Eric Holder explains the use of drones [update]

[TheHammer]

...Something caught my eye...

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V.

You do realize how often totalitarian/dictatorial regimes ratcheted up civil rights violations in piecemeal, right?

So I looked back at what Hammer said...

I never said anything about not applying "due process". What I'm saying is the traditional court system is incapable of effectively dealing with situations such as terrorists operating from foreign soil. Thus there should be a streamlined process for doing so. It would be my preference for congress to come up with a workable system, but in the interim I don't have a problem with the system the Executive branch has set up for itself.

You all seem to act as though this is a massive amount of POWER to give to the President as though it would go to his head and he'd start willy nilly adding people who cut him off in traffic, or talked badly about him on T.V. However, as commander-n-chief he already has the power and has used it to kill thousands any time he wants to. But in those cases, he knows he will have to justify his actions to the American People. None of that would change.

Isn't "talked badly about him (or us) on TV" exactly what al-Awlaki did?

There's no evidence for him ever having done more than write encouraging letters to terrorists. Or rather, supposedly there is, but the evidence is a secret- we're not allowed to know what attacks al-Awlaki planned, but we can take it on faith that he did plan them. Because he's a Very Bad Man.

So how do we know hasn't Obama already crossed the line of "I assassinate you without trial because you say mean things about me/us/whatever?"

And it doesn't count to say "Obama assures us he has a good reason!" Because Obama would assure us he had a good reason whether he really had one or not. Politicians lie sometimes.

Awlaki did far more than "talk bad about us". He wasn't Sean Hannity in a turban. He actively recruited terrorists and was responsible for instilling in them the mentality needed to get them to carry out the attacks. He had already been convicted in a Yemni court, the country in which he was hiding, for "plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda". He was linked to the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber among others. Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, He knew that we was on the targeting list for some time and he had ample oppurtinity to surrender to U.S. authorities and "Defend himself in court". Instead he continued on with his "DEATH TO AMERICA!" rants up until the day he died.

See, what you don't seem to get is that I'm not looking to deny any of these people their "day in court". But they've got to be willing to face trial, not think that they are untouchable in some foreign land so Uncle Sam can just fuck off.

[Simon_Jester]

Awlaki did far more than "talk bad about us". He wasn't Sean Hannity in a turban. He actively recruited terrorists and was responsible for instilling in them the mentality needed to get them to carry out the attacks.

How much of this is alleged, and how much is proven? You've been awfully eager to dismiss reports by people like the Secretary of Defense in the past because no one linked you to them. So I want real evidence that al-Awlaki actually recruited anyone, as opposed to just writing encouraging letters.

Writing encouraging letters to criminals isn't a capital offense.

He had already been convicted in a Yemni court, the country in which he was hiding, for "plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda".

Then let the Yemenis arrest him. Or did the US government contract out to become the Yemenis' hangman while I wasn't looking?

He was linked to the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber among others.

By "linked to," do you mean "wrote encouraging letters?" Because writing an encouraging letter to a criminal, even a mass murderer, isn't normally a death sentence.

Also, linking him to the underwear bomber does not impress me. The underwear bomber is the best argument I can think of that we've pretty much won the damn war, because our enemies are reduced to setting their own genitals on fire in a futile attempt to cause us any real harm.

You can't look at the underwear bomber and not reflect that this is a very different order of threat than 9/11.

Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, He knew that we was on the targeting list for some time and he had ample oppurtinity to surrender to U.S. authorities and "Defend himself in court". Instead he continued on with his "DEATH TO AMERICA!" rants up until the day he died.

Yeah. He kept talking. So?

See, the problem I perceive here is that you want it to be okay to kill al-Awlaki for being a person you don't like. The exact definition of what he did that was criminal, what justified his death, is nebulous- you say he was 'linked to' murders and attempted murders, but not that he ordered those murders carried out (as bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks), or that he provided money and resources that made them possible. At most, he offered encouragement- does this mean Rush Limbaugh would be subject to the death penalty if someone 'inspired by' him decided to commit a terrorist attack?

