Could someone inform the WH this is simply not progress:
The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.
The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.
To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the approval of the National Security Council, required no judicial review.
Love the strong words from the Times- “uneasy.” Assassinating citizens makes “some people uneasy.” You know what makes me uneasy- taking a sip from the milk container a day after the expiration and it tastes a little sour. Or cleaning up dog vomit.
The fact that we are ordering the assassination of own citizens makes me furious, even if it is someone who has done the things al-Awlaki is alleged to have done.
Brien Jackson
From what I’ve heard of the program’s specifics it seems to be clearly un-Constitutional, but in the more general sense, there’s no question that the government can kill you, citizen or not, without a trial in some circumstances. That really should be obvious.
Unabogie
Will this hit the courts? Can our resident lawyers chime in on who might have standing to challenge this?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
I say we get a judge to issue a warrant for his arrest, then send High Sheriff GG and his prog posse over to Yemen to arrest him. Sounds reasonable to me.
D-Chance.
@Unabogie: I would think Anwar al-Awlaki might have an interest in the case…
Bill Murray
Isn’t the sensible centrist thing to do to inter the Muslims until the end of the GWOT?
robertdsc
That this isn’t even part of the determination process is what’s sickening. Executive branch approval only is disgusting.
Just Some Fuckhead
Can’t we just send the drug enforcement SWAT team to his house, shoot and kill his dogs and then taser him to death? What’s with all this assassination drama?
Ya know what makes me uneasy? Damn near everything.
Ed Marshall
I think we should get out of the business of wacking people with robots altogether, but if our idea of the war on terror is to fly predators into nowhereland and blow-up terrorists I would find it fucking completely ridiculous if they had to blow up everyone *except* that one guy because he’s a U.S. citizen and presumably send an FBI Team to nowhereland to arrest him.
Uloborus
I’m kind of blanking on why this is an issue. The man can’t be arrested and brought to trial. He’s hiding in a remote and violently hostile area, among a tribe that has publicly sworn to kill anyone who tries, behind thousands of human shields. Oh, and he’s continuing to threaten American lives while doing so, although admittedly I’m not sure how.
If you can’t kill people under those circumstances, then the police have no justification ever using deadly force. They wouldn’t have snipers.
The only thing that makes this different is how cold-bloodedly premeditated it is. If we have a chance to plan it, I do think some kind of judicial review would be excellent. Doesn’t seem to have been put in place as a process yet.
Bear in mind, he’s not being denied due process. He has *made due process impossible* by his own choice.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
You all do realize he is with and being protected by a small AQ army in the badlands of Yemen. And that it is the Yemeni government that is trying there damndest to kill the dude too. While I agree in theory, it is not a good or constitutional thing to make a habit of a president putting death decrees to American Citizens, but the guy is fighting with a foreign force that we are something like at war with on something like a foreign battlefield, and that make no bones about wanting to kill any American on sight. Just something to ponder with the outrage.
mikey
I’m sorry, but I’m a little confused. Didn’t there used to be a country – I think it was across the atlantic from Europe, if memory serves – who held itself to a higher standard and called out other totalitarian dictatorships who ordered extra judicial killings and detention without due process and touted it’s bona fides by referring to the Nuremberg trials?
I sure wish there was still a shining beacon of democratic ideals and the rule of law like that in the world today. Those dudes had the courage to accept that there might me a risk to living their values, but it was better to die in freedom than live in fear…
mikey
cat48
NYT is still using “alleged target”. They don’t have proof the WH has signed off on this and Holder denied he had on This Week prog. The CIA could kill him deliberately or accidentally though because he is alleged to be in the lawless area of Yemen & the Yemeni government is targeting al Qaeda in that area and al Awlaki & his family is fully aware of it. His father frequently goes on CNN by phone from somewhere if drones get too close. Don’t know where he lives but he knows how to get on CNN somehow.
Have little sympathy at this point since Abumattalab confessed that al Awlaki helped him in constructing and fitting his panty bomb. Yes, he should have a trial, but he knows he’s wanted and he still remains in areas frequented by al Qaeda in AP so there is a good chance he will get killed by accident. If he’s assisting with bombers that want to blow up planeloads of innocent civilians, that is his choice.
John Cole
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Y’all have learned nothing about precedent, have you. We didn’t start out knocking down doors with SWAT teams and shooting people’s dogs 40 years ago, either.
John Cole
And you all would be freaking the fuck out if Bush did this, and rightly so.
Brien Jackson
@Uloborus:
If there’s no judicial review involved in the process, I have a hard time imagining how the due process requirement could be fulfilled by the program.
Ed Marshall
I’d find it ten times creepier if we had a court issuing death warrants on people. That’s a concept you don’t want to start playing with. At least in the ad-hoc way it happens you haven’t made an institution out of it.
I’d really prefer we either made a decision that this is so important we are going to land troops and get these people or it’s only important enough to rate sending a robot so we do that because that sounds like bullshit.
Brien Jackson
@John Cole:
I’m pretty uneasy about it given the details we know so far, but if there was a layer of judicial review in the process, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I’m not really sure why it should be a big deal.
Elisabeth
@cat48:
I doubt Holder would admit to it; it’s way too easy to deny the US had any involvement should the guy end up dead. One also has to wonder if he even really knows that way he can claim ignorance. (Didn’t see This Week this week so I don’t know how he answered the question.)
Ed Marshall
Bush did do this, just no one in his administration gave two seconds thought to it.
cat48
@robertdsc: This is only a rumor still or they wouldn’t be using “alleged target”. This is not the lst story the NYT has done and they are still using “alleged” Trying to smoke it out for sure.
Holder denied it on Sunday show. Sure WH would also if asked directly.
Bill H
Fighting wars is one thing. A bad thing, but sometimes necessary. Assassination of anyone, citizen or not, just strikes me as something that a “great nation” should not be doing.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@John Cole: It all depends on where this is happening. We didn’t first try to arrest German-Americans that decided to join the German Army. It is a very tough call, and I am not comfortable with it. But so long as the guy is being protected by an AQ force or sorts, I say that is a foreign battlefield. Even GG recognizes the significance of that designation. Though he doesn’t call this situation as meeting that standard, I think it is highly debatable. As for SWAT teams knocking down doors, I think that is an analogy stretch, but maybe not. I tend to think of it more as a hostage situation whereby this dude is planning and sending out orders and people to kill as many Americans and others as possible. You just can’t ignore that. Though maybe something like a trial in absentia first would be a better idea than just signing a death order. I agree about not feeling comfortable about that.
Brien Jackson
@Bill H:
How do you define assassination? Should the US not have shot down Yamamoto’s plane? Taken a chane to kill Hitler? Etc.?
cat48
Unfortunately, people in Intelligence give these leaks and people just assume…….they are still guessing on FP site if it was ordered.
I do know that Intelligence has been in Yemen for quite a few yrs now and Spec. Ops. is only “assisting” Yemen. The Yemeni govt takes the lead supposedly.
mikey
Not a big deal, huh? Here’s the problem. We say it’s a ‘war’, but it’s not a war. It doesn’t look like a war, it doesn’t smell like a war, and it’s pretty obviously NOT a war. We’re not at war in Yemen, we’re not at war in Pakistan.
Maybe. Maybe if the dude was in Afghanistan. Although I don’t remember any declaration of war there, or even any explanation of WHO we’re at war WITH and how we identify them.
But if you think it’s ok that a Government (in this case yours) can invent a case where it’s just another action in a war to murder an American Citizen, you’re asking to live in a world it’s hard to even begin to visualize. You’re effectively giving them free reign to define the conflict, the enemy and the action. Are you really SURE that’s the road you want to go down? If you think they won’t expand this ‘war’ to include, well, who knows, right?, you are offering up an awful lot of trust in a government that has done nothing recently to earn it.
For gawds sake. Why are we SO afraid we’re willing to piss on our most cherished values to keep ‘them’ from killing ‘us’? What kind of cowards have we become? What level of peace do we think we deserve, that we can rain death on neighborhoods thousands of miles away and they have nothing to say about it?
If that’s what it means to be an American in the 21st century, I fucking quit…
mikey
Just Some Fuckhead
What Mikey said.
We’re only a War On Obesity away from ridding ourselves of many of you. Hehe.
I will still oppose your assassinations on principle, of course.
cat48
I am a coward when I get on a plane. I don’t want to give my life so al Awlaki can keep helping terrorists make panty bombs in Yemen. I believe in processing terrorists caught here thru the justice system.
I doubt he is even in Yemen any longer.
Just Some Fuckhead
Stuck, don’t relax because yer in shape. You’ll be the first casualty in a War on Illiteracy. :)
Darkmoth
Riddle me this:
How do you justify risking the lives of American troops to capture this guy in an actual war zone, when any cop can and will bust a cap in your ass for grabbing a cell phone? I’d really like to know.
The bald truth is al-Awlaki is far safer in Yemen than he would be in any crack house on US soil. And he’s a terrorist.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Coming from the blog dunce, that is a compliment. Now drop dead.
mikey
My kingdom for a Generally Accepted Definition of the word “Terrorist”.
Along with “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, this is the most manipulated and dishonest phrase in the English Language…
mikey
Ed Marshall
@mikey:
I like that better. I think what irritates me about the controversy is that Obama signing death warrants for foreigners seems to be a no-brainer but for an American, that’s terrible!
Here is why you couldn’t have “death warrant” court: It’s not in the power of the court to do that, and it’s not legal for the executive to order assassinations. Period. For anybody.
QDC
@John Cole:
There’s no way to disprove that, I suppose. I do note that Harold Koh–an absolute firebreather when it came to denouncing torture–is arguing for it, and I give some weight to that. Of course, I suppose he might have been co-opted as well.
Substantively, it’s defensible for two reasons. First, al-Awlaki can avail himself of the full process due a US citizen by turning himself in at the U.S. consulate and facing criminal charges. To the extent military force is being contemplated it is because he is essentially fortified.
Second, this is a relatively (though not completely) straightforward exercise of military force, aimed at an unquestionably legitimate target, Al Qaeda. There’s no judicial review involved in bombing a foreign enemy, even when a US citizen is among the enemies. Nor would review of the decision to engage a particular AQ target be constitutional.
This is, far more clearly than what Bush did, a conventional use of military force.
