Court orders Obama to release documents related to Awlaki

[K. A. Pital]

Perhaps. But no less of a fantasy "what-if" scenario than saying something like "OMG what if Obama uses this precedent to drone strike the Green Party!" (I can just see poor Ralph Nader going outside to get the paper, when suddenly... blam!)

The practical reality is that Obama can get away with killing Awlaki because the voting public doesn't care about the constitutional rights of someone working for Al-Qaeda, and nobody seriously believes there is some kind of slippery slope from "assassinate key Al-Qaeda propaganda mouthpiece" to "assassinate anybody I don't like". The practical reality is that the Awlaki precedent likely won't lead to Obama ordering drone strikes on the black panthers or the KKK or Green Peace or whatever.

And another wrong scenario - people would care about Nader because they know he exists. People wouldn't care about Mr. Nobody (especially if told by the government that Mr. Nobody, truth irrelevant, was a long-sought associate of Tim McVeigh hiding somewhere in Colombia). And this means Mr. Nobody, regardless of who and why he's working for, is now threatened.

[Simon_Jester]

The catch is that there are a lot of precedents for 'slippery slope' denials of basic rights and civil liberties spreading out to encompass a larger share of the population:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a communist..."

Et cetera.

So it's worth trying to clarify the situation. The prospect of a future president assassinating his domestic political opponents may not seem likely, but given that it's explicitly illegal for him to do that, how can that be illegal while making it legal for him to do this?

Clearly, Obama does not have the right to blow up members of a domestic political organization. Okay, what about a violent domestic organization? If we can say one American citizen who joins a foreign terrorist organization is a lawful target for a drone strike, how about a dozen of them? A hundred? A thousand?

It honestly is unclear to me what the legal argument is, that lets us blow up al-Awlaki, and forbids us from executing several hundred Americans without trial for allegedly being part of a domestic terrorist organization. Sure, if they're on our soil it might be convenient and practical to arrest them- but if we're within our rights to kill al-Awlaki in Yemen, why aren't we in our rights to kill him in Yerba Buena?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Also, while it's difficult to imagine a drone strike against Green Peace or Ralph Nader, it's not difficult to imagine a near-future administration ordering one against a vocal correspondent of Al-Jazeera, which most Americans probably think is a terrorist organization anyway. The fact that Al-Jazeera journalists have been targeted by manned US strikes in Iraq before (most likely deliberately, although no proof exists) makes it even less difficult to imagine.

[TheHammer]

All rehashed bullshit aside,

I think I see two camps specific with Awlaki. There is the group that views the drone strike as a "punishment" of a criminal for for past crimes. Then there is the other side who views it as a strike on an enemy "soldier", for lack of a better term, to prevent him from carrying out further attacks (as a planner/recruiter).

If Awlaki were merely "hiding out" in Yemen, but otherwise a non participant in Al Qaeda's activities, then it becomes a different matter. But I don't believe anyone actually believes he intended to cease his activities, and he certainly gave no such indications in his writings/speeches. The fact that attacks had been carried out as his behest before was evidence that he was capable of those attacks.

Now, if you really believe he was innocent, had nothing to do with any attacks, and or wasn't planning further attacks please raise your hands.

[Metahive]

Hämmer, I asked you a quite reasonable question one page back, I would like you to answer it.

[TheHammer]

Hämmer, I asked you a quite reasonable question one page back, I would like you to answer it.

Specifically which question Meth?

[Metahive]

The one that addressed you specifically? You surely do read all posts on a thread before throwing your two cents in to avoid being redundant and wasting time, right?

[Simon_Jester]

All rehashed bullshit aside,

I think I see two camps specific with Awlaki. There is the group that views the drone strike as a "punishment" of a criminal for for past crimes. Then there is the other side who views it as a strike on an enemy "soldier", for lack of a better term, to prevent him from carrying out further attacks (as a planner/recruiter).

If he's a criminal he gets a trial.

If he's a soldier... except he's not a soldier, he's the Islamic-fundie version of Tokyo Rose. There is no clear evidence of him being some sort of mastermind strategist behind attacks- the sum total of his contribution to al Qaeda operations that we know of consists of propaganda, serving as a chaplain, and rooting for terrorists.

