in hostilities) has crossed the line into becoming a combatant. It does not apply in cases where the individual was a combatant from the very beginning; "continuous combat function" is how a civilian crosses that line and loses their status as a civilian even without formal membership in an armed, organized group. A civilian who transports munitions for an insurgent group has not crossed that line, while a declared and acknowledged combatant performing the same non-combat task (providing logistical support) is subject to direct attack and always has been. Likewise members of combatant forces performing other non-combat tasks that enable others to engage in combat are fair game and always have been, which is why for example Jessica Lynch was not "protected" despite have no frontline combat purpose. If we were to take it literally and without any broader context, logistical personnel of all insurgencies would be completely immune to direct attack, making it impossible to legally attack supply lines of insurgent forces.

And in any event the US essentially asserted that he was, in fact, known to carry out a continuous combat function. There is independent public evidence that he had a role recruiting and training personnel, which is certainly a combat function. The American and Yemeni governments have also claimed intelligence that he played a role in operational planning of attacks, which is a leadership function that would certainly make him a legitimate target. The public rationale for targeting al-Awlaki is thus in conformity with the provisions that you have posted; you just believe the evidence is insufficient. Or that the US is lying, whatever. I think the balance of evidence from al-Awlaki's own statements and from Abdullmatallab's interrogation and confession are enough to remove any reasonable doubt that he performed a recruitment and training role that contributed to AQAP attacks, even if the evidence for an operational planning role is not sufficient or not publicly available. Al-Awlaki said he was at war with the United States, that he considered Hassan and Abdullmatallab to be "good students" and wanted more like them, and Abdulmatallab's interrogation placed al-Awlaki at the training camp- if that is not sufficient, or too readily discounted (Abdulmatallab was coerced! Al-Awlaki was talking metaphorically!) then I have nothing else and further argument is pretty much pointless.

[Samuel]

Because its self-evident, you pathetic little retard. I asked you to provide legal principles for your comment.

Oh. I thought it was obvious. We can arrest people if we can get police to them and subdue them. An active war zone dramatically reduces the odds of this happening. In fact the Yemenis government tried and failed (this was mentioned previously in the thread).

That is why it is permissable to kill combatants in warzones even if it potentially possible to capture them. The Geneva Convention requires you use the appropriate amount of force. This was also previously mentioned in the thread.

Of course, the appropriate use of force issue is a seperate one from combatant in a warzone. Interestingly the fact Yemen is a warzone is relevant to both!

Of course your responce to the original line was this:

Translation:- "its the victim's fault he's dead!"

So, yes, when you join up with a terrorist organization and go to a war zone it is your fault if you get killed.

if this sort of blatant trollish bait and switch continues, I will bring in a third party moderator to examine your conduct.

Thanks that remind me. You posted this:

1. MarshalPurnell whining its not an assassination. This has nothing to do with your assertions regarding international law;
2. MarshalPurnell repeating the assertions about Awlaki as fact. This has nothing to do with your assertions regarding international law; and
3. MarshalPurnell making a specious argument about Congress' authorization for military force. This also has nothing to do with your assertions regarding international law, unless the US Congress suddenly became a legislator for the whole world when I didn't notice.

in responce to this:

He was actively fighting as a combatant for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. His presence on the drone strike list was a direct consequence of that fact. As a member of an armed paramilitary force engaging in open hostilities against an American ally, he was a legitimate military target. When you come across those in an active war zone, you are free to kill them. The fact that a drone did it has no more significance than if he had been bombed by aircraft, blown apart by artillery, shot by a rifleman, or stabbed to death with a bayonet. That al-Awlaki was primarily responsible for propaganda within the group does not mean he was a noncombatant, anymore than a logistics force is noncombatant, and there is certainly evidence he had command authority within the group as witnessed by his role in the attempted printer-bombings. He was still an armed member of a paramilitary force engaged in hostilities and therefore subject to being killed on the battlefield.

There was no "blanket assassination order." The use of the term "assassination" is itself a loaded word designed to trigger strong emotions and obscure al-Awlaki's actual circumstances as an armed fighter engaging in hostilities in a war zone. He was only subject to being killed by American forces while he was operating as a hostile fighter in a war zone against American or allied forces. Had he not gone to Yemen to join up with that paramilitary belligerent force and instead gone to some country that was not in the middle of an Islamist-backed civil war, the worst he could have faced would have been extradition back to the US and a trial in the same. If he had just stayed in the US and continued spouting violent incitement on youtube he would not have faced any sanctions whatsoever. The scope of this action is thus highly circumscribed by al-Awlaki's own actions, which were to raise arms against the United States government and to engage an allied government in battle. There is no slippery slope to extend this outside of Americans openly waging war against their own government, and his death can no more be classified as an "assassination" than can the killing of Taliban militia by airstrikes.

You still have not responded to that post or the others that went with it. You have continued to ignore them. Since you seem to be fretting about modetorial review (nice to see your posts have shaped up- of course that is an implicit confession of guilt) perhaps you take the time to respond to that.

While your at it, it would be great if you deal with the other three posts I linked. For simplicity, here:

When and how?

He was acting as an officer of the paramilitary insurgent group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This is not at issue. His association with Al Qaeda was directly confirmed by al-Awlaki in various jihad propaganda and media. His role in operational planning has been the subject of considerable investigation by the US, and the evidence was sufficiently overwhelming that the UN Security Council placed him on the sanctions list of Al Qaeda operatives created under Resolution 1267. As Al Qaeda in Yemen is presently waging war against the Yemeni government, and has made efforts to strike against the US, it is clear that all members are combatants in the sense that all members of any military or paramilitary force waging war are combatants.

What open hostilities are there? BTW, you do realize that if you definition of "open hostilites" is "bombs being built and detonated" then nearly the entire world is a warzone.

Al Qaeda has been working with tribal insurgents in Yemen for years. The central government is not in control of large stretches of the desert where the tribal insurgents routinely conduct attacks on Yemeni military and police forces. "Nearly the entire world" is not even close to the level of violence and disorder that exists in Yemen. Somalia, Afghanistan, and the tribal frontier of Pakistan are pretty close, though.

Active war zone? Engaged in hostilities? Armed? A lot of assumptions here.