Query: If Osama bin Laden had been born in New Mexico, and was known to be hiding in a cave in Yemen, could we legitimately bomb suspected hideouts without involving the courts?
cat48
@Darkmoth: I’m not justifying anything. The troops have been there for yrs. Saudi Arabia has been fighting people trying to invade their country from Yemen. Can’t remember what they are called, a nomadic group, not AQ. That’s probably how the troops ended up in Yemen because Yemen’s gov consists of one city. The rest are people who live there along with AQ. They are running out of water there so they often attack the Saudi border. Long story…..lawless area like Somalia.
MTiffany
Gotta call you on an error:
The quote is “makes some legal authorities uneasy.” Apparently the only people’s opinions who ought to count in this matter are those with J.D. after their name. Which is complete and utter bullshit, IMNSHO.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Not me, not from what I know about this particular situation.
Zifnab25
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
I think this is one of those fridge cases where you have to ask what US citizenship means. This is a guy living in hiding, in a foreign country, having built up a terrorist organization around him. If he was a Yemenese citizen, we’d be looking at business as usual.
Al-Awlaki isn’t a guy smoking a joint on his back porch. He isn’t even a Huratree militia member, camping out in the Michigan wilderness, making threats on a low rent website. He’s (allegedly) a foreign terrorist organization ringleader. If the CIA isn’t allowed to call in an airstrike on this guy, who the hell are they allowed to call in airstrikes on?
I mean, I can even understand making the argument that we shouldn’t be dropping bombs on “alleged terrorist suspects” regardless of their citizenship. But holding up Al-Awlaki’s birthright as a paper shield against the CIA, while letting all his non-citizen compatriots die in discrete car explosions, is bureaucratic idolatry, not any kind of moral standard.
JG
What this comes down to is whether some of the commenters here/Democrats/Progressives are willing to cede the power they so willingly cede to BHO – to declare without any trial, due process, or proceeding of any kind that an American citizen must be assassinated – to a Republican president. To me, any policy that’s sole basis for oversight is trusting the executive to do the right thing is probably misguided at a minimum if not outright dangerous.
There are all sorts of things most of us trust BHO to do but wouldn’t trust a Republican to do and but governance shouldn’t work like that. What one President can do, especially in this era, another can do as well and most likely can even stretch those bounds during his own term in office.
cat48
@Zifnab25: Exactly.
And Another Thing...
John;
Thank you for the post & the commentary.
Darkmoth
@cat48:
cat, what I mean is that LEOs are expected to make every effort to capture someone while not exposing themselves to undue risk. No one would expect a police officer to waltz into a bank full of AK-47 wielding men without his own gun drawn, and deadly force at the ready.
Yet at the same time, we’re supposed to envision a scenario where American troops can go into a far more fortified situation with the primary expectation that they should extract this man alive? Who has to commit suicide to do this, and why don’t we expect US LEOs to commit suicide in similar fashion?
MattR
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: And Sadaam Hussein had WMD’s. Haven’t you learned anything about trusting government assertions made without evidence, especially when those assertions are being made by anonymous sources?
Corner Stone
@John Cole:
Holy shit.
Looking glass —–> John Cole
Corner Stone
@Bill Murray: It’s the only way to be sure.
Well, that or nuke their dirty god damn brown terrorist asses.
mr. whipple
Wow, this is a messy one.
My first thought is if, in any other previous war, a US citizen took up arms and harbor within an enemy would there be any argument over killing them in any fashion?
El Cid
Why didn’t Reagan just shoot Americans who seemed too close to the Sandinistas? I mean, he could at least have made up stuff about them being involved in terrorist activities, but if an allegation was made, why not just blow them the fuck up? National security was at stake.
cat48
Republican or Democrat, it is out of my control. Congress knows exactly what is going on and they cooperate. It’s not something they vote in public on.
mikey
GAWD! How hard is this. You guys wanna say that this is nothing more than a guy who’s at war with us, and we can kill him because it’s a WAR. But who gets to determine who we’re at war with? We don’t have to declare war anymore, that was decided a long time ago. But then we determined the UN couldn’t tell us who to go to war against. We were at war with Iraq, but for fucks sake, WE STARTED IT. Are you really that comfortable with some open ended definition of war as “we kill people who scare us”? I gotta tell you, I’ve BEEN in combat and I hate that.
How hard is this to understand? If we let the government decide who we’re at war with, we let the government decide who to kill. They can decide it’s one guy today, and another guy tomorrow. Once you cede this power, you can’t grab it back if they exceed your numbed sensibilities in the future. Understand what you’re giving them. It’s a blank check to kill people they define as a threat. For whatever reason. If you’re really ok with that, frankly, you’re an idiot…
mikey
Corner Stone
@mikey:
Jamaica?
El Cid
@mikey: Look, if the government says you’re guilty, then they get to blow you up. How much more complicated do you need to make it?
Zifnab25
@JG:
This isn’t just any American citizen. He’s a known terrorist ringleader.
I don’t trust a Republican President with the powers imbued a city dog catcher. The difference between a Republican President and a Democrat President is that the Democrat will actually go after terrorists. If we’re going to only pass out authority at the lowest common denominator, we’re going to have to move into a Constitutional Anarchy. Because, holy shit, President of the United States Sarah Palin. What authority would you trust her with?
The US military kills people. Always has. Likely, always will. If you want to talk about implementing safeguards or restrictions, let’s hear’m. But the sudden shock at the idea that the US Military might kill someone protected by the Golden Impenetrable Shield of US Citizenship in a terrorist haven in freak’n Yemen… seriously?
Darkmoth
@JG:
I think that is too high a bar. For example, I would absolutely not trust John McCain with the nuclear football, or for that matter, control of our armed forces in the first place.
Should I then take the position that no President should have these powers? The point is not to make the Executive Office moron-proof, but to avoid putting morons in the Executive Office.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@JG:
OH, it’s much worse than that. As Bush proved, if left unfettered, a president can do whatever the fuck he wants, whether others have done so or not. Whether or not Obama is doing this is of little comport with that. It is either illegal or not. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, as they say. And this case offers legitimate evidence that it is not illegal based on all laws of war, both internationally and domestically. When you are on a foreign battlefield plotting attacks against your fellows citizens of birth, then that is debatable, at a minimum, and at maximum fully within such legalities to be killed yourself. When some gunmen has a gun to someones head, he has no rights further bestowed when his deliberate actions threaten the life of another citizen. This guy is plotting to kill his fellow citizens, and has been complicit in doing so, according to the government. Not only ours, but many others including the one he is currently hiding with his army of AQ. I would like to have a legal proceeding to air the evidence and let a judge and maybe even a jury decide if the evidence warrants such action. And the guy can anytime surrender to a local US consolate to get his day in court to fight the charges. But you can’t hide among hostile forces and claim immunity and free passage to carry out terrorist attacks. IMHO>
Keith G
@John Cole:
So, John, given the facts we have, what would be the correct policy?
cat48
@Darkmoth: personally I think it is just in case he’s hit by an air raid of some type. The pitiful govt that Yemen has does have jets believe it or not……….no water; but jets & a couple drones.
MattR
@Zifnab25:
How is this known? Who is telling you and what evidence are they providing? IANAL, but if it was so obvious that he was guilty of something, couldn’t he have been tried in absentia at some point over the past 5+ years? (well, other than the fact that neither Bush nor Obama have wanted accused terrorists to get their day in court)
Corner Stone
@El Cid:
Co-sign like a motherfucker! Hells to the Yeah!!
QDC
@MattR:
So should we have had a trial to get a “war warrant” before invading Iraq? As an objection to the policy of allowing the executive to order a military strike against a terrorist organization headed by a US citizen, I don’t follow the WMD analogy.
It is possible that this sort of policy could lead to mistakes, as military air strikes all to frequently do, but we do not generally regard them as beyond the power of the executive for that reason.
@JG:
I’m trying hard to drop my trust for this particular president as a determinative factor, though admittedly, I can’t know what I would have felt about this under Bush. But several people have now made substantive points in defense of the policy, so it seems unfair to respond by continuing to accuse them of cognitive bias in favor of a dem president without addressing the arguments.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@MattR: You didn’t read all I said, I would like an in absentia legal proceeding layer like someone else offered up thread. Or at least an indictment, or review of evidence by some neutral party. like a judge.
mikey
@Keith G: The correct policy would be to accept the risk that comes from our values and the rule of law, and understand that if somebody wants to try to kill us, and we can’t stop them legally, we will absorb the blow because that is the cost of freedom.
We used to understand this clearly. Now we want to become some kind of wannabe soviet dictatorship because our precious little skins are at risk. Fuck you. Buck up, have a little goddam pride and carry your shit and stop crying, fer crissakes…
mikey
gwangung
What’s the problem with trials in abstentia, then military action to bring him in?
Brien Jackson
No, not really. In principle this is more like a situation where a guy is holding a room full of hostages at gunpoint threatening to kill them if he doesn’t get $1 billion. The general principle is that he is an active threat to other people, and it’s well within the government’s authority to kill him if that’s the most prudent way to eliminate the threat. I agree that there needs to be some meaningful layers of oversight to review the evidence against the target to make sure it’s legitimate though.
cat48
@MattR: Actually that is who Lieberman is after with that citizenship bill. They must be giving him special consideration in some way. That is the Right’s solution….strip citizenship. He wants it for tribunals too, but Awlaki’s name always comes up.
Zifnab25
@mikey:
You have control in what the definition of war is based on who you want to put in the White House and the Congress. If we had a majority public that seriously wanted to cut funding for the War on Terror, or a US President that wanted to just pull the troops out and come home, we’d put these people in office.
But as of now, we’ve got other concerns. We elect representatives that openly warmonger or remain generally apathetic. We had the option of electing Dennis Kuccinich to the White House in 2008, and the majority of America said “Pass”.
Zifnab25
@MattR: Fuck dude. How do you trust anybody about anything?
Was Al Capone a mafia Don? Or was the FBI just stringing us along?
Did Al Qaeda fly planes into the Twin Towers, or was it a controlled demolition?
Did we ever really land on the moon? Who really assassinated Kennedy? ?!?!?!
At a certain point, you’ve got to assume that if the CIA says “He’s a terrorist” and there’s no compelling evidence otherwise, that he’s actually a terrorist. Otherwise, we’re just down the rabbit hole because we can’t believe anything ever.
Mike Kay
oh not this shit again. we’ve already went though this.