None of those things make him a military target, unless we've decided to wage total apocalyptic warfare against the entire Islamic-fundamentalist subculture, which makes no damn sense for any number of reasons. And which would be genocidal and revolting besides.

Now, if you really believe he was innocent, had nothing to do with any attacks, and or wasn't planning further attacks please raise your hands.

Will you shut up about the damn red herring?

Al-Awlaki being a bad man has nothing to do with whether or not the president gets to push a button and have him killed. I know your inner authoritarian dreams of it, but no, that is not how the executive office in a democracy is supposed to work. The power to kill bad people just because they are so obviously bad is not something any sane person with historical perspective wants their leadership to have.

[Alyrium Denryle]

All rehashed bullshit aside,

In other words, you are going to skip over the entire argument that the precedent set is dangerous, that we was not covered by the use of force authorization and was thus not a military target, and that even if he was considered a combatant at some point, was not at the time of his death.

And his son. You dont event remember the existence of his 16 year old son.

You are a dishonest shitstain.

[Simon_Jester]

I honestly don't think Ham is even capable of remembering any argument on the al-Awlaki case other than "him BADMAN he DIE!"

Combine it with some other doozies he's come up with over the years and you get a worrying look inside the head of a brown shirt.

[Metahive]

I'm honestly disturbed that people seriously consider if it should be a right of the executive branch to carry out death sentences on suspected criminals/"bad men" just because they're out of reach for regular law enforcement. What good could possibly come out of this? I mean, think of someone like Edward Snowden, would any of the pro-Executing Executive people here support him getting bombed? He's done, after all, more "harm" to the government than Awlaki ever did.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the problem is that they're locked into a wartime mindset, and neglecting the difference between an organized armed force and a disorganized movement.

Thus, people whose 'threat' is purely ideological start getting interpreted as enemy soldiers, spies, and saboteurs. Moreover, the definition of the enemy movement is broadened, until you're not only trying to hammer the people who originally provoked you, but also the people who are criticizing you for the way you hammered those people. And the people trying to hold you accountable for the crimes you committed while hammering those people.

Basically, it's the idea that I am part of a 'tribe,' and that "good guys" translates as "people on my tribe's side," with everyone else being either an enemy or an irrelevant terrain feature.

[TheHammer]

The one that addressed you specifically? You surely do read all posts on a thread before throwing your two cents in to avoid being redundant and wasting time, right?

I skip most of your bullshit drivel. But if you have a specific question, then ask it. I'm not going to hunt for it.

All rehashed bullshit aside,

In other words, you are going to skip over the entire argument that the precedent set is dangerous, that we was not covered by the use of force authorization and was thus not a military target, and that even if he was considered a combatant at some point, was not at the time of his death.

And his son. You dont event remember the existence of his 16 year old son.

You are a dishonest shitstain.

I'm not here to debate Awlaki's son, and I'm not familiar with the circumstances of his death. Maybe he would be a better poster-child for the "anti drone movement" than his father.

The reason I skip over the rehashed bullshit is because this is the 5th? 6th? Awlaki thread. There is not ONE new argument in this thread. I get tired of making the same statements, seeing the same counter-arguments and round and round we go because it comes down to a core difference of opinion as to the threat Awlaki posed and justification for his role.

I honestly don't think Ham is even capable of remembering any argument on the al-Awlaki case other than "him BADMAN he DIE!"

Combine it with some other doozies he's come up with over the years and you get a worrying look inside the head of a brown shirt.

No, the "HIM BADMAN HE DIE" is your retarded brain bug that you can't seem to get past. He wasn't killed for being a "BAD MAN" (even though he was a "BAD MAN"), he was killed because he was an active threat. As you noted later, you feel the threat is purely ideological, which I think is rather fucking naive.

[Metahive]

I skip most of your bullshit drivel. But if you have a specific question, then ask it. I'm not going to hunt for it.

A redundant statement, since you skip what anyone else has to say about this topic as well and just repeat yourself endlessly with canned responses from minitru.