He was a member of a paramilitary insurgency, killed on the territory of the country the insurgency is fighting against, in a part of the world where there are more guns than people. Even if he was not, at the particular moment he was blown to pieces, armed and fighting, by virtue of his position with Al Qaeda he was a combatant. He was no more a noncombatant than logistics or signaling personnel of any army are, regardless of whether or not he used a Kalashnikov to take potshots at Yemeni soldiers. Indeed since he obviously had command authority within Al Qaeda as witnessed by his role in the attempted mail bombings, his functions were more important to Al Qaeda than any random tribal militia rifleman would have been.

And since when is Yemen defined as a warzone?

Are there active and ongoing hostilities in Yemen? There's been a state of insurgency in these areas practically as long as Yemen has existed. Al Qaeda was operating in the area as a military force. Al-Awlaki was a combatant in the Yemeni Civil War, where the United States is allied with the Yemeni government. In so far as there has been no declaration of war there have been no "warzones" since Korea in 1950, being the only post-war conflict recognized by the UN as such, but of course the US Congress has previously authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda. In terms of domestic legality that is all the authority the President needs to deal with Al Qaeda by military force, and al-Awlaki was indisputably a member of Al Qaeda.

Evidence for that? He has not even been indicted. How could he have been extradited then?

The "strike list" is explicitly predicated on members of the list being legitimate military targets, which is how it gets around the Executive Order barring assassination as a tool of policy. Al-Awlaki got on the list by going to Yemen, joining a paramilitary force fighting against an American ally, and openly advertising his allegiance and contributions. Had he not made himself into a legitimate target he would not be on the strike list. His presence in Yemen as an enemy combatant rendered an indictment pointless as there would be no means to deliver it or to have him detained by normal police processes.

Had he not gone to Yemen and made himself a legitimate military target then he would, you know, not be in Yemen. If he had instead gone off to Germany and tried his mail bomb scheme there then he could have been indicted and arrested and would never have been on the strike list. Had he restricted himself to incitement and inflammatory youtube he would not even have been committing any crimes and thus the attention of the US government would have been absent, or certainly less lethal.

Unless you believe, as a good deal of SDN does, that the US government goes around randomly killing completely innocent people for no conceivable reason.

That is quite unconvincing.

a) If Yemen is a warzone, then by definition any country where insurgencies against the local government happen is one where the US is in a state of war. Which is kinda funny since no war was ever declared there, nor did Obama widen the war against terror using any of the powers he had (as compared to the buildup to Iraq and Afghanistan, where congress explicitly gave approval). So how can you call this a warzone when there is no war in which the US is involved in?
b) Likewise, what is the actual evidence here? (And don't give me that "the US placed him on a list").
c) Disregarding the other stuff, please submit evidence for your claim that the US ever wanted to take him into custody or called upon him to surrender.
d) I find it chilling that you find nothing wrong with the president ordering somebody killed and then he is unwilling to give a court the case to review. Instead, "state secrets". THe reason for killing a citizen is...a state secret. Where are your papers, comrade?

Congress authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda specifically on September 14, 2001, allowing the President to utilize his powers as Commander-in-Chief to deal with it wherever it sought sanctuary. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is operating openly in parts of Yemen, an allied government. We are "at war" with Al Qaeda to the same degree we have been at war with anyone in the post-WWII timeframe, including North Korea, North Vietnam, and Iraq. The Yemeni government has in fact asked for American assistance in prosecuting their own campaign against Al Qaeda so our involvement there is as legal as involvement in Afghanistan.

The "proof" that al-Awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula comes from his own videos available on youtube, as well as his interviews in Al Qaeda's media outlets like Inspire magazine. That Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been carrying out attacks on Yemeni government forces is likewise a matter of public record, and demanding "evidence" to that effect is as retarded as demanding "evidence" that the Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden after 9/11. A cursory google search turns up, to no surprise, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claiming a wave of attacks in the south on the day al-Awlaki was blown up. They are as much of a combatant organization as the Taliban in Afghanistan, and as such members of the group are legitimate military targets.

As for "evidence the US ever called on him to surrender or take him into custody" that is, unsurprising from you, a hair-splitting and pedantic point. By the time al-Awlaki came to public attention it was for committing the acts that made him a legitimate military target. Did the US ever call on Osama bin Laden to surrender? Or Mullah Omar? Taking him into custody was precluded by his own actions in fleeing to a part of Yemen outside of any central control and surrounding himself with armed militia that he joined to wage war on the Yemeni and American governments. Had he not gone to Yemen and proclaimed his allegiance to Al Qaeda, though, there is no evidence that he would have been placed on a list made up of people considered to be legitimate military targets. The "strike list" is explicitly a list of people who will be targeted in Yemen by drone strikes because they are military enemies, ergo if Al-Awlaki had not been in Yemen he would not have been subject to being killed by drone strike.

And there is nothing "secret" about al-Awlaki's placement on the strike list. As reported at the time, al-Awlaki was placed on it because of his role in Al Qaeda, which has been more than adequately substantiated by his own statements and propaganda. This was all public, none of it can be seriously doubted, and no other American citizen has gone on the list, which strongly suggests that the reasoning for placing him on it was, as argued, because he had made himself a legitimate military target like everyone on said list.

EDIT: Specifically regarding the operational capabilities, the NYT:

Contrary to what the Obama administration would have you believe, he has always been a minor figure in Al Qaeda, and making a big deal of him now is backfiring.
[...]
He is far from the terrorist kingpin that the West has made him out to be. In fact, he isn’t even the head of his own organization, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That would be Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who was Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary for four years in Afghanistan.

Nor is Mr. Awlaki the deputy commander, a position held by Said Ali al-Shihri, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and put in a “terrorist rehabilitation” program. (The treatment, clearly, did not take.)

Mr. Awlaki isn’t the group’s top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri) or even its leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).

Rather, he is a midlevel religious functionary who happens to have American citizenship and speak English. This makes him a propaganda threat, but not one whose elimination would do anything to limit the reach of the Qaeda branch.