The perfect example is the german americans who returned to germany and enlisted in the Waffen SS during the outbreak of world war II, and then parachuted behind allied lines, dressed as american MPs and killed boat loads of GIs during the battle of the bulge. If the fuckers won’t surrender, you kill them. Their american citizenship isn’t a get-to-kill-american-free card.
QDC
@mikey:
The capacity to wage war is truly a frightening amount of power, but who–aside from the government–is going to decide who we wage war with. Popular referendum? A panel of retired judges? Halliburton?
The government claims that this individual is leading a band of others actively plotting attacks on the US. That is their claim, and we may doubt it. Taking that claim as a starting point, how do those who find “drop a bomb” to be an unacceptable answer suggest proceeding?
So far I have heard “try him in absentia.” That is a reasonable suggestion, though it might be impractical in some cases. I’m also unclear if a conviction would let us, you know, drop a bomb on him if he is indeed fortified among a band of armed insurgents, but it’s a start.
mikey
@Brien Jackson: Brien. That’s fucking ridiculous. This guy has NO hostages. He isn’t anywhere NEAR America. He recommends that people attack America. The Soviets pointed NUCLEAR weapons at America. How are we picking these wars? How are we prosecuting these wars. We fight the Taliban and the Haqqanis because we can’t FIND al Quaeda. We invaded Iraq because of an attack on our nation by Saudis planned out of Afghanistan, funded out of Qatar and implemented from Germany.
If we’re going to kill everybody who recommends that people attack the US, we’re going to have to start with congress, and move on to NorKor, Egypt and Venezuela. Try to live in the REAL world for a minute, ok?
mikey
AhabTRuler
@Zifnab25: No, I think I can disbelieve the CIA without calling into question my bedrock principles. Y’see, they have a history.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Mike Kay: Cole is uncomfortable about this shit, and rightly so imo. I think it is a lot more complicated, or simpler maybe than he does, but I sure respect anyone who is flat against it. It is dirty business, and open for debate imo. And especially after eight year of Bush/Cheney bloodletting criminality.
mikey
@QDC: How about use our vaunted “superpower” status and pre-empt the attacks? They haven’t been significantly successful so far, which might actually have something to do with our LEGAL counter terror operations. But hey, why let process work when we can give our government the power that Stalin had, right?
mikey
MattR
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Dude, your response to “And you all would be freaking the fuck out if Bush did this, and rightly so.” was “Not me, not from what I know about this particular situation.” Apparently, I completely misunderstood you, but now I have no idea WTF you meant by that.
@Zifnab25:
I fundamentally disagree with this and think it is exactly backwards. If the CIA wants to kill an American citizen as a terrorist then they should have to provide some sort of compelling evidence that he is a terrorist. They don’t have to make that evidence public. It could be like the FISA court in some respects. But some third party should be looking at the evidence and weighing its validity before we start issuing death warrants.
@Mike Kay: If we find al-Awlaki on the battlefield, he is fair game. Nobody is saying he should be arrested in that case.
Keith G
@mikey:
No answer there. Seriously, does the US have an obligation to protect citizens from other citizens trying to harm them?
Can Al-Awlaki be treated in the same way as Bin Laden? It not, how can the threat to the lives of Americans that Al-Awlaki poses be dealt with?
robertdsc
This. Get a conviction FIRST, then drop the Predator missile on his ass.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@mikey: If in fact he is plotting funding and sending out people to kill others, then the spatial distinctions are irrelevant in my opinion. So, yes, that even though that would be literally different than someone holding a gun to a persons head, in practical and legal effect they would be the same.
gwangung
@mikey: A trial in abstentia IS a legal process. There is plenty of precedent for it.
What’s your objection to it?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@MattR:
This is mutual
gwangung
@robertdsc:
Is there a problem with this? (Though I suspect a judicial proceeding might be fairer….)
QDC
@mikey:
By preempt do you mean that we would attempt to disrupt each plot as it is executed? That seems clearly insufficient, both as policy and as an outer limit on executive power; the fact that their bombs have so far fizzled notwithstanding.
Would we be able to take any direct action against al-Awlaki as part of our legal counter terrorism efforts, in your view? What would that action look like?
Mike Kay
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: I would have no problem mowing down Benedict Arnold or any other US citizen who joined the waffen SS or the Gestapo or Al Qaedia.
Corner Stone
@Zifnab25: Zifnab – normally I give your comments a lot of credence. But this post is out of control ridiculous.
cat48
His family knows and most importantly, HE knows, he’s wanted. Yet, if he remains in the area, he knows he might get hit because the Yemeni Army is after AQAP.
What do we do about him assisting with panty bombs??? Say carry on, Son, but you are going to be in big trouble someday!
mr. whipple
I would imagine this would have to be done under some rules of state secrecy, etc. So, who would know if the judgement was fair, or just a kangaroo court?
Mike Kay
@gwangung: because we are at war, and time is of the essence. Geez, we killed Admiral Yamamoto and Reinhard Heydrich without a trial.
Didn’t all you hippies say you wanted Obama to be more like FDR.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Mike Kay: Me neither, but I think in a case like this, it would be better to have the evidence reviewed first by a judge. AFter eight years of Bush, and just for the sake of public legalities, I say that is a good idea.
mogden
This is a disgrace. I don’t care if it’s Bush or Obama. They should both burn in hell for this as far as I am concerned.
Ed Marshall
@robertdsc:
You can’t go to fucking court and get an order to set a predator on someone. It’s not how it works. This isn’t in our legal system and If congress passed a law to create an Article I court of “trying people we can’t catch so we can bomb them” the whole thing would implode immediately. There is no “due process” here and it ends in capital punishment. Such a court wouldn’t be in the most remote sense of the word “legal” and it’s so obvious that SCOTUS would have to remove it instantly. For fucks sake, if you are going to be civil libertarians try harder.
cat48
@mogden: If there is a hell, they probably will.
MattR
@Ed Marshall: Why can’t you just try them for a crime that carries the death penalty and allow a sentencing of death by Predator? I would even suggest allowing them legal representation to question the government’s case. In what way is that unconsitutional?
And a question for the room – Is there anyone here who thinks that if al-Awlaki turned himself in, he would actully be put on trial, as opposed to ending up in Guantanamo or somewhere similar?
Keith G
@MattR:
This sounds like an appropriate way to start.
mikey
@Ed Marshall: Thank you.
I don’t want to live in a world where some court can consider some kind of ‘evidence’ (likely in secret) and then launch a military strike. That’s neither due process nor liberty as defined and defended by our founders.
Once again. You are cowards. You either believe in your legal and political system and you accept the risk of that belief, or you are a thug. And we’ve learned pretty much all we need to know here…
mikey
cat48
@MattR: Depends on where it happened. I think he could arrange to surrender in US and it would be a civilian trial IF the Congress doesn’t wimp out. The Congress knows all about this or Lieberman wouldn’t be so concentrated on this person. They already wimped out on the 9/11 terrorists in case no one’s noticed. They are no help to doing things a new way. At least the Justice Dept tried.
QDC
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
It’s an understandable thought to have some review, but when I start thinking about the specifics, I can’t imagine it.
To start with, there is no pleading the CIA can file to get a death warrant. You go to a judge and ask to bomb someone and they will just stare blankly. It’s a totally new process, that means it needs legislation.
So, how does the legislation look? Well, suppose that we think the president already has the power to simply order this, and we just want to put some safeguards on it. It’s hard to imagine a restriction of an acknowledged war power of the president surviving constitutional challenge.
Suppose the president doesn’t have this kind of standing power, and we think the legislation will create it. It would seem to me that, if we don’t think this power exists as part of the war power, then it’s going to be subject to due process limitations.
But what it god’s name does due process look like here? Can he see the evidence? Can he assist counsel? Can he cross-examine witnesses? Can he appeal? Of course not, they’re planning on killing him! It couldn’t even be public. This power only makes sense as part of war, and the exercise of war power is not reviewable.
Darkmoth
@gwangung:
Frankly, I am unclear as to whether a conviction is required to kill him.
I don’t know if you remember the 1997 LA bank robbers – body armor, military weapons – but both robbers were killed on the scene, while trying to escape.
Clearly there was no trial involved, no up-front judicial review, etc. Since the robbers were trying to escape, their deaths were a clear prioritization of execution over capture (since the police could have let them go and tracked them down later).
What, exactly, makes the deaths of those robbers legal, while making al-Awlaki’s death illegal? Does threat to a law enforcement officer override the need for due process, or is that included in due process?
It’s not cut-and-dried.
Mike Kay
the moral of the story, US citizens shouldn’t join Al-Qaeda or any affiliated terror organizations.
MattR
@cat48:
Do you really want to take that bet? :)
@MattR: Google and wikipedia are my friend. I did not realize that there was an absolute ban on trials in absentia in the USA. So my practical solution doesn’t pass Constitutional muster. Damn. Still better than no review. And this is defintely an issue that is a real world problem that needs a resolution
Mike Kay
If Osama Bin Laden is ever killed, I hope none of yous cry because he was knocked off without a trial.
Corner Stone
@cat48:
Do you mean the DoJ?
cat48
@mikey: That is real righteous, but it doesn’t solve the problem.
Corner Stone
@Mike Kay:
As usual, you are a moran. The moral is that the state can determine, basically with no limit, whether you deserve to live or die.
robertdsc
@Mike Kay:
He has been indicted for terrorism. He’s on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. Why not do this very same thing for Awlaki?
Ed Marshall
@MattR:
Just because it’s kind of fun, I’m going to play along here but you can’t have trials without the defendant ever being arraigned. You just can’t, that goes back to early English common law.
Well, the first thing that jumps in my mind would be “is death by predator cruel or unusual punishment?” and it’s damn sure unusual.
The second thing is that now that you have made it a capital case you need to conform to Gregg vs. Georgia. Now your trial with no defendant needs another trial to determine sentencing. Okay, now he gets his appeals (which he isn’t there for), but lets assume he has mitigating factors. He had a bad homelife, his dad beat him, he’s got mental health issues. What do you do with that information?
You just can’t do this. Either blow the people up or don’t, but don’t drag the courts into this.