Where do you, personally, draw the line between "inspiring" crimes and just talking bullshit?

Where do you think the administration draws the line?

What happens to the Constitution if we follow that line?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also if you appeal to a wanted criminal to turn himself in and he refuses, you do not automatically get permission to kill him unless he resists capture attempts with force. That is current US law.

Or probable cause exists that the suspect poses a danger of serious injury or death to others if his/her escape would defeat the arrest.

Example - You have probable cause that the person you're chasing is a serial killer. He climbs a tall chain link fence. You attempt to climb it but you're boots prevent you from obtaining a foothold on the links. Deadly force would be justified.

Source This is TENNESSEE v. GARNER which is a significant case because it set the standard for the use of force by police officers in the US.

See the last paragraph under section B

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with drones being used to take out people like Al-Awlaki but only when the information presented is transparent and has passed some sort of due process.

[Simon_Jester]

I think transparency is the real issue- because if there's transparency and a judicial due process, then we can actually go back and give the case the kind of scrutiny that Hammer has so much faith in. People can actually get in trouble for making bad decisions, instead of just stonewalling and demanding that we trust their judgment while lickspittles (like Holder on the large scale, and Hammer on the small) pretend nothing is wrong.

[TheHammer]

Awlaki did far more than "talk bad about us". He wasn't Sean Hannity in a turban. He actively recruited terrorists and was responsible for instilling in them the mentality needed to get them to carry out the attacks.

How much of this is alleged, and how much is proven? You've been awfully eager to dismiss reports by people like the Secretary of Defense in the past because no one linked you to them. So I want real evidence that al-Awlaki actually recruited anyone, as opposed to just writing encouraging letters.

Writing encouraging letters to criminals isn't a capital offense.

How many people did Hitler personally kill? How many did Bin Laden personally kill? When you are directing mean to take these actions, then you are responsible. As soon as you start with this "Well all he did was tell these men they'd have 70 virgins if they happened to die while killing infidels" then I have to presume you are being intentionally thick skulled.

He had already been convicted in a Yemni court, the country in which he was hiding, for "plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda".

Then let the Yemenis arrest him. Or did the US government contract out to become the Yemenis' hangman while I wasn't looking?

The Yemeni's didn't have the resources. He was ordered to be captured "dead or alive" by a Yemeni judge. However he was protected by a very large tribe. You would know that if you bothered to do any research.

He was linked to the Fort Hood shooter and underwear bomber among others.

By "linked to," do you mean "wrote encouraging letters?" Because writing an encouraging letter to a criminal, even a mass murderer, isn't normally a death sentence.

I love how you use soft language like "encouraging letters" as though they were simply harmless letters of praise. If by "encouraging letters" you mean he was encouraging hassan to kill as many Americans as he could, then yes that might be correct.

Also, linking him to the underwear bomber does not impress me. The underwear bomber is the best argument I can think of that we've pretty much won the damn war, because our enemies are reduced to setting their own genitals on fire in a futile attempt to cause us any real harm.

You can't look at the underwear bomber and not reflect that this is a very different order of threat than 9/11.

Yes he's a joke because his device failed to operate as designed. I suspect that at some point they did test and have success with such a device, before trying to actually use it to blow up a plane. Had it succeeded you'd be singing a very different fucking tune.

Even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, He knew that we was on the targeting list for some time and he had ample oppurtinity to surrender to U.S. authorities and "Defend himself in court". Instead he continued on with his "DEATH TO AMERICA!" rants up until the day he died.

Yeah. He kept talking. So?

See, the problem I perceive here is that you want it to be okay to kill al-Awlaki for being a person you don't like. The exact definition of what he did that was criminal, what justified his death, is nebulous- you say he was 'linked to' murders and attempted murders, but not that he ordered those murders carried out (as bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks), or that he provided money and resources that made them possible. At most, he offered encouragement- does this mean Rush Limbaugh would be subject to the death penalty if someone 'inspired by' him decided to commit a terrorist attack?