He’s not even particularly good at what he does: Mr. Awlaki is a decidedly unoriginal thinker in Arabic and isn’t that well known in Yemen. His most famous production is a lengthy sermon-lecture series called “Constants on the Path of Jihad,” which emphasizes the global nature of holy war: “If a particular people or nation is classified as ... ‘the people of war’ in the Shariah, that classification applies to them all over the earth.” But “Constants” isn’t really his own creation; it’s an adaptation of a work written by a Saudi militant killed in 2003. At most, Mr. Awlaki is a popularizer, someone who takes the work of others and makes it his own.

When he preached in the United States, first in San Diego and then in Virginia, he exploited his knowledge of Arabic and his Yemeni heritage to burnish his credentials as a genuine Islamic voice. He has been linked to Maj. Nidal Hassan, the psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at a Texas Army base in 2009, and some of the 9/11 hijackers attended his services. But until the Obama administration put him on its hit list, he had little standing in the Arab world.

Now, however, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is taking advantage of this free advertising. No propaganda from the group had ever mentioned his name before it was reported in January that the United States had decided he could be legally assassinated. Shortly after, an article in the official Qaeda journal trumpeted that Mr. Awlaki had not been killed in December, as had been reported, in an air attack on a gathering in Shabwa Province.

So now that it has given Mr. Awlaki such a high profile, the administration is in a bind: if it ignores him, it will look powerless; if it succeeds in killing him, it will have manufactured a martyr. The best way out is to redouble its efforts to track down the real, more dangerous leaders of the Yemen group like Mr. Wuhayshi and Mr. Asiri, who likely made the bombs used in the parcel attacks and carried by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas Day bomber.

Mr. Awlaki’s name may be the only one Americans know, but that doesn’t make him the most dangerous threat to our security.

So....what is your evidence for him being the great operational threat here?

Whether or not his operational role was overblown is irrelevant to this. He was placed on the list because his participation as a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula made him an overt military enemy of the United States. He was just as much a combatant as a Taliban goatherd taking potshots at Marines in Afghanistan. As it happens, we do have his statements that he considered Nidal Hassan as a "student" and hopes for much such students, that he is at war with the United States, his obvious role as a propagandist for Al Qaeda to show that he was taking affirmative steps to levy war on America. The balance of publicly available evidence, counting his own words and his actions in taking sanctuary with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, points to a role exercising some operational authority.

Unsurprising from you, you once more forget that agitating for violence does not make you a military target per se. Otherwise any gang member, drug enforcer, mob capo or whatever you have it would be a military target. It makes you a criminal in the vein of McVeigh, not a legitimate military target per se. The fact that the US is unable to afford due process to its own citizens is just that bad.

And once again you ignore the central feature of this case. Al-Awlaki was not targeted because he incited jihadist violence. He was put on the list because he went to Yemen to enlist in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which was actively waging war on Yemen and the United States. He took up arms as a combatant and as such was liable to be killed as one in any circumstances other than an attempt to surrender.

None of that is in the least relevant concerning the issue that he was a citizen. You cannot just order a citizen killed. This is what you are not getting. Did he renounce his citizenship? No. Was he stripped of it? No. So what legal basis was there to kill him?

He was a combatant openly fighting the US government and its allies. Congress authorized the President to use military force against Al Qaeda and its adherents, which makes killing Al Qaeda combatants as legal as killing North Korean, North Vietnamese, and Iraqi combatants ever was. Al-Awlaki's presence on the battlefield as a combatant rendered his citizenship a moot point. As a self-declared enemy of the United States, waging a self-declared war against the same in the company of many other enemy combatants, his death was a consequence of going out on the battlefield. That it was administered by drone strike because we thought he was important in an operational capacity is merely a detail, since all of your barely veiled slippery-slope "qualms" would apply if we had just shot him dead in Afghanistan instead.

I'll be perfectly blunt - if somebody went over to the Nazis in WWII and actively fought against the US, it still did not automatically strip him of his citizenship.

So pray tell, what makess this situation special?

And if that hypothetical German-American was roasted alive in the firebombing of Hamburg, so what? Or blown apart in the Battle of the Bulge? Or killed by OSS operatives because he was an important technical specialist on some Nazi wonder-weapon? Did we also need to hold a tribunal before killing Confederate soldiers at Gettysburg

Seriously. Al-Awalki was operating as a member of an enemy armed force, against whom the President was duly authorized to apply American military force. He was killed as a consequence of fighting as a part of that armed enemy force. His citizenship cannot be used as a shield on the battlefield. And if he had not gone to an active war zone to participate as a combatant he would still be alive. That is all there really is to the case.

[Vympel]

Declared and acknowledged membership in an armed, organized group is sufficient grounds to consider the individual in question a member of an armed, organized group. The guidelines the ICRC put up, which you linked to, revolved around distinguishing when a civilian (someone, by definition, not a member of a party engaged in hostilities) has crossed the line into becoming a combatant. It does not apply in cases where the individual was a combatant from the very beginning; "continuous combat function" is how a civilian crosses that line and loses their status as a civilian even without formal membership in an armed, organized group. A civilian who transports munitions for an insurgent group has not crossed that line, while a declared and acknowledged combatant performing the same non-combat task (providing logistical support) is subject to direct attack and always has been. Likewise members of combatant forces performing other non-combat tasks that enable others to engage in combat are fair game and always have been, which is why for example Jessica Lynch was not "protected" despite have no frontline combat purpose. If we were to take it literally and without any broader context, logistical personnel of all insurgencies would be completely immune to direct attack, making it impossible to legally attack supply lines of insurgent forces.

A civilian can easily consider themselves a member of an armed organized group without doing anything that would actually make them one for the purposes of the law. And if you can find a principle that states that simply saying you're a member makes you one, present it.

There is independent public evidence that he had a role recruiting and training personnel, which is certainly a combat function.

No it isn't:-

Examples of causing military harm to another party include capturing, wounding or killing military personnel; damaging military objects; or restricting or disturbing military deployment, logistics and communication, for example through sabotage, erecting road blocks or interrupting the power supply of radar stations. Interfering electronically with military computer networks (computer network attacks) and transmitting tactical targeting intelligence for a specific attack are also examples. The use of time-delayed weapons such as mines or booby-traps, remote-controlled weapon systems such as unmanned aircraft, also " directly " causes harm to the enemy and, therefore, amounts to direct participation in hostilities.