Brien Jackson
@mikey:
The legal system contains instances where you can be legally killed prior to conviction.
cat48
@Corner Stone: No I mean the Congress who goes on TV & whines that everyone in NY will die if the DOJ tries a terrorist in NY. Schumer, Gillibrand, all the other Reps. in NY. I can’t remember one standing with the WH or DOJ after they announced the trial. I remember a whole lot of public whining from them. The Dems I mean. Don’t put this crap on the Admin. They have clearly & loudly been told NO by NY, DC, VA. All the courts they wanted to use.
mikey
@Brien Jackson: It’s the internet. We have linkies and shit. Provide examples or shut up..
mikey
QDC
@Brien Jackson:
I wouldn’t bother responding to mikey. I’m pretty sure his mind is made up. Plus he might call you mean names.
Tim P.
Agree with mikey here. There’s no such thing as Al Quada really, it’s just a loose confederation of disparate groups – highly distributed, fluid membership – such that there’s no real definition of the term. To say we’re ‘at war’ with the group is ludicrous. The situation is in no way analagous to WWII. The authoritarianism on display here is pretty sobering; just on the government’s say so – secret evidence, not even a cursory review by a disinterested party – a citizen will be executed. The precedent is absolutely frightening – if you can’t think of ways it can and would be abused, you’re not trying. The SWAT team example is apt. I understand the dude’s a scumbag (or so we’ve been told), but lashing out in rightous fury – repudiating past protections for the sake of expediency – just because we’re scared and demand security is no way to run a society. IMO.
Brien Jackson
@mikey:
You need links to tell you that the police can kill perps/suspects before they have a trial under the law? Really?
gwangung
@MattR: OK, that answers that (which is a lot more useful than some of the discussion).
Next question: can we send troops in to make an arrest? What objections are to this?
mclaren
Wait until the “terror suspect” who gets assassinated is your sister or your brother or your father or your mother.
You’ll learn a whole new definition of “uneasy.”
Darkmoth
@mikey:
Here’s one example:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/
another
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident
Obviously, there are hundreds more, most of which don’t make the news. Execution without conviction.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@QDC: All they need is to get an arrest warrant, seems to me. Then comes the dilemma of serving it to bring this guy in. We both agree this will be a military type operation to accomplish. But what kind? I am flat against using Predator Drones firing Hellfire missiles into occupied dwellings in this particular type of warfare, where you can’t be sure who you will kill, or even kill the person you are after. I want eyes on, whether that’s a drone attack out in the open and this suspect can be identified before we pull the trigger.
There is also the step taken, I would like as to communicate in some way with this dude, that he can surrender first and get his trial. I don’t know if this can be done, but the effort must be made IMO.
When we corner a killer with an arrest warrant in this country, and he doesn’t give up peacefully, and is known to be armed. We just don’t walk away because he is a citizen. We balance force with coercion until coercion no longer works, or if anyone elses life is put at risk. A suspect forfeits his right to life and liberty if he does not comply with a legal order for his arrest and in fact resists that arrest when with deadly weapons.
This would be no different in principle, only against someone fortified with his own army of sorts.
QDC
@gwangung:
Suppose we send in troops and they encounter hostile fire. Could they call in a Predator strike at that point?
mclaren
Oh, and by the way…if you think it’s not perfectly legitimate for police officers to execute innocent people, check out this little nugget of police state goodness:
D.A. clears police officer who killed innocent man wearing same color shirt as robbery suspect.
Wear the wrong shirt, get executed by a cop. And it’s legal! Ho-hum. That’s life in the You Hess of A.
cat48
@Tim P.: I agree but that is the way everything was set up after 9/11. It’s something that could be changed by pulling out of the countries we are occupying, but I’m old and not up to the fight anymore. We are slowly leaving Iraq & the public has turned on Afghanistan so it will be different in a few yrs I hope. People have to pitch a bitch by showing up in person and no one is doing that. I fought the Viet Nam War. This one’s ya’lls.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@cat48: A bunch of us will, I expect. I just hope to land on the dope smoking hippie wing, if it wouldn’t be too much to ask.
mikey
@Darkmoth: And who is this guy discharging his firearm at from Yemen?
mikey
gwangung
@QDC: It seems to me the moment force is used to avoid a lawful attempt to arrest, the options open up. At some point, a drone attack would be over-inclusive and inappropriate response; at others, it would be appropriate.
Say there is a response using something heavier than hand weapon fire–howitzers, RPGs, etc. Is there a problem calling in a Predator? Because, at that moment, you are in an armed battle…
MattR
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Now I’m with ya :)
Corner Stone
@cat48:
Who gives a shit?
Where does this responsibility lie? Fuck the preening politicians. Doesn’t someone eventually end up with the rule of law decision?
mikey
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: How about we don’t panic and worry about some dude sixteen thousand miles away and instead stick to our belief in our values and constitution and do what we can and live with the consequences?
Whacky, right? I KNOW!
mikey
cat48
@gwangung: Spec. Ops are there in small numbers. Yemen is ordering hits. No more dead troops to capture this scum!
Yutsano
@gwangung: Not from me, although I have zero issue letting the Predators loose after the conviction is obtained. That’s all the military operation I’m comfortable with.
gwangung
@mikey: You’re just trolling now.
Sigh.
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Or if that motherfucker has a corgi with him. Then IT IS ON!
Corner Stone
@gwangung:
I agree. It’s problematic to dispense American Justice from a distance.
cat48
@Corner Stone: Well a decision on this is pending is all I know. They are searching the US for a trial space that is a NIMBY. I want trials thru the Justice Dept but the people polled don’t!
Mike Kay
@Corner Stone: you’re laughably stooopid. Hey!
“the state can determine, basically with no limit, whether you deserve to live or die. ” of course dummy, cops(the state) do that every day. Cops kill people every day without a trial.
you are dumb as a corner stone. drugs rotted out your brain, hippie. Also, too.
Darkmoth
@mikey:
I have no idea. But I had no idea who Sean Bell was “shooting” at either, and he’s still dead – lawfully, I might add. The point is that some LEO believed he was a threat. As some do in this case.
gwangung
@Corner Stone: It’s a problem that needs to be solved.
Ed Marshall
@Yutsano:
If you think a trial in absentia means something and *then* you would feel fine about killing the convicted with a drone, you either aren’t thinking hard enough about what you are saying or you are looking for a fig leaf for your conscience.
mikey
I was with the Cav in S. Vietnam and (a little) Camobdia in 1970. Calley was awaiting trial at the time, and we had lots of Majors and Lite Colonels come and talk to us. Funnily, we had pretty much all killed unarmed people, even women and children at one point or another in our tour. But NOBODY I know was in for just brutal slaughter. We all believed in what America was about, and we all knew that she’d get it right.
Even a real war should not be an invitation to commit murder, and when you have a chance to do the right thing, choosing the wrong thing is horrific. I can only hope that all you bloodthirsty cowards never have to lay the front sight on a human being and kill them – but frankly, some perspective here would do you a lot of good…
mikey
QDC
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
The “serve an arrest warrant, encounter resistance, respond as appropriate” process seems like a reasonable way to go in a hard case.
I wonder whether you would extend this even to bin Laden, or would it only be for citizens? And, if only for citizens, does the Constitution really require such different procedures for bin Laden and US citizen version of bin Laden?
I confess that if I were commander in chief and Harold Koh advised me that an air strike was legal, and the intelligence was of high quality, I would have a hard time sending troops to get shot at. (especially in the “citizen bin Laden” hypothetical)
But then I’m just an authoritarian coward thug who pisses my pants at the mention of the word “terrorists.”
Also, I think mikey might be a bot.
Darkmoth
@Corner Stone:
Heartbreaking, but so true.
I suppose that’s what pisses me off about this “assassination” brouhaha. We have people’s rights being violated daily, in every American city, and no one gives a fuck until it involves a widely-publicized terror suspect or a dog.
Corner Stone
@Mike Kay:
And this is why you are demonstrably such a moran.
The state does indeed determine life or death for many citizens every day. But it’s after a review of admitted evidence, testimony, etc etc.
Not just because some yayo like you is in a room with no windows reading intercepts and declares some citizen deserves a rocket up the ass.
Here in the US of A, us plebes enjoy a little something called rule of law. You probably haven’t heard much of it as I’m sure Rush doesn’t speak of it most days.
Keith G
@Tim P.:
Seems like you just defined it. Though some experts say there is more there there then you seem to think.
I am still curious, if a bad non citizen person is holed up somewhere using his skills and unique talents to plan real activities meant to bring death to multiple Americans, multiple times, what should we do?
Now lets assume that this person is a citizen. Do we behave differently? Lets also assume that past history has shown that this person can get these plans to fruition.
Mike Kay
you know, I never heard one person complain when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in an air strike (without a trial). Nobody objected. No one.
all you arch civil libertarians, why is okay for america to kill foreigners without a trial? why didn’t you guys object then to absence of due process?
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
So far I’m with John (if I understand his position right).
It’s one thing to target enemies on a battlefield and allow that US citizens in the area (working with bad people) might get killed. But it’s an entirely different level to say that the US government has decided to *assassinate* a US citizen, ie, find that person and kill him without due process. If that doesn’t form a strong distinction in your mind, I have to think you’re blinded by ideology.
BTW, good on John for always being on the correct side of the torture debate, too.
mclaren
@gwangung:
The “problem” of “balancing force with coercion” was solved 224 years ago. The solution is called “due process,” and it’s found in amendments 5 and 6 of the constitution of the united states.
Oooh…ooohhhh, oooohhhh, bu-bu-bu-but what if the eeeeeeeeevil person who is saying and doing things we don’t like lives in another country?
Tough tit.
There is no requirement that people who live in other countries say and do things we like. Lots of people in lots of countries around the world have said and done things that were perceived as harmful to America. Did we go out and assassinate them?
What, are we now going to run around the world with JSOC assassination teams murdering everyone everywhere who says or does something perceived to be harmful to America? Putin turns down a gas deal with us, so we whack him? Sarkozy disses American culture, so a SEAL team rappels down his window and shoots him in the head? Angela Merkel ridicules America’s lack of manufacturing capacity, so we send in Delta Force to blow her away with shotguns?
The idea of assassinating someone anywhere in the world just because they say or do something that some guy in the West Wing thinks might be harmful to the U.S. is so insane, no words exist in the English language to describe how insane it is.
The crowning lunacy? The demented New York Times assertion that “assassinating U.S. citizens makes some people uneasy.”
Yeah. “Some people.” But most people, they’re just fine with America running around assassinating people in other countries, that’s just great with them.