I tell you what, no, I won't repeat my question. I have only two short entries on page three, even you should be able to should find my question. This also isn't a board where you get the privilege of ignoring shit you don't like, let me remind you.

[Simon_Jester]

Re: Hammer:

Well, the evidence for the "active threat" angle, so far as I know, comes from various federal agencies and governments asserting that he was an active threat. A number of these same organizations also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take their word for it.

See, I get that he's a subversive agent of a hostile armed group. But the administration has not seen fit to explain precisely how al-Awlaki was involved in actual attack planning or attack organization.

Fighting an army this kind of question doesn't arise: the very fact that Admiral Yamamoto was an admiral in the Imperial Japanese Navy was, a priori, evidence that he was a planner and organizer of military activity against the United States, because the IJN was a uniformed service in a country at war with the US.

But with Al Qaeda, it is not that simple. It's very easy to falsely accuse people of being members of al-Qaeda, compared to the difficulty of accusing people of being IJN admirals. It's easy to accuse people of being complicit in violence when they are not, or that they planned violence when in fact all they did was cheerleader duty. It is, in short, easy to assert, "either you're with us, or with the terrorists," and start slaughtering accordingly.

So whereas the decision to assassinate Yamamoto was a pretty much open-and-shut military judgment call, the decision to assassinate al-Awlaki was not. YOU maintain that there is a precise equivalency- that it is "well known" that al-Awlaki was a terrorist mastermind/generalissimo/whatever, so that killing him becomes a simple military decision, rather than a matter of civilian law.

My research may admittedly be missing something, but so far I haven't been able to find evidence of that.

[Metahive]

Instead of Yamamamoto, this is more comparable to Stalin offing Trotsky via icepick to the head. And that's being generous because Trotsky's writings and agitation had a way more visible effect on the USSR than Awlaki's had on the US.

I would still call it murder either way.

[Thanas]

My research may admittedly be missing something, but so far I haven't been able to find evidence of that.

You better add "evidence of that other than government say so from the same agencies that regularly misidentify targets" because based on my past debates with Hammer he will latch on to that and confidently assert it is self-evident because of [insert links with government saying so here].

[Terralthra]

I find the very concept that because al-Awlaki potentially posed a threat to the US, we're totally justified in blowing him and several civilians near him up, with no due process or warning, very frightening. The precedent set is more or less that foreign nations are just as justified in blowing up non-uniformed American citizens as long as they get someone tangentially related to damaging a foreign government in the process.

So, I happen to be standing next to the chairman for Dow Chemical, and India sends a drone after him because he's related to planning activities that led to an attack on India (Bhopal). According to the precedent we set, that's cool, because as I was standing near him wearing nice clothes, I could reasonably be considered as in his organization. What?

[Thanas]

Plus, it is not like those foreign objectives are anything worth morally. I mean, at the start they were, what with the dedicated effort to fix Afghanistan, but that went out of the window and was curtailed in resources the moment Bush the lesser decided to attack Iraq.

[TheHammer]

The catch is that there are a lot of precedents for 'slippery slope' denials of basic rights and civil liberties spreading out to encompass a larger share of the population:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a communist..."

"First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out for I was not a terrorist... Then they went away and didn't bother anyone else".

That is the most likely scenario here folks. If you can give me an example of Obama ordering strikes on journalists, or political rivals, please bring those forth.

Et cetera.

So it's worth trying to clarify the situation. The prospect of a future president assassinating his domestic political opponents may not seem likely, but given that it's explicitly illegal for him to do that, how can that be illegal while making it legal for him to do this?

Clearly, Obama does not have the right to blow up members of a domestic political organization. Okay, what about a violent domestic organization? If we can say one American citizen who joins a foreign terrorist organization is a lawful target for a drone strike, how about a dozen of them? A hundred? A thousand?

If we've got hundreds or thousands of US citizens joining terrorist organizations we've got bigger problems. As far as drone strike targets, I think you'd need to look at specific scenarios.