" Indirect " participation in hostilities contributes to the general war effort of a party, but does not directly cause harm and, therefore, does not lead to a loss of protection against direct attack. This would include, for example, the production and shipment of weapons, the construction of roads and other infrastructure, and financial, administrative and political support.

Recruiting and training personnel is simply not equivalent to causing direct harm to another party.

As for your thinking that the announcements of the government are as good as evidence as opposed to mere assertions that have never been (and never will) be tested, well that's up to you. Nevertheless, no person should be ok with leaving those sorts of plainly authoritarian principles undisturbed.

[Vympel]

Oh. I thought it was obvious. We can arrest people if we can get police to them and subdue them. An active war zone dramatically reduces the odds of this happening. In fact the Yemenis government tried and failed (this was mentioned previously in the thread).

Oh, well, if the mighty Yemenis tried and failed, then clearly America has no chance.

Of course, you're welcome to justify your characterization of the area of where Awlaki was killed as "an active war zone" as opposed to "a place in Yemen, which Samuel pretends can be considered a giant battlfield" at any time, btw. With evidence.

That is why it is permissable to kill combatants

Too bad he's never been proven to be a combatant. So once more, "he was in Yemen" is not a justification for anything, as I originally said.

So, yes, when you join up with a terrorist organization and go to a war zone it is your fault if you get killed.

Too bad that doesn't make it legal. Do stop confusing yourself.

Thanks that remind me. You posted this:

You still have not responded to that post or the others that went with it. You have continued to ignore them. Since you seem to be fretting about modetorial review (nice to see your posts have shaped up- of course that is an implicit confession of guilt) perhaps you take the time to respond to that.

??? You've quoted my response to them. That you are a deeply stupid person who cannot tell the difference between "arguments about legality" and "arguments about substantiating your specific claim that it was legal under international law" is your own problem, not mine.

While your at it, it would be great if you deal with the other three posts I linked.

No. Make your own arguments, rather than stealing those of others like the vapid intellectual leech that you are. You've already displayed that you are a dumbfuck who just posts random posts from other posters in response to unrelated points and then act like you've refuted something. Most recently you did this in response to Alyrium's post - and even though I challenged you to explain yourself, you have not done so.

So let's review:-

Alyrium's post

Irrespective of whether or not the killing of al-Awlaki was legal in itself (something given the circumstances I will concede), the secret list he was on, and the way in which that secret list is compiled is most certainly illegal. The legal precedent that creating a secret list containing US nationals who are to be assassinated without due process is dangerous and doing so most certainly violates the US constitution. Shooting someone who is shooting you is one thing. Deciding a priori to kill them is another.

When you have such a list, what is exactly is stopping abuse? The honesty of the executive branch and the honest forthrightness of our Valiant Soldiers and the CIA who does the killing?

Your so-called response, stealing from MarshallPurnell

The "strike list" is explicitly predicated on members of the list being legitimate military targets, which is how it gets around the Executive Order barring assassination as a tool of policy. Al-Awlaki got on the list by going to Yemen, joining a paramilitary force fighting against an American ally, and openly advertising his allegiance and contributions. Had he not made himself into a legitimate target he would not be on the strike list. His presence in Yemen as an enemy combatant rendered an indictment pointless as there would be no means to deliver it or to have him detained by normal police processes.

There is nothing, anywhere in this paragraph, that answers a single word of what Alyrium's point was- i.e.the implications of secret death lists and the potential for abuse. There really is no more evidence required to point out how completely out of your depth you are in this discussion.

[Samuel]

Of course, you're welcome to justify your characterization of the area of where Awlaki was killed as "an active war zone" as opposed to "a place in Yemen, which Samuel pretends can be considered a giant battlfield" at any time, btw. With evidence.

This has been previously adressed in the thread. In fact it is the subject of the posts you refuse to read.

No. Make your own arguments, rather than stealing those of others like the vapid intellectual leech that you are.

So you are refusing to read and respond to my post. Would you like to confirm this? I'd like you to explicitly state that you don't feel you need to respond to other people posts if you don't feel like it.

There is nothing, anywhere in this paragraph, that angles a single word of what Alyrium's point was- i.e.the implications of secret death lists and the potential for abuse. There really is no more evidence required to point out how completely out of your depth you are in this discussion.

The point was that "the list" was incredibly specific. You had to be a legitimate military target- aka a person the government was already trying to kill anyways. Worrying about this is like worrying that floridation is the first step on communist mind control.

Of course the reason that didn't explain this earlier is you have shown an inability to read, your dishonest and I was talking to Alysium.

[Vympel]

This has been previously adressed in the thread. In fact it is the subject of the posts you refuse to read.

Pure bullshit, plain and simple.

So you are refusing to acknowledge the posts of others that I am stealing without any independent thought as my own.

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. How did you guess?

The point was that "the list" was incredibly specific. You had to be a legitimate military target- aka a person the government was already trying to kill anyways. Worrying about this is like worrying that floridation is the first step on communist mind control.

ROFLMAO. Could the point fly over your head any higher?

The question:- When you have such a list, what is exactly is stopping abuse? The honesty of the executive branch and the honest forthrightness of our Valiant Soldiers and the CIA who does the killing?

Samuel's idea of an answer:- Don't worry about it! The government has decided to kill people on the list already! You're just being paranoid! Just because there's absolutely no review mechanism in place to stop any President from unilaterally declaring someone a terrorist who should be killed doesn't mean they'd ever use it in an inappropriate fashion!

Of course the reason that didn't explain this earlier is you have shown an inability to read, your dishonest and I was talking to Alysium.

Given the intellectual incoherence of your response, I think you were talking to yourself.

[Crateria]

No, this isn't mob rule.

Actually, it very much is.

Really? Why do we have a police force rather than a lynching mob then? Why does the US Government follow the corporations which influence it rather than a mob of regular working people from off the street? If this was a ochlocracy (mob rule) I can imagine many people would be much more pissed (and violent since they are an angry mob) at Wall Street, perhaps charging past the police and lynching the Wall Street criminals on the spot. But since the situation in the USA bears very little resemblance to that, you are full of shit. Not a surprise really.

This is Corpratist State Crony Capitalist Oligarchy.

Democracies naturally become Oligarchies. Its their ultimate end.

So democracies become oligarchies (rule of a few) instead of mob rule (rule of angry mobs) in the end? Thanks for proving my point. You're not even trying anymore.