America is turning into a nation of sociopaths before our eyes. Next thing you know, the White House will set up a special Hillside Strangler team to not only assassinate people in other countries we don’t like, but rape them and leave their naked bodies on hillsides.
MattR
@Keith G:
We have to behave differently. Even if it does seem silly or arbitrary, the Constitution requires it.
Darkmoth
@Corner Stone:
No, not really. You can be killed during a traffic stop because someone thought you were going for a gun. You can be shot running from the scene of a violent crime.
The point isn’t that these things happen, the point is that there are clearly circumstances under which judicial review is not required to kill you.
Mike Kay
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist: what’s the difference btwn killing a us citizen and a foreign citizen without due process? Nobody complains when foreign citizens are killed without due process.
gwangung
And basically, you didn’t listen to a single word I said.
You’re far too in love with your own voice and your self righteousness to realize when other people are saying the same thing you are.
You’re also too stupid to realize what happens in the real word. And you are equally a sociopath to disdain using legal, constitutional methods to interdict others’ use of lethal force.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@mikey: ONe thing that pisses me off in this debate is the point that any one persons chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack is so low, then we shouldn’t be concerned about it, and stick to pure ideals.
This is analysis is coming from self absorption imo, somebodies else gets killed, or their kids, of whatever, so I ain’t gonna worry about it. Any sane persons ideals end when someone else is trying to kill you or your neighbor, or someone else we don’t know. We all have not only a right of self defense, but a duty, imo. How that is done and where lines are drawn are a matter of national debate, and I am glad that Obama had the nuts to make it public what he was doing. I doubt Bush would have done that.
gwangung
Particularly if you are going for a gun.
TenguPhule
I am curious, what level of competence of the authorities are we assuming here? And what threshold of evidence are they presenting to us?
I hated this shit when Bush and Darth Cheney pulled it and I am not any happier when Obama’s people do it.
Fuck the fucking fuckers, if we’re gonna pull hits on US citizens Karl Rove should damn well be at the top of that list!
Mike Kay
@MattR: where does the constitution say us citizens get due process, but foreigners do not?
It’s been 12 years since Bin Laden bombed US embassies in Africa. i’ve have yet to hear anyone demand Bin Laden be accorded due process protection of the us constitution.
mclaren
@gwangung: Spoken like a true sociopath.
Why don’t you just have me assassinated? Saves a lot of troublesome argument, doesn’t it?
Aside from name-calling, you haven’t provided a single piece of logic or evidence to justify tearing up the consitution and wiping your ass with it, nor has General Crackpot Fake Name.
But then, sociopaths only want to delectate in someone’s else suffering and death, they don’t care how it happens.
Know what the number one hit song in Pakistan is right now?
“Americans kill people like insects.”
Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it?
Corner Stone
@Darkmoth:
Well, yeah! But, but, but that’s different somehow! The police have been deemed infallible!
C’mon. IMO this isn’t exactly tangential. I, for one, am not defending that shit either.
TenguPhule
Complete Contradiction in the same fucking sentence.
If you can’t defend your principles in the muck, they’re worth nothing on the pedestals of the high and mighty.
It would have been a lot easier on us to wipe out the Germans and Japanese instead of taking prisoners too, you twat.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule:
so if Bin Laden is killed tomorrow in an air strike you would wring your hands because he didn’t get a trial?
QDC
@MattR:
I’m sorry, but those of you who feel that the justification for your position springs forth fully formed from the Constitution are just objectively wrong. The intersection of Commander in Chief power and due process is a tremendous gray area, and I say this as someone who would side with the liberals in every Bush era Supreme Court case.
I’d start with Youngstown Steel, Ex parte Quirin and the AUMF.
When the president can wage war on a citizen is a hard question, so quit pretending that all one needs to do is meditate on the Anglo-American legal tradition and then lament the authoritarians among us.
TenguPhule
Then you weren’t paying attention.
By the book, the way it should be done.
gwangung
@mclaren:
You’re a foolish sociopath, not even a nuisance. Yap if you want.
But I have no doubt you’d crush anyone who opposes you, like any tin pot dictator, if you had the power.
As I said, you’re not bothering to listen.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@QDC: this is all tough business at where to draw lines between what is moral or not in self defense, and even what is necessary and justified. I just needed to draw a personal line with drones firing into occupied dwellings, mainly because we were killing too many civilians and often not even the target of the attack. I cannot be for that, but agree it is a tough call for any POTUS who sends troops into harms way. Bin Laden, I believe was either tried in absentia, or at least indicted. He has publicly confessed to 9=11 and not a citizen. He needs to go to Allah, and I wouldn’t be opposed to doing that myself, if offered the opportunity. The guy in Yemen, from what I have read, has denied the charges through his family. So there is that.
TenguPhule
I see nothing that states a free License to kill here. We have laws for reason. If we throw that away, well shit. Might as well start the IEDs in the GOP SUVs now then.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
@Mike Kay: There’s a huge difference — due process applies to US citizens.
To your example, though: First clarify whether by killing you mean that we’re “assassinating” or killing as a result of some action. There may be problems with targeting foreigners for assassination, but that’s not the question at hand. We’re talking about US citizens. Are you comfortable with the government determining that you, for whatever reason, are a threat and that you should be specifically targeted for killing by any means?
Darkmoth
@Corner Stone:
I think it’s relevant because people keep throwing out the “you must have a trial first” card, and it’s obviously not true. Which means the entire basis of the disagreement is a fallacy.
I don’t pretend to know exactly what legal conditions preceded a lawful execution. But I know absolutely that a trial is not one of them. That means we’re missing some nuance of law. Don’t you think that’s relevant?
QDC
@TenguPhule:
Christ you’re like John Roberts and his balls and strikes analogy. If you think the answer is crystal clear, then explain the legal reasoning that is so bullet-bullet proof in a way that would convince a court.
The fact is answer is not self evident. Even if you feel revulsion at the administration’s proposed strategy, it does not follow from that that it is unconstitutional.
TenguPhule
Oh Brilliant, we can try to ID the hamburger puree scattered across half an acre of ground and try to convince everyone else that we really got him this time instead of a civilian who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We need an *INTACT* Body, breathing optional if its impossible to take him alive. Killed while resisting arrest is not outside the bounds of law and order.
Mike Kay
is it illegal for a us president to authorize the killing a foreign citizen overseas without a trial?
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
Ahhh, the 1% Doctrine personified. Thank you Mr. Cheney.
Please remember the blue bin is for recycling, and just toss that paper in there on your way out.
gwangung
Probably because it’s not a legal “execution.” It’s the use of lethal force, which is not at all the same.
mikey
I’d just like to know what these idiots think it is that would then make us the ‘good guys’. I always thought our restraint and compliance with law and treaty is what did it. I didn’t realize it was our unmanned drones and hellfire missiles. This just makes me sad. I’m gonna go wash my hands and do something else…
mikey
QDC
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
I can live with it being a messy line drawing problem, because it is. But it’s not just a defiance of the law in the way waterboarding and wiretapping were, that’s the only point I want to make.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule: answer the general question, if bin laden was killed tomorrow by a US sniper without a trial, would you object?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Corner Stone: Stop being a reactionary dufus. If you have a cogent argument to make, then make it. Otherwise just stfu, why don’t you.
TenguPhule
Step 1: STOP TREATING IT AS A FUCKING MILITARY PROBLEM WITH A MILITARY SOLUTION!
Step 2: The answer is fucking self evident if you’re not a twit. We do not piss our rights away from fear. We do not give the government carte blanche to kill people without at least building up enough evidence to make a case against them.
JFCNTZYM, Half of these people were arguing on my side of the divide when Dear Leader was pulling this shit 3 years ago. What the fuck is wrong with them now?
Corner Stone
@Darkmoth: Well…I wouldn’t go with nuance exactly. But we’re definitely missing something regarding the law.
And to further my rebuttal – just because sometimes shit happens that gets by the judicial system (or is tried and acquitted), that does not mean that somehow killing people remotely via drone attack is justified.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@QDC:
I agree, but many of our leftist dogmatic friends still view everything through the dark eyes of Dick Cheney. Every fucking thing.
TenguPhule
If not done during an attempt to arrest or capture when it proves impossible to get him, YES.
Otherwise why bother with the law, we can just start shooting Republican Politicos and Bankers and Lawyers and Wall Street Brokers and CEOs and stupid people in general.
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Why bother? When a fool like you starts justifying killing people because their tinky shrinks at night, what’s the point?
We get it. Bush convinced you that you should live every day in fear. And after that everything is rational.
Darkmoth
@gwangung:
A good point…I’d agree they’re not the same, but I’d be hard-pressed to tell the difference in practice. In theory lethal force is only potentially lethal, as opposed to an execution. In practice, applying potentially lethal force 10-50 times or so approaches the certainty of execution.
That being said, it seems that lethal force can be applied without judicial review. I wonder if a drone is lethal force or an execution?
TenguPhule
That’s because you’re as fucking stupid as the damn “permanent majority” GOP mouthbreathers. There are some genies that need to be stuffed back in their lamps, soldered over with lead and buried into a Virgina Mineshaft and then buried forever.
mclaren
@General Crackpot Fake Name:
And we have a winner! The Jeffrey Dahmer Award for non sequitur justification of sadism and murder! Excellent work, you can pick up your flayed female corpse from the awards committee.
Here on planet earth when the risk of getting killed by a terrorist act is 1/100 as likely as the risk of getting killed by a lightning strike, it doesn’t make sense to turn society upside and tear up the constitution and wipe our asses on it and run around assassinating random innocent people in other countries because some jerkoff in the CIA heard some bogus rumor.
Before we put the constitution through a shredder, let’s ask ourselves if the chances that anyone in America is going to die are 1/100 the probability of dying by slipping in your bathtub. Should we put bathtub manufacturers under martial law? Should we start assassinating bathtub manufacturers?
Get a clue, crackpot, sensible people have already run the numbers, and the number of people who die from terrorism worldwide is so tiny it’s negligible compared to the number of people who die from lightning or slipping in their bathtubs or swimming accidents, much less the really big numbers, the vast armies of people who die every year in car accidents.
See A False Sense of Insecurity? How does the risk of terrorism measure up against everyday dangers?
But of course you don’t care about rationality or evidence, facts mean nothing to you — that’s the mindset of the clinical sociopath. All that matters is lashing out, screaming insults, hurting people, killing people. That’s what the sociopath yearns for, and it’s the hallmark of your posts.