It honestly is unclear to me what the legal argument is, that lets us blow up al-Awlaki, and forbids us from executing several hundred Americans without trial for allegedly being part of a domestic terrorist organization. Sure, if they're on our soil it might be convenient and practical to arrest them- but if we're within our rights to kill al-Awlaki in Yemen, why aren't we in our rights to kill him in Yerba Buena?

If there are domestic terrorists actively planning attacks, and we aren't able to capture them then they should be killed. Say you've got some holed up in a bunker somewhere (on US soil). They've got supplies to hold out for months. A direct assault to try and take the compound would likely get many soldiers/police killed, and in the end has a high probability of killing those inside anyway.

At the same time they have the ability to coordinate attacks at a time and place of their choosing without having to expose themselves directly. They've already done a few attacks with varying degrees of success, and had further plans to commit more. And as long as they are alive, you have no way to prevent them from doing so.

If that's the scenario you describe, then you've got something akin to the Awlaki situation. Except that in the compound scenario you at least had the enemy cornered. With Awlaki his "compound" was the country of Yemen, his guards his tribe members.

So Mr President, do you order the air strike?

[LaCroix]

Also, the same logic could be used to justify the 9/11 attacks - you just have to find one person per plane who is remotely attatched to the government or the finance industry. (Or simply arguing they were sitting in a Boeing, and thus indirectly financing arms production.)

Long shot, yes, but not much longer than the "al-Awlaki is a direct threat and must be killed" one.

[Simon_Jester]

My research may admittedly be missing something, but so far I haven't been able to find evidence of that.

You better add "evidence of that other than government say so from the same agencies that regularly misidentify targets" because based on my past debates with Hammer he will latch on to that and confidently assert it is self-evident because of [insert links with government saying so here].

I actually did add that.

Well, the evidence for the "active threat" angle, so far as I know, comes from various federal agencies and governments asserting that he was an active threat. A number of these same organizations also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take their word for it.

I find the very concept that because al-Awlaki potentially posed a threat to the US, we're totally justified in blowing him and several civilians near him up, with no due process or warning, very frightening. The precedent set is more or less that foreign nations are just as justified in blowing up non-uniformed American citizens as long as they get someone tangentially related to damaging a foreign government in the process.

So, I happen to be standing next to the chairman for Dow Chemical, and India sends a drone after him because he's related to planning activities that led to an attack on India (Bhopal). According to the precedent we set, that's cool, because as I was standing near him wearing nice clothes, I could reasonably be considered as in his organization. What?

We're basically setting the precedent:

Countries can have people assassinated whenever they want! As long as it's done under color of law, by claiming that you are "at war" with some nebulously defined... thing. This is a risky precedent to set. Sure, right now the US is militarily powerful enough to deter any opportunists who decide to blow up prominent Americans for harm those Americans have caused to their countries. But as robotics and, potentially, things like nanotech become more available, and if the US's relative position of power ever declines...

That would be a particularly nasty whirlwind to reap. Yeah.

The catch is that there are a lot of precedents for 'slippery slope' denials of basic rights and civil liberties spreading out to encompass a larger share of the population:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a communist..."

"First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out for I was not a terrorist... Then they went away and didn't bother anyone else".

That is the most likely scenario here folks. If you can give me an example of Obama ordering strikes on journalists, or political rivals, please bring those forth.

Are you so illiterate that you don't KNOW about all the many, many examples of this happening throughout history? We've HAD domestic political movements the establishment didn't like, that were labeled as terrorists and subjected to demonization and harassment, including wiretaps, agent provocateurs trying to maneuver them into committing terrorist acts in truth, character assassinations, and real assassinations.

See, the point you keep missing in the process of failing the Turing Test is that if you establish that it's okay to do something today, there is real risk that it will be done more often tomorrow in other ways. We've already seen the US government stage massive manhunts and pressure entire governments in an attempt to track down and punish a whistleblower, whose sole crime is exposing the extent to which our government spies on us.

Is it that farfetched that this administration, or a future one, would have him blown up in a drone strike given the opportunity? Hell, there are congressmen calling for exactly that! Wait four years; we might see President Paul Ryan ordering exactly that in an equivalent case, and a congressional majority cheering him on.