If it was mob rule (your little AC land)

Ah yes, Anarcho-Corporatism Capitalism which is defined as 'Without Rulers' is somehow "Mob Rule". Tell me another one.

Fixed it for you.

You're right. It would be a society ruled by corporations, which I doubt you bothered reading about. Look at the replies given-either it falls from within when an armed group takes charge, gets invaded and crushed or run by corporations. Since they are the only ones with any authority, they will set the rules, buddy. Oh wait. You're a wall of ignorance. Never mind what I say, your close mindedness will prevent you from understanding anything. Back to school for you, bucko.

Go talk to anybody else on this site about this stuff. They could debate you much better than I can, but we are all right in the end when we oppose your ideas.

EDIT: Dammit. Back to the topic. Jeeze this discussion between us is walking hijack. Everybody else ignore this part.

[MarshalPurnell]

I thought it was likely the Geneva Conventions were being misinterpreted, because assuming that every member of an armed, organized group was a civilian until they undertook direct participation in hostilities created a very ugly logical asymmetry. Combat Support Personnel of a combatant were fair game, whereas the interpretation that only direct combat made a putative civilian a part of an insurgency would have given an immunity to attack to personnel performing the same support operations on behalf of an insurgency. Instead the Conventions defines "combatants" elsewhere which obviously draws a distinction between recognized members of an armed, organized group and civilians who may have crossed a line into becoming combatants- the rules posted before were to cover identification of the latter case and were overly conservative to prevent misidentification of civilians as insurgents. They were not intended to offer insurgents an advantage over the regular armed forces of state militaries.

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Here we have the definition of a member of an armed, organized force participating in a conflict. AQAP has a recognized command structure which takes responsibility for the operations of the units and divisions under its command. It is also clearly an armed, organized group engaged in hostilities against the Yemeni government. Al-Awlaki was a part of said organized, armed group and not a random civilian sympathizer who spontaneously offered it support, or a political mouthpiece related to it in the same way Gerry Adams was related to the Provisional IRA. He was an active member of AQAP subject to the organizational control and discipline of the same and there was no ambiguity about whether or not he was.

The second paragraph defines combatant. A combatant is a member of the armed forces of a Party that has the right to participate directly in hostilities. It does not say "that are participating directly in hostilities" but that "have the right" to do, excluding chaplains and medical personnel who hold explicit protections under the Geneva Conventions. This commentary on the Protocol explains that word choice was specifically chosen to clarify on the 1907 Hague Conference, which drew distinctions between combatant and non-combatant personnel within the armed forces without elaborating on any significance. This paragraph was thus intended to underline that support and administrative personnel not directly involved in combat but members of an armed force could legitimately engage in combat (in the case of enemy raiders behind the line, or emergency deployment as scratch forces/replacements) and had no special immunity to direct attack. Thus truck-drivers in the rear area (for example) could be directly attacked without violating the Conventions and could legitimately defend themselves under the same.

Al-Awlaki meets the criteria established for being a member of the armed, organized force AQAP, which is engaged in hostilities against the Yemeni government. He was subject to the organization and control of the same, who exercised a command responsibility for his actions. His role as a trainer and recruiter was analogous to that of rear area support personnel of an army, who under Protocol I are considered combatants because they have the right to engage in combat even if they are not operating in roles where that is being done. Since the other interpretation would provide a blanket immunity to members of insurgent groups who do not participate in direct combat but do support and make it possible for other members to do so, including even the high-level strategic leadership of said group, I think it has to be discarded as untenable.

[Samuel]

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. How did you guess?

Thank you for openly admitting you are in blatant violation of debating rule #4. So please, call a third party moderater. I'm sure they would love to hear your explanation that you don't have to read peoples posts because they are quoting someone elses arguments.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am going to repeat this, because everyone in this thread seems to be ignoring the forest through the al-Awlaki tree. Whether or not he was guilty of being a member of an armed militant group engaged in combat functions is completely irrelevant. Yes. If that was the case, he was fair game to kill as part of a war. He was in an area that could be considered hostile, working with individuals which are currently in a state of armed conflict with the united states. Whatever. It is irrelevant.

The only relevant thing in this entire discussion is the existence of a secret assassination list which may or may not contain persons under the lawful jurisdiction of the united states who are constitutionally guaranteed and who will be denied due process. The names on the list are secret. The evidence used to put a person on the list is secret (and thus arbitrary, as there could just as well be no evidence at all). The process by which a person is put on the list is secret (and thus arbitrary, as it can be changed at any time without anyone noticing). There is no ability for a person thus classified to review the decision (and if he tried, he would be killed, and the evidence is a state secret and not subject to court scrutiny). Also, saying that it is OK to kill such a person because they flee US jurisdiction is a load of shit. Why? Because if they lawfully come forward, there is a damn good chance they will be killed. Nice catch 22 there. Again, even if this specific list had a "get out of warzone" escape clause, other similar lists need not have one and there is no way for us to be sure that the government is abiding by its terms... because the list is secret and so is the inclusion criteria.

Even if this list contains no US citizens at present, or that no list like it does, the fact that such a list exists at all is dangerous and exposes americans to all of the abuses that inevitably arise out of secret lists of this sort.

Lets assume for a moment that the CIA thinks you are a terrorist. Yes I know, you might be skeptical, but CIA has had US citizens tortured on suspicion of terrorism within the last 12 months, so it is not much of a stretch. Hell, lets be generous and assume you are on the list by accident. Say, your name is similar to someone on the list (it has happened before...).The list is secret, and say, you are an archeologist looking at the remains of Ur on the arabian penninsula. You have no reason to suspect that you would be on the list. So one day... a drone comes by and kills you.

Or lets assume you found out and tried desperately to get the hell out of Yemen. Well, along with your classification on that list, your name is probably on other lists such as the "take this guy into custody and inform the CIA" list, and the no fly list. So you cannot get the hell out of Yemen, and if you try, well that black bag is going over your head and you will be flown to afghanistan and raped/starved for four months until they leave you on a desolate dirt road in albania to die.

Now, lets assume that you manage to call your family (overseas collect), and inform them, or they already know. Well, they challenge the matter in court. The list is a state secret, the evidence is a state secret, and until you come home in a body bag, your family lacks legal standing to bring the challenge. So you are screwed.