Hysteria and frenzy like the crazy behavior you exhibit whenever the subject of terrorism comes up is exactly what the terrorists want.
During the 1970s Europe went through much worse terrorism than anything America has experienced when the Red Brigade was murdering judges and the Bader-Meinhof Gang and Carlos were hijacking cruise ships and blowing up department stores with bombs and killing innocent men and women and children left and right. Europe didn’t find it necessary to suspend civil rights, declare a police state, and start assassinating European citizens without trials and without charges and without a warrant and without judicial procedures.
Get a grip. “For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes little damage and the likelihood that any individual would become a victim is microscopic.” “A False sense of Insecurity?” op. cit. You have a much much larger chance of dying because the Chinese contaminated your milk with melamine or because Burger King cut corners and got its meat from a supplier that uses salughterhouses contaminated with e. coli bacteria than you have of dying or getting injured from any kind of terrorism.
Americans need to pull up their socks and get a life. The constitution wasn’t meant to be thrown out the instant we get scared. We went through WW II, with hundreds of millions of enemy soldiers dedicated to our destruction, and America didn’t feel any need to throw out the constitution…so why now? We went through the entire Cold War with 3500 nuclear warheads aimed at us and ready to turn every square inch of America’s farmland and cities into radioactive rubble, and we never felt the need to bypass due process and get rid of habeas corpus and abandon trial by jury…so why now?
Mike Kay
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist: some of you guys may be too young or something, but the due process protections of the US constitution applies to non-citizens as well. Resident aliens, non-resident aliens, and even people who have emigrated to the US illegally are all accorded protections of the US constitution. Due process protections in the US are not based on citizenship.
Now, answer this: is it illegal for a us president to authorize the killing/assassination of a foreign citizen overseas without a trial?
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
@Mike Kay:
What is the point of this line of reasoning? John’s post was whether US citizens could be designated for assassination. So take a stand yourself: Do you agree that you can be targeted for special killing? Please be specific about whether you prefer death by Predator drone or a sniper bullet to the head.
QDC
@TenguPhule
I see my attempts at actual reasoned discussion are misplaced.
And with that, off to bed. Hopefully I won’t piss my rights away on the sheets.
TenguPhule
To be fair to the wingers, their forefathers began the present descent into madness with McCarthyism.
Darkmoth
@Corner Stone:
Hey, I’d agree if was only sometimes. But the application of lethal force without judicial review isn’t something that squeaked by one or two cases. It has been upheld in the courts over and over, ad infinitum.
SCOTUS has even gotten involved:
So clearly – according to SCOTUS, mind you – the suspicion of one officer is the bar for using deadly force. That is a far cry from some of the opinions expressed in this thread.
TenguPhule
Obviously I can’t reason with someone who wants to dine on tire rims and anthrax.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
@Mike Kay: Hello straw man. All of your examples, “resident aliens”, etc, apply to US soil. Then you swiftly move overseas and whether we need to read Miranda rights to bin Laden. Be consistent in your line of argument, otherwise you’re just an asshat. Are we talking about how we treat people within our borders, or people in far away places, some of them war zones?
gwangung
There are well established principles about use of lethal force, both for police and for civilians. Anything can be abused, of course, but in general they’re actually common sensical: use it to protect yourself, use it to protect others, lethal force should not be indiscriminate or over inclusive (i.e., no one ton bomb to get rid of a single knife wielder, etc.).
Use of a drone is always lethal force as I understand it; however, it would probably be justified if the arresting force faced resistance by heavy arms.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@mclaren: Back with the ass rabies Mclaren? jeebus, I thought you was cured. And just like you to take a statement and twist it into some kind anti- fascist manifesto that would make Ted Kazyinski proud.
You go tell this to the families of the 3000 9=11 victims and watch how fast they pitchfork your insane ass.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule:
that wasn’t so hard. I don’t know why I had to drag it out of you.
you must of been pissed when Clinton tried to kill bin laden with a cruise missile strike after the African embassy bombings. I imagine you would support arresting Clinton and putting him on trial for attempting to assassinate bin laden.
TenguPhule
Yeah! Mob Violence is the only way to do things, who needs silly little things like laws and courts! America, Fuck yeah we have the biggest cock in town!!
What could possibly go wrong?
Ed Marshall
@Darkmoth:
Tennessee vs. Garner ruled against the state in a case involving a burglar who was shot climbing over a fence.
Mike Kay
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:
don’t be afraid to answer. it’s an easy question. I’ve asked you twice already, and no reply. Here’s my third attempt: is it illegal for a us president to authorize the killing/assassination of a foreign citizen overseas without a trial?
TenguPhule
Cruise missiles were fired at a fucking factory. OBL was nowhere near there at the time. What fucking part of that did you miss?
Better trolls please.
Darkmoth
@gwangung:
It does seem that the line is at least some attempt to arrest. However, if arresting is impossible, I’m not sure that a drone attack would actually be illegal.
TenguPhule
Then answer it yourself. Do you support the right of the government to drop a bomb on your head because somebody might have told somebody else a rumor that convinced them you needed to die?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Corner Stone: I am in no personal fear of terrorists, you fat fuck. I also have good health insurance, but wanted people who didn’t have it to get it with a less than perfect HCR bill. It’s called caring about your fellow man. And I support killing no one who is not spending their days planning on killing civilians who are innocent. I don’t support, and didn’t support not a single thing we did in Iraq, and a whole lot of what we did and do in Afghan..
Quit yer wanking dogma horseshit and use your brain for something other that puke funneling anti bush talking points.
tomvox1
I’d like this asshole to be killed but I think we need a court ruling on it first, secret or otherwise:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/42-aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy.html
Fig leaf, perhaps, but maybe “fig leaf” is just another term for “due process prior to the execution of a US citizen by the government”…no matter how big a scumbag or where he may be on the globe.
Ambivalently yours,
T.
Darkmoth
@Ed Marshall:
Probably because there was no expectation of potential harm to others. I suspect it’s still lawful to shoot an alleged rapist or murderer climbing over a fence. But the key point is that the rapist/murderer is still “alleged” during the chase.
gwangung
@Ed Marshall: That’s true. But that’s because of the principles of the use of deadly force, if I recall. A burglar did not represent imminent danger to others, or even potential danger. I think that changes when the person involved uses deadly force themselves.
TenguPhule
Would Dick Cheney going out on TV telling everyone somebody had to die convince you that they deserve to die?
That’s the minimum bar that has been set over the last 8 tears. Personally, I’d like it raised much higher thank you very much.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule: how young are you? where were you in 1998?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%28August_1998%29
the factory was in the sudan, but 75 cruise missiles were fired at bin laden’s camp in Afghanistan.
now that you know what happened 12 years ago, answer the question: do you would support arresting Clinton and putting him on trial for attempting to assassinate bin laden?
mclaren
@General Crackpot Fake Name:
You’re goddamn right I will tell exactly that to the families of the 3000 9/11 victims. I will tell their families that if they advocate throwing out the constitution of the united states and running around kindapping people without charges and without trial and torturing them and holding them forever in black holes without lawyers and without habeas, then the families of the 3000 9/11 victims are worse than the terrorists who murdered their fathers and brothers and sisters and husbands and wives and children.
NOTHING justifies abandoning the rule of law and running around murdering innocent people willy-nilly, without due process…not even having your own family murdered by terrorists.
NOTHING.
NOTHING.
NOTHING.
Understand now?
Is rationality getting through to you? This is difference between barbarism and civilization. This is the difference between the rule of law and anarchy. This is the difference between lynch mobs and a livable society.
NOTHING justifies murdering some bystander without due process, without charges, without a trial by jury verdict, NOTHING.
If you don’t like the rule of law, General Crackpot Fake name, and if you don’t like trials by jury and if you don’t like due process and if you don’t like habeas corpus, then here’s what you do:
Emigrate to North Korea.
My constitution — love it or leave it.
TenguPhule
I’m still waiting for yours.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@TenguPhule: You are a weird person. For the past 3 years barking out comment after comment about wasting people you don’t like in every manner of violent ways, and then play a “mob violence” card. You and Maclaren and Corner Stone must drink the same crazy juice.
Yutsano
@gwangung:
Even with the cooperation of the Yemeni police and military, the odds of capturing an American citizen who is with his family/tribe holed up and heavily defended is very remote. I certainly don’t think sending several officers (potentially dozens) to their deaths to capture one individual, regardless of how despicable, is a worthy endeavor. Should this individual therefore be targeted for elimination just because he specifically targets the US? I’m not too comfortable with that notion without some form of fair trial. After that, and he has been found guilty, the enforcement is at the judgment of the state.
And I don’t know why I’m bothering since my words are going to get twisted to suit other aims here.
TenguPhule
Take two snarks and call me in the morning.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule: I asked first, it is only courteous, if not due process, to answer my question first. I be happy to answer you, afterwards. But don’t be such a coward.
TenguPhule
Finally, some refreshing honesty.
Yeah, that’s the nub of the issue. Where do we draw the line?
Personally, that’s what I thought special forces/swat are for. For when the shit is deep and its time to put up or shut up.
gwangung
@Darkmoth: What do you mean by “arrest is impossible”? Because I think if you announce an arrest and they attempt to flee, lethal force would still be allowable.
mclaren
@General Crackpot Fake Name:
The rule of law is now “crazy juice.”
Due process and the right to a trial by jury is now “crazy juice.”
Wow, we’ve really hit rock bottom in this joke of a country, haven’t we?
TenguPhule
I did, then asked a question in return and you promptly asked a question afterward. QED, answer the question you cowardly trollfucker.
Darkmoth
@Yutsano:
Then, if you can’t capture him, and he represents a clear threat to others, it would seem that using lethal force is appropriate. I don’t see how it would be any different than an escaping serial killer (of course, “hot pursuit” may apply, but maybe not).
Corner Stone
@TenguPhule:
Might=Right has always been Stuck’s bedtime mantra.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
@Mike Kay:
In certain instances it is legal to kill a foreign citizen overseas. Now answer the question about “assassination”: how do you want to be killed after being targeted for assassination? And since you don’t make any distinction about US citizens being killed here or abroad, tell me how you’d like to be killed on your front lawn.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@mclaren: You wouldn’t know Rule of Law if it jumped up at bit your loony ass. I doubt you can take a shit without someone checking the shitter for splosives.