It's not likely but it's within the envelope of political possibility in America.

If we've got hundreds or thousands of US citizens joining terrorist organizations we've got bigger problems. As far as drone strike targets, I think you'd need to look at specific scenarios.

Stop dodging the question. Is it acceptable for the president to declare a large group (let us say, one hundred) of American citizens to be part of a terrorist organization, then declare them proscribed citizens, and have them killed?

If there are domestic terrorists actively planning attacks, and we aren't able to capture them then they should be killed. Say you've got some holed up in a bunker somewhere (on US soil). They've got supplies to hold out for months. A direct assault to try and take the compound would likely get many soldiers/police killed, and in the end has a high probability of killing those inside anyway.

At the same time they have the ability to coordinate attacks at a time and place of their choosing without having to expose themselves directly. They've already done a few attacks with varying degrees of success, and had further plans to commit more. And as long as they are alive, you have no way to prevent them from doing so.

If that's the scenario you describe, then you've got something akin to the Awlaki situation. Except that in the compound scenario you at least had the enemy cornered. With Awlaki his "compound" was the country of Yemen, his guards his tribe members.

So Mr President, do you order the air strike?

I seek to establish a procedure for doing this lawfully and openly, rather than acting as though I get to sign death warrants by virtue of sitting in the Oval Office.

Besides which your premise is bullshit because we're already reduced to using drone strikes, not against killers, but against people who act as cheerleaders for killers. You've yet to present any concrete evidence for the administration having restricted itself to killing people who materially, directly aided in launching violent attacks. On the contrary, so far you've established that we're blowing up the murderer's chaplain.

That'll show 'em.

[Thanas]

You can see the problem with the US approach even right now in the Ukraine. It is very hard to claim the moral high ground even if you have it in this particular issue when you are blowing up people around the world. The propaganda war there is already lost. No matter how aggressive Russia has become, they can always say "well we are not the nation currently bombing other people", no matter how much aid they funnel to assholes.

Is it really worth it to blow up some fundamentalists to always be on the defensive when it comes to really important topics?

[TheHammer]

My research may admittedly be missing something, but so far I haven't been able to find evidence of that.

You better add "evidence of that other than government say so from the same agencies that regularly misidentify targets" because based on my past debates with Hammer he will latch on to that and confidently assert it is self-evident because of [insert links with government saying so here].

I actually did add that.

Well, the evidence for the "active threat" angle, so far as I know, comes from various federal agencies and governments asserting that he was an active threat. A number of these same organizations also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take their word for it.

I find the very concept that because al-Awlaki potentially posed a threat to the US, we're totally justified in blowing him and several civilians near him up, with no due process or warning, very frightening. The precedent set is more or less that foreign nations are just as justified in blowing up non-uniformed American citizens as long as they get someone tangentially related to damaging a foreign government in the process.

So, I happen to be standing next to the chairman for Dow Chemical, and India sends a drone after him because he's related to planning activities that led to an attack on India (Bhopal). According to the precedent we set, that's cool, because as I was standing near him wearing nice clothes, I could reasonably be considered as in his organization. What?

We're basically setting the precedent:

Countries can have people assassinated whenever they want! As long as it's done under color of law, by claiming that you are "at war" with some nebulously defined... thing. This is a risky precedent to set. Sure, right now the US is militarily powerful enough to deter any opportunists who decide to blow up prominent Americans for harm those Americans have caused to their countries. But as robotics and, potentially, things like nanotech become more available, and if the US's relative position of power ever declines...

That would be a particularly nasty whirlwind to reap. Yeah.

The catch is that there are a lot of precedents for 'slippery slope' denials of basic rights and civil liberties spreading out to encompass a larger share of the population:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a communist..."

"First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out for I was not a terrorist... Then they went away and didn't bother anyone else".

That is the most likely scenario here folks. If you can give me an example of Obama ordering strikes on journalists, or political rivals, please bring those forth.