Even worse when someone simply makes shit up to put people they dont like on the list. It is not as if evidence has never ever in the history of law or the CIA been fabricated.

...

All of that aside, there is absolutely no rational reason to keep the list, its evidence, or its process a secret. What do you lose by disclosure? You do not reveal operational details in the list. Just the names and the evidence. A person who should be on the list probably assumes we are trying to kill them, or would try to kill them if we knew who they were. It is not as if you can do anything to heighten their healthy paranoia. The only reason to keep the list a secret then is if there are people on the list who really should not be. The benefit to disclosure is that you can... you know... not accidentally kill the wrong person, or someone regarding whom you have bad intelligence, because they or their proxies will be able to challenge the matter in court.

[Count Chocula]

All of that aside, there is absolutely no rational reason to keep the list, its evidence, or its process a secret. What do you lose by disclosure? You do not reveal operational details in the list. Just the names and the evidence. A person who should be on the list probably assumes we are trying to kill them, or would try to kill them if we knew who they were. It is not as if you can do anything to heighten their healthy paranoia. The only reason to keep the list a secret then is if there are people on the list who really should not be. The benefit to disclosure is that you can... you know... not accidentally kill the wrong person, or someone regarding whom you have bad intelligence, because they or their proxies will be able to challenge the matter in court.

AD, are you really that much of a chucklefuck? What do you do you think the USG should do, publish Al-Awlaki's name in the New York Times with the byline "this is a fucker who our intelligence shows is training suicide shooter/bomber shits and we're going to kill him" advertisements? Have you not even a rudimentary knowledge of intellegence operations? God damn, I do believe we're beating this dead horse into glue with nary a rendering plant in sight.

Here is the scenario in short non Latin words.
* Bad guy wants to kill Americans
* Bad guy goes on AQ kill list
* Bad guy may think but does not know he's on a kill list
* USG wants to capture bad guy
* USG/ally fail to capture bad guy
* USG/ally track bad guy and Hellfire his ass away from civilan non combatants

Versus YOUR scenario (interpreted):
* Bad guy wants to kill Americans
* Bad guy goes on AQ kill list, WHICH IS PUBLISHED FOR THE WORLD TO SEE
* Bad guy goes into hiding and does everything through intermediaries from an urban center
* US/ally nevertheless identify and locate bad guy in urban area
* Us/ally do not Hellfire his ass because there are civilians shielding him
* Bad guy induces more underwear bombers/Fort Hood shooters to do their dirty deeds dirt cheap.

Full disclosure and actionable intel against a nation state's enemies are not compatible. Do you understand that?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Versus YOUR scenario (interpreted):
* Bad guy wants to kill Americans
* Bad guy goes on AQ kill list, WHICH IS PUBLISHED FOR THE WORLD TO SEE
* Bad guy goes into hiding and does everything through intermediaries from an urban center
* US/ally nevertheless identify and locate bad guy in urban area
* Us/ally do not Hellfire his ass because there are civilians shielding him
* Bad guy induces more underwear bombers/Fort Hood shooters to do their dirty deeds dirt cheap.

Did you completely ignore the logic chain? A person who is a member of a secretive terrorist group at war with the united states already assumes we are trying to kill them. This is not rocket science. If they are walking around in the open, they deserve a darwin award anyway. Osama did not go into hiding because his name got published in the fucking paper. He went into hiding because we invaded afghanistan and it was very obvious we were trying to kill him. How exactly do you think they wont know? It could not possibly be the fact that we have publicly targeted other individuals inside their organization (which incidentally did not damage our ability to capture and/or kill most of them).

Full disclosure and actionable intel against a nation state's enemies are not compatible. Do you understand that?

Complete non-disclosure and concealment of fuckups is not compatible with civilized notions of justice or human rights. If you want to kill monsters, you really ought avoid becoming the same monster. Especially because our government has a history of botched intel and human rights violations, even against our own citizens and citizens of allied countries. The people who fucked up and raped that german guy for four months and left him in albania to die? yeah. They got Promoted, and shielded from INTERPOL. Fuck that noise. Also, what is to stop a non-terrorist from being put on The List? The good will of our executive branch? What safeguards are in place? Should we just... leave this staggering power to murder at will in the hands of the who only the fuck knows?

Also, the fact that we have indeed succeeded in capturing or killing openly declared high value targets is empirical demonstration that your argument is false.

[Gaidin]

All of that aside, there is absolutely no rational reason to keep the list, its evidence, or its process a secret. What do you lose by disclosure? You do not reveal operational details in the list. Just the names and the evidence. A person who should be on the list probably assumes we are trying to kill them, or would try to kill them if we knew who they were. It is not as if you can do anything to heighten their healthy paranoia. The only reason to keep the list a secret then is if there are people on the list who really should not be. The benefit to disclosure is that you can... you know... not accidentally kill the wrong person, or someone regarding whom you have bad intelligence, because they or their proxies will be able to challenge the matter in court.

In an effort to avoid choosing sides because I'm not fully sure of what my stance on this situation is. I have a 'legalese stance' and I have a 'holy crap they did that?!' stance. Those things aside, I want to attempt to address your question of what is lost by disclosure(and only this question, avoiding the ethical debate of the thread for the sake of my own sanity if you don't mind). Certain types of intelligence are handled differently based solely on the method by which it is obtained. The most obvious stereotypical example would be a piece of intelligence that, for which if merely the information went public, the HUMINT source would be inevitably revealed and thus killed and/or otherwise lost. This information can be utterly trivial or of the utmost importance, but it can also point out the source in either case. If such, it is given the highest classification and compartmentalized as such. The intelligence community's definition of operational security is not just limited to the operational details of whatever stunt any organization may be pulling now. They also have a vested interest in protecting their sources, be they the nature of SIGINT, HUMINT, GEOINT, TECHINT or whatever(Oh god it continues, see here). Now, whether someone legally falls under such a classification as to whether evidence could be protected in this fashion regardless of who they are is another discussion altogether, and not one I wish to attempt to address here. I just wished to attempt to make clear why they may not want to hand out specifics to the general public. Given the target had already publicly known and readily knowable links to such an organization, protecting what they can is at least somewhat reasonable I think, and something that would be addressed through a closed courtroom if it were at all relevant(again, as I said, something I am not trying to address, so please don't latch onto this).