TenguPhule
Believe it or not, we’ve improved from 3 years ago.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule: you know I’m kinda shocked, how did you not know about Clinton’s cruise missile attack on Bin Laden’s camp? It was really, really BIG news. That kind of lack of knowledge is something you see out of sarah palin.
1. How did you not know that?
2. And do you would support arresting Clinton and putting him on trial for attempting to assassinate bin laden?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
My bedtime mantra is a wish that Corner Stone’s computer dies before morning
Darkmoth
@gwangung:
I agree lethal force it would still be allowable. But by “arrest is impossible”, I mean that the risk to LEOs would be extreme and unreasonable – bank robbers with AK-47s holed up in a bank, an alleged terrorist on foreign soil with paramilitary support, etc.
TenguPhule
How do you manage to not read what the fuck you’re linking to?
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: You can’t come up with something better than this?
Have you no sense of rebuttal, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of rebuttal?
It’s clear to anyone who has read your posts in just this one thread, much less anything else you have ever posted.
You speak about fear, state sanctioned vengeance (not justice), mob rule – you’re a quivering little sheep waiting for Big Dick Cheney to tell you next who deserves to die.
Or Obama if you like. It doesn’t make any difference to a little jello shot like yourself.
TenguPhule
This chickenshitting rain of red herrings I see from Mike Kay is something out of John McCain.
Mike Kay
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist: you so called “civil libertarians” are a bunch of phonies. None of you will stand up to protect Osama Bin Laden’s due process rights. Sunshine keyboard warriors, indeed.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
@Mike Kay:
In certain instances it is legal to kill a foreign citizen overseas. Now answer the question about “assassination”: how do you want to be killed after being targeted for assassination? And since you don’t make any distinction about US citizens being killed here or abroad, tell me how you’d like to be killed on your front lawn.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Corner Stone: Keep suckin’ down them Cheeto’s internet tough guy.
mclaren
@Tengu Phule:
Well, the tone has definitely improved…but except for torture, we seem to be doing exactly the same things we were doing 3 years ago.
Murdering countless innocent civilians in other countries?
Check.
War on drugs?
Check.
Prisoners still in Gitmo, most ’em still innocent bystanders sold by corrupt Afghan warlords to the CIA on false premises to make a quick buck?
Check.
Rigged kangaroo court military commissions instead of real jury trials?
Check.
Kidnapping of U.S. citizens without trial and without charges and without the right to a lawyer?
Check.
Secrecy, refusal to hand over evidence, the executive branch fighting against releasing information to the judiciary and to congress and to the American people?
Check.
So really…aside from the much more elegant tone set by Obama…what’s changed?
Well, no more torture. And no more federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. But aside from that — what has actually changed?
Rumors about invading Iran? Nope, still got ’em. The beltway insiders are still making loud ominous noises about our alleged “need” to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
So what’s changed in the last 3 years?
Other than the assassinating American citizens thing. That’s brand new. Not even the drunk-driving C student and his torturer sidekick tried that one.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule: like palin, you can’t read either:
“The attack was made partly in an attempt to assassinate bin Laden and other leaders. [13] After the attack, the CIA heard that bin Laden had been at Zhawar Kili al-Badr but had left some hours before the missiles hit.[14]”
answer the question, do you support putting clinton on trial for attempting to assassinate bin laden?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
If distance wasn’t a problem a boot up your buttcrack would be my rebuttal.
Mike Kay
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:
Really? in what instance is it legal to kill/assassinate a foreign citizen overseas?
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: I try not to piss myself every time I see my shadow. So if that makes me a tough guy…
Listen Stuck. You’re on record here. You like people being in charge. Doesn’t really seem to matter to you what their names are, long as they keep killing people who aren’t you and telling you that keeps you safe.
As long as no one you know dies, or gets seriously threatened, you’re good with whatever it takes to keep your jammies dry through the night.
gwangung
Practically impossible then. In that case, you can still attempt to arrest, and the response could very well justify the use of a drone.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Yutsano:
Tell me about it. This time of night the wankers come out and are like roaches with tiny keyboards and no brain.
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: Hilarious.
TenguPhule
My, Trig. How you’ve grown. Would you like the government to shoot you now or later?
mclaren
@Corner Stone:
No, he can’t. Rebuttal requires facts and logic.
General Crackpot Fake Name has no facts and no logic to justify his praise of lynch mob murder and slavish adoration of kidnapping and lawless assassination.
All General Crackpot Fake Name has is a bunch of obscenities–“ass rabies,” “crazy juice,” “wanking dogma horseshit.”
If you want to convince anyone that you’re anything more than a Jeffrey Dahmer wannabe, General Crackpot Fake Name, you’re going to have to come up with something better than “ass rabies” and “wanking dogma horseshit” and “I doubt you can take a shit.”
You’re going to have to explain to us why the rule of law and due process and the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is “ass rabies” and “wanking dogma horseshit.”
But of course you can’t do that. That would require facts and logic, and you don’t have any…just screams of mindless hate and spiteful obscenities.
General Crackpot Fake Name is just another Jeffrey Dahmer wannabe — a bully-worshiping coward, but he’s too cowardly to go out and commit the murders himself, so instead he roots for the thugs and goons who commit the murders for him.
General Crackpot Fake Name reminds me of the guy who was too gutless to help string the victim up but then rushes in after the lynching’s over and cuts off a part of the burned black guy’s corpse to keep as a souvenir.
Mike Kay
@TenguPhule: how did you not know about the cruise missile strike on Afghanistan? seriously. it was BIG fucking news when it happened?
mclaren
PETA members are “alleged terrorists,” according to the U.S. justice department. If they carry pepper spray, well, then, there you go, “paramilitary support.”
See what kind of can of worms you get when you throw out the rule of law?
Darkmoth
@gwangung:
Fair enough. From the reporting, it’s tough to tell whether he is targeted for killing, or whether that is simply a secondary option. from the London Times:
[snip
Now, I may not be an expert on assassinations, but how does marking someone for killing “clear the way” for them to be captured unless it’s not actually an assassination order?
Anyway, I’m off to bed, thanks for the back-and-forth.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Corner Stone:
You idiot, I am on record as trying to make a sensible argument to where we don’t kill innocents and still follow some semblance of lawfullness, while at the same time defend ourselves. And I am not the only one. You and Mclaren are reactionary morons needing better meds.
And the whole “jammies” argument is just more lame wanking. Do you really think this nonsense has any effect on the internet between false personas? Jeebus, It’s hard to have a reasoned debate with asshats like you spilling childish garbage and making schoolyard taunts like a third grader on every thread
Darkmoth
@mclaren:
Who is throwing out the rule of law? Frankly, I doubt most of the people arguing about it even care what the actual law is. It’s certainly more complex that the “no killing without a trial” BS that keeps resurfacing.
No one’s really concerned about what the law is, and it’s pointless arguing about what people wish it was.
Mike Kay
you so called “civil libertarians” are a bunch of phonies. None of you will stand up for Osama Bin Laden’s due process protections. cowards.
gwangung
@Darkmoth: A lot of this is clarifying in my own head what the parameters should be (I mean, despite what some of the chuckleheads here think, I don’t support executive orders for assassinations). A lot of it is trying to figure out what the appropriate use of force is.
This particular authorization has to be more than the usual allowance of lethal force, otherwise it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Darkmoth:
They don’t have a clue and don’t care about law. I think they just miss Dick Cheney to kick around and are stuck in 2007. Or wanking with tribal dances of us against themism
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
This is really Alice n Wonderland shit coming from you Stuck.
mclaren
@General Crackpot Fake Name:
Absolutely. It’s a classic sign that you’re dealing with “roaches with tiny keyboards and no brain” when they start citing the fifth and sixth amendments of the constitution of the united states of America:
I didn’t see an amendment there that says “It’s fine to assassinate American citizens without charges and without a trial if we feel really really scared.”
Could you point it out to me?
No?
Isn’t it interesting who everyone who disagrees with General Crackpot Fake Name gets characterized as subhuman, as “roaches,” insects, vermin?
Isn’t that how Pol Pot justified murdering his enemies? They were “vermin” and “insects” who had to be destroyed?
Isn’t that how Stalin justified his purges and tortures and genocidal mass murders? By characterizing anyone who disagreed with him as “vermin” and “insects” who must be exterminated?
Keep talking, General Crackpot Fake Name. You’re telling us more about yourself than you know.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
@Mike Kay:
You won’t engage confrontational questions, so you’re not worth the time. Feel free to crawl back up Rush Limbaugh’s ass and tongue-dart the anal cyst he used to defer himself from the draft.
Darkmoth
@gwangung:
I don’t, either. But I’m enough of a ‘bot to want to try understand what’s really going on here before I condemn the action. Poor reporting by the media and my own ignorance have thus far conspired to keep me in a continual state of “reserved judgement”.
But our conversation has been enlightening. The distinction between lethal force and blatant execution was a particularly good one.
Yutsano
@Darkmoth:
I’m glad at least someone on this thread thinks so. I see a lot of long-standing personal vendettas surfacing (not unusual for this blog, just an observation), but I’ve enjoyed the interaction with you two as well. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast answer here, and maybe this situation is so specific that we may not run into this situation again. Then again the universe is infinitely creative.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Corner Stone: @Corner Stone:
You really think you have an ounce of credibility on this blog, don’t you? No one cares what you think, they really don’t. Trust me on this one thing.
mclaren
People have asked under what circumstances it’s legal to kill an American citizen overseas. Amendment 5 to the constitution makes that very clear:
Is the person against whom President Obama issued the assassination order service in time of war in a land or naval force?
If so, then U.S. soldiers can legally kill him. If not, it’s not legal. Case closed. End of discussion.
As to the broader question of when it’s legal to kill foreign citizens, that’s a tougher question. That refers to the laws of war. It’s never legal to kill innocent foreign civilians, but it often happens. Sometimes foreign civilians don’t wear uniforms but engage in military action against U.S. soldiers, and in that case, the laws of war require a military commission in the theater of war, and summary execution after a drumhead military trial is legal.
I don’t see any of these cases applying here.
mclaren
@Darkmoth:
People who advocate the president of the united states ordering the assassination of a U.S. citizen.
Amendment 5 makes it pellucidly clear that this is illegal. Amendment 6 explicitly requires charges, habeas corpus, and a trial by jury against anyone before the death penalty can be ordered.