Are you so illiterate that you don't KNOW about all the many, many examples of this happening throughout history? We've HAD domestic political movements the establishment didn't like, that were labeled as terrorists and subjected to demonization and harassment, including wiretaps, agent provocateurs trying to maneuver them into committing terrorist acts in truth, character assassinations, and real assassinations.

See, the point you keep missing in the process of failing the Turing Test is that if you establish that it's okay to do something today, there is real risk that it will be done more often tomorrow in other ways. We've already seen the US government stage massive manhunts and pressure entire governments in an attempt to track down and punish a whistleblower, whose sole crime is exposing the extent to which our government spies on us.

Is it that farfetched that this administration, or a future one, would have him blown up in a drone strike given the opportunity? Hell, there are congressmen calling for exactly that! Wait four years; we might see President Paul Ryan ordering exactly that in an equivalent case, and a congressional majority cheering him on.

It's not likely but it's within the envelope of political possibility in America.

If we've got hundreds or thousands of US citizens joining terrorist organizations we've got bigger problems. As far as drone strike targets, I think you'd need to look at specific scenarios.

Stop dodging the question. Is it acceptable for the president to declare a large group (let us say, one hundred) of American citizens to be part of a terrorist organization, then declare them proscribed citizens, and have them killed?

If there are domestic terrorists actively planning attacks, and we aren't able to capture them then they should be killed. Say you've got some holed up in a bunker somewhere (on US soil). They've got supplies to hold out for months. A direct assault to try and take the compound would likely get many soldiers/police killed, and in the end has a high probability of killing those inside anyway.

At the same time they have the ability to coordinate attacks at a time and place of their choosing without having to expose themselves directly. They've already done a few attacks with varying degrees of success, and had further plans to commit more. And as long as they are alive, you have no way to prevent them from doing so.

If that's the scenario you describe, then you've got something akin to the Awlaki situation. Except that in the compound scenario you at least had the enemy cornered. With Awlaki his "compound" was the country of Yemen, his guards his tribe members.

So Mr President, do you order the air strike?

I seek to establish a procedure for doing this lawfully and openly, rather than acting as though I get to sign death warrants by virtue of sitting in the Oval Office.

Besides which your premise is bullshit because we're already reduced to using drone strikes, not against killers, but against people who act as cheerleaders for killers. You've yet to present any concrete evidence for the administration having restricted itself to killing people who materially, directly aided in launching violent attacks. On the contrary, so far you've established that we're blowing up the murderer's chaplain.

That'll show 'em.

TL/DR

I have no interest in exploring your far fetched hypothetical scenarios, and I don't share your slippery slope fears.

Clearly we greatly disagree on who Awlaki was, what he represented, and his role in AQAP. You don't feel there is enough known evidence that he was a legitimate threat, and thus legitimate military target, whereas I do. And I see no possible means by which we will get around that. Any larger debate on this specific instance becomes impossible because that core issue cannot be conclusively settled.

You can see the problem with the US approach even right now in the Ukraine. It is very hard to claim the moral high ground even if you have it in this particular issue when you are blowing up people around the world. The propaganda war there is already lost. No matter how aggressive Russia has become, they can always say "well we are not the nation currently bombing other people", no matter how much aid they funnel to assholes.

Is it really worth it to blow up some fundamentalists to always be on the defensive when it comes to really important topics?

A lot of the good the EU's moral high ground is doing on that same issue right? The fact is when it comes to international politics, the "moral highground" isn't worth a whole lot strategically or tactically.

[Terralthra]

TL/DR

I have no interest in exploring your far fetched hypothetical scenarios, and I don't share your slippery slope fears.

Clearly we greatly disagree on who Awlaki was, what he represented, and his role in AQAP. You don't feel there is enough known evidence that he was a legitimate threat, and thus legitimate military target, whereas I do. And I see no possible means by which we will get around that. Any larger debate on this specific instance becomes impossible because that core issue cannot be conclusively settled.

Dude, there is no slippery slope. The US has assassinated a US citizen whose acts which made him a "legitimate military target" have been repeatedly held by the SCOTUS to be First-Amendment-protected speech. That isn't a farfetched hypothetical scenario, that's what actually happened.