[Alyrium Denryle]

They also have a vested interest in protecting their sources, be they the nature of SIGINT, HUMINT, GEOINT, TECHINT or whatever(Oh god it continues, see here). Now, whether someone legally falls under such a classification as to whether evidence could be protected in this fashion regardless of who they are is another discussion altogether, and not one I wish to attempt to address here. I just wished to attempt to make clear why they may not want to hand out specifics to the general public.

Then at the very least, make the name of the listed person public so that their listing can be challenged, and hold an evidentiary hearing in chambers with the attorneys and judge concerning whether:

A) Such evidence should be classified, and if it should be

B) Whether it is relevant and sufficient to List the person in question.

If you cannot do that, then I am sorry. It is neither ethical or for that matter legal to deprive someone of life of liberty without due process unless they are shooting at you. In the case of al-Awlaki, it was obvious, and from his own lips. But what if it is someone where the case is not so clear cut, or heaven forbid.... there is not a real case at all? What safeguard is there that prevents the state secret in question from being an empty file folder?

[Count Chocula]

Complete non-disclosure and concealment of fuckups is not compatible with civilized notions of justice or human rights. If you want to kill monsters, you really ought avoid becoming the same monster. Especially because our government has a history of botched intel and human rights violations, even against our own citizens and citizens of allied countries. The people who fucked up and raped that german guy for four months and left him in albania to die? yeah. They got Promoted, and shielded from INTERPOL. Fuck that noise. Also, what is to stop a non-terrorist from being put on The List? The good will of our executive branch? What safeguards are in place? Should we just... leave this staggering power to murder at will in the hands of the who only the fuck knows?

Also, the fact that we have indeed succeeded in capturing or killing openly declared high value targets is empirical demonstration that your argument is false.

You're shifting the goal posts, pal. Oh yeah, and your're using an hypothetical as a justification for your argument. And you're ignoring the copious evidence ITT of the consideration that went into the decision to kill Awlaki. All without references or reasons why your cites are relevant for the +1 Bonus Achievement Unlocked! You exhibit a staggering power to obfuscate and misrepresent at will. Well done! Not. BTW, Awlaki WAS a high value target we failed to capture, and so killed. Thanks for validating the rational posters' arguments.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're shifting the goal posts, pal.

Show the movement. Nothing I have said has been congruent with a shift in goal posts.

Oh yeah, and your're using an hypothetical as a justification for your argument

Go check your history. It is not a hypothetical, but an extrapolation based on the track record of the united states. Given that there have been two cases of mistaken identity that I am aware of off the top of my head that resulted in torture, what stops it from happening in another instance? Given that there have been plenty of false accusations of terrorist activity that have resulted in torture and indefinite imprisonment, what is to stop it from happening in an instance involving an assassination?

You exhibit a staggering power to obfuscate and misrepresent at will.

What have I obfuscated or misrepresented? List it for me.

Also: I dont give a shit about Awlaki, He was guilty. I am worried about someone INNOCENT being killed, which is not unreasonable given the track record of our intel and (illegal/unethical) rendition and torture regime.

[Vympel]

Thank you for openly admitting

Openly admitting what, Sammy boy? I admitted that I was refusing to acknowledge the posts of others that you were stealing without any independent thought. Because they're totally irrelevant. You've demonstrated you are far too stupid to stand on your own in this thread, and so think you can get by with just quoting reams of exchanges between different people talking about different things to back up your bullshit. As for bringing in a third party mod, I will, the moment you try another dishonest bait and switch like your previous one- like I said. Why don't you go crying about how I refuse to take your random quoting of other people seriously?

[Vympel]

I thought it was likely the Geneva Conventions were being misinterpreted, because assuming that every member of an armed, organized group was a civilian until they undertook direct participation in hostilities created a very ugly logical asymmetry.

That is simply not an accurate characterization. The actual position is this:-

A. A civilian can be considered part of an organized armed group (i.e. are no longer civilians) by performing a continuous combat function and can be directly targeted on that basis; and
B. A civilian can be killed for the duration of their participating directly in hostilities.

You completely ignore A.

Combat Support Personnel of a combatant were fair game, whereas the interpretation that only direct combat made a putative civilian a part of an insurgency would have given an immunity to attack to personnel performing the same support operations on behalf of an insurgency.

As the article notes:-

The difference between " direct " and " indirect " participation can be difficult to establish but is vital. For example, the delivery by a civilian truck driver of ammunition to a shooting position at the front line would almost certainly have to be regarded as an integral part of ongoing combat operations and would therefore constitute direct participation in hostilities. However, transporting ammunition from a factory to a port far from a conflict zone is too incidental to the use of that ammunition in specific military operations to be considered as " directly " causing harm. Although the ammunition truck remains a military objective subject to attack, driving it would not amount to direct participation in hostilities and, therefore, the civilian driver could not be targeted separately from the truck.

Instead the Conventions defines "combatants" elsewhere which obviously draws a distinction between recognized members of an armed, organized group and civilians who may have crossed a line into becoming combatants- the rules posted before were to cover identification of the latter case and were overly conservative to prevent misidentification of civilians as insurgents. They were not intended to offer insurgents an advantage over the regular armed forces of state militaries.

*snip*

Here we have the definition of a member of an armed, organized force participating in a conflict. AQAP has a recognized command structure which takes responsibility for the operations of the units and divisions under its command. It is also clearly an armed, organized group engaged in hostilities against the Yemeni government. Al-Awlaki was a part of said organized, armed group and not a random civilian sympathizer who spontaneously offered it support, or a political mouthpiece related to it in the same way Gerry Adams was related to the Provisional IRA. He was an active member of AQAP subject to the organizational control and discipline of the same and there was no ambiguity about whether or not he was.

This is yet another variant of "Awlaki says he was a member of Al Qaeda therefore that means he was a combatant". The issue is not what a combatant can do, the issue is how do you establish someone is a combatant. The notion that someone like Awlaki can be credibly characterized as "a member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict" without any ambiguity or controversy is absurd on its face. There remains no credible, verified evidence that Awlaki engaged in the conduct he is accused of engaging in that you think makes him a combatant. Indeed, by your logic, the UK could simply assert Gerry Adams had gone from 'political mouthpiece' to 'operational' and killed him on that basis, with no checks on that assertion at all or any need to provide evidence.