Where do you, personally, draw the line between "inspiring" crimes and just talking bullshit?

Where do you think the administration draws the line?

What happens to the Constitution if we follow that line?

I think the administration draws the line at active threats. He did more than "inspire" crimes, he actively recruited for them. They didn't pick Awlaki's name out of a fucking hat. Do some research before you even bother bringing this shit to me.

Here is a link to get you started:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/ ... 83679.html

“You have two choices: either hijra (emigration) or jihad (holy war),” Awlaki said in the video, which was posted on Islamist websites.

“I specifically invite the youth to either fight in the West or join their brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia.

“I invite them to join us in our new front, Yemen, the base from which the great jihad of the Arabian Peninsula will begin, the base from which the greatest army of Islam will march forth,” said Awlaki, a cleric of Yemeni descent, speaking in English..

[TheHammer]

I think transparency is the real issue- because if there's transparency and a judicial due process, then we can actually go back and give the case the kind of scrutiny that Hammer has so much faith in. People can actually get in trouble for making bad decisions, instead of just stonewalling and demanding that we trust their judgment while lickspittles (like Holder on the large scale, and Hammer on the small) pretend nothing is wrong.

[Thanas]

Awlaki did far more than "talk bad about us". He wasn't Sean Hannity in a turban. He actively recruited terrorists and was responsible for instilling in them the mentality needed to get them to carry out the attacks.

How much of this is alleged, and how much is proven? You've been awfully eager to dismiss reports by people like the Secretary of Defense in the past because no one linked you to them. So I want real evidence that al-Awlaki actually recruited anyone, as opposed to just writing encouraging letters.

Writing encouraging letters to criminals isn't a capital offense.

How many people did Hitler personally kill? How many did Bin Laden personally kill? When you are directing mean to take these actions, then you are responsible. As soon as you start with this "Well all he did was tell these men they'd have 70 virgins if they happened to die while killing infidels" then I have to presume you are being intentionally thick skulled.

The USA has a long and proud tradition of not prosecuting political speech, no matter how hateful it is. That fact may have escaped you.

[TheHammer]

How many people did Hitler personally kill? How many did Bin Laden personally kill? When you are directing mean to take these actions, then you are responsible. As soon as you start with this "Well all he did was tell these men they'd have 70 virgins if they happened to die while killing infidels" then I have to presume you are being intentionally thick skulled.

The USA has a long and proud tradition of not prosecuting political speech, no matter how hateful it is. That fact may have escaped you.[/quote]

Ok lets set aside for a moment that Awlaki was acting in a leadership role for an organization who is was openly at war with the United States. And focus on what you just wrote.

Yes for the most part what you've said is true. However, as you likely well know there has always been a very grey line when it comes to speech meant to incite violence and the Supreme court has reversed itself more than once in that regard. Should a case reach the current supreme court, I'd venture to say it would find the particular speech Awlaki has used to not be protected.

Even using the most recent, and probably most famous decision is Brandenberg V Ohio. Out of which you commonly see the "Brandenburg Test", which restricted government punishment of speech only in cases where it that speech is meant to incite "imminent lawless action". So then the question becomes what do you consider "imminent"?

To quote from what I posted above Awlaki said this in a recently released video:

“You have two choices: either hijra (emigration) or jihad (holy war),”

"I specifically invite the youth to either fight in the West or join their brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia."

I would think that any reasonable person would consider that to be an incitement to imminent lawless action...

[Thanas]

Ok lets set aside for a moment that Awlaki was acting in a leadership role for an organization who is was openly at war with the United States.

Allegedly. Provide proof for this from neutral sources or the legal system.

I would think that any reasonable person would consider that to be an incitement to imminent lawless action...

No, not when US politicians regularly say things that are on this level and get off scot free. Or is McCain a terrorist now because he advocated for the illegal bombing of Iran? WHat about those terrorists lobbyists/politicians that support a terorrist organizaton in Iran? Lobbying for an organization that is classified as terorrist by the USA and getting paid for it to boot is not illegal in the US.