The second paragraph defines combatant. A combatant is a member of the armed forces of a Party that has the right to participate directly in hostilities. It does not say "that are participating directly in hostilities" but that "have the right" to do, excluding chaplains and medical personnel who hold explicit protections under the Geneva Conventions. This commentary on the Protocol explains that word choice was specifically chosen to clarify on the 1907 Hague Conference, which drew distinctions between combatant and non-combatant personnel within the armed forces without elaborating on any significance. This paragraph was thus intended to underline that support and administrative personnel not directly involved in combat but members of an armed force could legitimately engage in combat (in the case of enemy raiders behind the line, or emergency deployment as scratch forces/replacements) and had no special immunity to direct attack. Thus truck-drivers in the rear area (for example) could be directly attacked without violating the Conventions and could legitimately defend themselves under the same.

Let us reiterate again the fact that you keep ignoring A whilst focusing on B, by reference to the linked article:-

For such time as they directly participate in hostilities, civilians lose their protection against attack. But what are the rules and principles which regulate the use of force against them? In what circumstances do they regain protection? The Interpretive Guidance comes to the following conclusions:

While members of organized armed groups belonging to a party to the conflict lose protection against direct attack for the duration of their membership (i.e., for as long as they assume a continuous combat function), civilians lose protection against direct attack for the duration of each specific act amounting to direct participation in hostilities. This includes any preparations and geographical deployments or withdrawals constituting an integral part of a specific hostile act.

So - again - it is the assumption of a continuous combat function that makes you a member of an organized armed group, not a civilian.

[Vympel]

Go check your history. It is not a hypothetical, but an extrapolation based on the track record of the united states. Given that there have been two cases of mistaken identity that I am aware of off the top of my head that resulted in torture, what stops it from happening in another instance? Given that there have been plenty of false accusations of terrorist activity that have resulted in torture and indefinite imprisonment, what is to stop it from happening in an instance involving an assassination?

Indeed - it really is a stunningly ignorant argument for any inhabitant of a first world nation - let alone America- to make. Surely, the people who collapse all over themselves to justify the executive reserving for itself the right to just arbitrarily kill anyone they want, anyone in the world, at any time, simply because they believe that person is dangerous, would equally have no trouble simply dismantling the entire criminal justice system. Why can't cops just say that someone's a dangerous criminal and lock them up, no questions asked? Trust them! What are you, some sort of commie?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why can't cops just say that someone's a dangerous criminal and lock them up, no questions asked? Trust them! What are you, some sort of commie?

Well you're honor, the police brought him in, so he must have done something wrong...

[Samuel]

Thank you for openly admitting

Openly admitting what, Sammy boy? I admitted that I was refusing to acknowledge the posts of others that you were stealing without any independent thought. Because they're totally irrelevant. You've demonstrated you are far too stupid to stand on your own in this thread, and so think you can get by with just quoting reams of exchanges between different people talking about different things to back up your bullshit. As for bringing in a third party mod, I will, the moment you try another dishonest bait and switch like your previous one- like I said. Why don't you go crying about how I refuse to take your random quoting of other people seriously?

Call a third party moderator. Now. I will explain, to them, why your actions are a complete violation of the fourth debating rule. You are obviously too stupid to take the hint.

I am going to repeat this, because everyone in this thread seems to be ignoring the forest through the al-Awlaki tree.

No, Simon Jester entire line of argument was based on the exact same premise as yours. How about you just read the responces to that and explain what is wrong with them first.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, Simon Jester entire line of argument was based on the exact same premise as yours. How about you just read the responces to that and explain what is wrong with them first.

And your arguments have been piss poor and in the end do not address his central argument at all. You are still missing the forest through the single tree. You keep your myopic focus on Awlaki, and put your blinders on with respect to the inherent dangers of secret Death Warrant lists.

Oh, and when I said everyone, I meant people I respect. This of course, may or may not include you.

[Samuel]

No, Simon Jester entire line of argument was based on the exact same premise as yours. How about you just read the responces to that and explain what is wrong with them first.

And your arguments have been piss poor and in the end do not address his central argument at all. You are still missing the forest through the single tree. You keep your myopic focus on Awlaki, and put your blinders on with respect to the inherent dangers of secret Death Warrant lists.

Oh, and when I said everyone, I meant people I respect. This of course, may or may not include you.

page 9

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

[quote+"Samuel"]We did not kill Anwar because the government said he was a terrorist.[/quote]

I am focusing "myopically" on the legality, because that is how the entire argument with Vympel started off. At no point until you entered was the focus on the dangers of abuse. I prefer to stick to a single topic because it is easier to deal with, especially with intellectually dishonest opponents, who I do poorly with.

As for your fears, is this representative of what you think?

The real question that's on people's minds, Hammer, is who's next? Under US law, there is no difference between putting al-Awlaki on a hit list for assassination by the US military and putting any other American citizen on such a list. The precedent is now established that the state can get away with doing this for no reason other than its own say-so. So... who's next? Will the precedent be used to kill other people who cause trouble for the US government? Will they be members of a hostile foreign organization, or members of a domestic political body that the government wishes didn't exist?

This issue has been discussed in the thread and if you want, I can try to piece together what people said. It is a bit disjointed and in bits and pieces. This is the first responce that came immediately afterward btw:

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

[Thanas]

Call a third party moderator. Now. I will explain, to them, why your actions are a complete violation of the fourth debating rule. You are obviously too stupid to take the hint.

We mods have been talking about this topic, especially since you asked all of us to look into it.

The clear consensus of us is that
- your complaints are baseless
- you, not Vympel, is the one who should be doing a better job in answering your opponent points

No further action will be taken by us.

(Oh, and before you cry "big meanie Thanas just wants his side to win", remember that this was a review undertaken by all N&P mods. If you disagree, go talk to Dalton).

[Thanas]

At no point until you entered was the focus on the dangers of abuse. I prefer to stick to a single topic because it is easier to deal with, especially with intellectually dishonest opponents, who I do poorly with.

You've got to be kidding me. Nearly every single article I linked to talked about potential abuse.