[TheHammer]

I'd better watch out when I invite people to fight for the reelection of Dennis Kucinich, either in Ohio or out west in Washington (if he decides to run out there).

Yes let's pretend that Awlaki made no other statements about it being the duty of Muslims to kill Americans and that by "fight" he meant anything other than taking up arms against the west.

Ok lets set aside for a moment that Awlaki was acting in a leadership role for an organization who is was openly at war with the United States.

Allegedly. Provide proof for this from neutral sources or the legal system.

In this very post I've linked and quoted his own words where he was acting as a recruiter. I've linked and quoted numerous messages from Awalki in the past (that I know you've read) of messages to his followers that they kill Americans. If what I've already posted isn't enough, then you won't be convinced.

I would think that any reasonable person would consider that to be an incitement to imminent lawless action...

No, not when US politicians regularly say things that are on this level and get off scot free. Or is McCain a terrorist now because he advocated for the illegal bombing of Iran? WHat about those terrorists lobbyists/politicians that support a terorrist organizaton in Iran? Lobbying for an organization that is classified as terorrist by the USA and getting paid for it to boot is not illegal in the US.

McCain in acting in his role as a member of government may advocate action against a foreign nation. As for the lobbyists, it all depends on what exactly they are lobbying for. In both situations, from the perspective of the United States, who the target is matters. As the old saying goes, one nations terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter.

[TheHammer]

Yes let's pretend that Awlaki made no other statements about it being the duty of Muslims to kill Americans and that by "fight" he meant anything other than taking up arms against the west.

You didn't quote that....

I figured that was common knowledge at this point. If you really didn't know, then I apologize for assuming you were simply being a wise ass.

In trials, you always hear both sides, so the context comes out in the open.

Here, we can't be sure we're seeing the whole picture. Biases going into it have too much influence on the outcome - things might be withheld, deliberately or accidentally, things might be missed, and more.

That's why the accused has a right to defend himself.

Yes you are right. Had Awlaki surrendered to authorities he would have stood trial and would have deserved every opportunity afforded him in a court of law. However, he was emphatically not surrendering, rather his messages were of recruitment of more soldiers for his Jihad against the U.S., and about the duty of muslims to kill Americans wherever they could.

Again, and I've said this before, since Awlaki was an American, didn't the military simply grant him his wish by killing him?

[K. A. Pital]

As the old saying goes, one nations terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter.

So you, like Ossus (with whom we had prior debates on the issue) would not object to targeted assassinations of American politicians, CIA personnel, et cetera if being carried out by foreign intelligence services or structures who assume to be at war with the US? Just want to make sure this isn't hypocrisy and you really think assassination is par the course when it comes to such situations and you wouldn't be screaming "Bomb Muslims to stone age" if someone assassinates Leon Panetta, for example.

[TheHammer]

As the old saying goes, one nations terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter.

So you, like Ossus (with whom we had prior debates on the issue) would not object to targeted assassinations of American politicians, CIA personnel, et cetera if being carried out by foreign intelligence services or structures who assume to be at war with the US? Just want to make sure this isn't hypocrisy and you really think assassination is par the course when it comes to such situations and you wouldn't be screaming "Bomb Muslims to stone age" if someone assassinates Leon Panetta, for example.

While I personally probably object to such an action, I don't think it would be unreasonable for a foreign nation to try and "take out" those officials if they truly felt that the safety of their nation or citizens was at risk. In fact, depending on the situation I think they could very well be derilict to their own people if they didn't do so. I don't think "bomb Muslims to the stone age" would be an appropriate response to someone assassinating American officials. However, that doesn't mean we would not retaliate to any such action as I would expect any nation to do. It just so happens that we can retaliate in more ways than most, and that's something any nation or militant group had better weigh before taking action.

But after all, if you find yourself to be defacto at war with another nation or militant group, and you find it morally justified to take out the "foot soldiers" of that entity, why should its leadership be afforded any special protection?