The law also requires two separate witnesses for a chage of treason, and America must be at war at the time:
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Corner Stone: And this personal vendetta thing that Yutsano points out is true. And I blame myself more than anyone for this. It goes back to the primary days. Tell you what dude. I will let you be, if you do the same, and we can end it or at least do a truce on it.
Corner Stone
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: And this is the good part. I’m not asking anyone to believe anything I say. Your words are here for anyone to read.
My lack of credibility on John Cole’s blog has absolutely nothing to do with the things you’ve said.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@Corner Stone:
This is true, so what? I am not saying anything I haven’t been saying since I came here. I have no ideological axes to grind, or maintain. So why do you spend so much time trying to characterize what I say? Why do you care? I know I don’t care what you say.
Darkmoth
@mclaren:
SCOTUS ruled that it’s legal to shoot a murder suspect – suspect – running from a crime scene. Since this is a ruling by SCOTUS, it is a valid interpretation of the Constitution.
Clearly then, the Consitution allows for the application of deadly force without dint of trial or jury. The question, of course is “under what circumstances?”.
The answer is not “never”.
and I really am off now.
mclaren
@Darkmoth & Yutsano:
Indeed. Lethal force is often legal, depending on the circumstances.
But assassination is something altogether different.
The crucial difference involves premeditation.
Assassination is really just a polite term for “cold blooded premeditated murder.”
We ought to be tremendously careful before we start applauding judges or presidents or senators who engage in premeditated murder — that’s how society breaks down. It’s a short route to the Grand Terror of the French Revolution, and those of you who applaud that course of action ought to bear in mind that the author of the Terror himself, Robespierre, soon enough wound up in the tumbril summarily executed.
mclaren
@Darkmoth: Note that I was careful to say “innocent bystander.”
There has to be some evidence that someone has committed a crime before lethal force can be judged legal.
What is the evidence against this cleric that Obama wants to assassinate? And what is his crime?
Bring forward the evidence. Let us examine it.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@mclaren: oh shut up you lunatic.
TenguPhule
Boy did you pick the wrong blog to look for those kind of people. We lynch libertarians here, boy.
Somebody get the rope.
Yutsano
@TenguPhule: I get to lead the drawing horses this time dammit. I missed the last fun times.
Mike Kay
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:
Homophobic insults. Shame on you. I thought civil libertarian, of all people, would be beyond gay baiting. Sad.
Yutsano
@Mike Kay: Oh sure blame the fags what the heck we’re easy targets.
(BTW I’m hoping someone will finally get where I get this paraphrase from. I seem to be about the only person I know who enjoyed this movie.)
TuiMel
@Zifnab25:
This is my problem:
I do not know on what evidence you base this assertion. My government has been known to lie or make mistakes.
Still, There is plenty of new and unsavory ground being plowed in response to an organization or group of loosely affiliated people who state in words and deeds that they are in constant, violent opposition to this country. Moreover, they have shown they are willing and able to slaughter innocents to further their political goals. There are so very bad actors thriving in lawless places. They respect no geography, so I do not see how our response to them can be limited to declared combat zones. Would I prefer that it were more black and white and easily fitted with solutions that left no Constitutional doubt? Of course. But if this guy IS a ” known terrorist ringleader,” if he is living among people whose activities include planning acts of terrorism and or killing innocents, then I am OK w/ a plan that stops him – either by capturing him or by killing him. I just am not familiar enough with the record against him.
Yutsano
@TuiMel: Right now if he is guilty of anything it is conspiracy, which under American jurisprudence is a crime and also results in punishment for whatever the actual crime is. Usually conspiracy is a fallback charge for if you know you’ll have trouble convicting under the actual crime, but I can definitely see this charge being relatively easy to prove, as we do have at least one witness who says he did conspire to commit a bombing on an American airplane and took concrete steps to make that happen.
Mike Kay
@Yutsano: which movie is that?
Yutsano
@Mike Kay: Heh. I was really hoping someone would get it, but it might be too late in the evening for that to happen. It’s Bartok, voiced by the great Hank Azaria, from the animated movie Anastasia. Not an accurate telling of the legend but dammit I enjoy it as a light piece of fluff.
mclaren
@Darkmoth: I think you’re trying to make an analogy between a police officer who uses lethal force to protect an innocent person’s life and the president of the United States ordering an American citizen’s assassination in order to allegedly protect the lives of other Americans.
That analogy seems invalid. Let me try to explain why.
To do so, consider this rebuttal analogy:
The watch commander of the local precinct tells his police officers at roll call “If you hear a rumor that someone has been shoplifting, I want you to execute that sonofabitch accused shoplifter. I want you to force that guy who is rumored to have shoplifted down on his knees, draw your gun, and shoot that guy in the head.”
Then a police officer goes out on his beat, someone whispers in the cop’s ear “That guy over there is a shoplifter,” so the police officer forces the guy to kneel on the sidewalk, then the cop draws his 9 mm handgun and executes the citizen with a shot to the head.
Okay — now ask yourself:
Is that legal?
And more than that…ask yourself more than just “Is it legal?” As yourself “Is that the way I want society to work?”
I think we both know the answer to those questions.
A watch commander who gave those orders to police on his beat would — and should be — arrested as an accessory to murder. The police officer who followed those directions would be — and should be — arrested for premeditated murder.
Now let me point out why it seems to me that my analogy is more accurate than your analogy.
First, we have heard no evidence against al-Awlaki. Just rumors. The most we know is what the CIA alleges, and unfortunately, at this point, if the CIA makes an allegation, the surely likelihood is that the exact opposite is true. The CIA has a long loooooooong history of getting it completely wrong. The CIA told us after 1946 that Italy was going to go Communist. The CIA told us in 1958 that when we overthrew president Mossadegh in Iran and installed a puppet dictator the Shah, things would be hunky-dory and Iran would be our wonderful friend ever after. Boy, that one sure worked out great, didn’t it? In 1958 the CIA assured us there was a “bomber gap” with the soviet union and they had many more bombers than we did. Nope, not true. Then in 1960 the CIA assured us that the USSR had a missle gap and they had many many more ICBMs than we did. Nope, wrong again. In 1963 the CIA told Kennedy that the Soviets hadn’t yet set up functioning nuclear missiles in Cuba so it was safe to invade. Good thing Kennedy ignored them, because it turned out the Soviets had set up functioning missiles in Cuba. CIA was wrong again. In 1978 the CIA told us that Saddam would be a marvelous ally in the middle east and a great friend to us. Wrong again. In 1979 the CIA assured us the Shah would be in power for many more years, and rumors of a fundamentalist Islamic revolution in Iran were nonsense. Wrong again. In 1985 the CIA told us Gorbachev was just another Kremlin functionary and he wouldn’t make any serious changes to Soviet communism. Wrong again. In 1989 when the East Germans allowed the Berlin wall to be torn down, the CIA told us that was just a plot to mislead us and the USSR was a strong as ever. In 1990 the CIA projected that the Soviet economy would surpass ours by a factor of 30% within a few years. In 1991 the USSR collapsed, of course, and (of course) the CIA was wrong yet again.
The CIA has told us that Saddam had lakes of sarin and mountains of nuclear warheads, and it was all wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
The CIA has a 60 years spotless record of being wrong.
So now, when the CIA tells us that this guy al-Awlaki, is a terrible danger to America…suddenly, we’re supposed to believe them?
I don’t think so.
Right now all we’re hearing is rumors and fantasies and allegations, exactly like those rumors and fantasies and allegations about WMDS we were hearing back in 2002.
So the situation is exactly like the one I described in which some citizen whispers in a cop’s ear a rumor that some guy is a shoplifter.
You’re asking us to believe it’s legal for the president to authorize the premediated murder of some American citizen on the basis of a rumor.
A rumor
Listen to yourselves!
A rumor!
How can that possibly even make sense? Much less be legal?
Second, there’s the issue of premeditation. It’s one thing for a police officer to get caught in some unexpected situation and, when the police officer sees with his own two eyes an immediate and dangerous situation, use deadly force — it’s quite something else for a police officer to run around with his gun drawn looking for some citizen to execute on the spot, without charges, without trial, just on the basis of a rumor.
What we have in this case with al-Awlaki is not the first situation, a cop who sees a dangerous situation with his own eyes and acts in the heat of the moment to prevent another citizen’s harm. What we have in this case is my analogy — a cop who has heard a rumor and runs around with his gun drawn looking someone to execute.
That isn’t legal. There’s no way on earth that a cop who looks for some citizen to execute can ever be legal. If a police officer goes on the job in the morning determined to execute someone, that’s premeditated murder. Police don’t do that, not legally, anyway. A police officer can use deadly force in an extreme situation…but if a police officer goes on duty bound and determined to commit premeditated murder of some citizen that day, I think we would all agree that’s a completely different situation. That’s murder. That’s not legal.
Third, there’s the issue of proportionate use of force. The police officer analogy isn’t valid because we posit an extreme situation in which one person (a criminal) endangers another person (an innocent citizen) and the police officer has to use deadly force to save a life. Let’s say the cop sees a rapist threatening to kill a woman so he shoots the rapist. That’s proportional force because one woman was in clearly evident immediate danger, so the cop had to use deadly force to save her life.
But where is the clearly evident immediate danger al-Awlaki presents to all of America? Is this guy so all-powerful, so omnipotent, that with a wave of his hand he can murder 360 million Americans? Can he even murder a million Americans? A hundred thousand? Ten thousand? One thousand?
There’s no evidence that anyone has produced to show that al-Awlaki presents a clearly evident immediate danger to even one American citizen. Not even one.
So where is the proportion here? At most, al-Awlaki presents a possible danger to some Americans. Maybe.
And for this, we’re going to authorize the president to order this guy murdered in his bed by military assassins?
I’d like to know how this is different from ordering the assassination of Ann Coulter. If you recall, Ann Coulter suggested murdering a Supreme Court judge and she also proposed that the members of the New York Times staff who broke the story about the warrantless wiretapping should be executed. So Ann Coulter has repeatedly advocated the murder of Americans. That seems to be the same thing al-Awlaki has done, he’s repeatedly urged the death of Americans.
Apparently al-Awlaki has also given material aid and support to further the deaths of Americans. Now, I seem to recall headlines that various health insurers, including Wellpoint, also gave material aid and support to further the deaths of Americans, most notably by cancelling the insurance policies of women with breast cancer and people diagnosed with AIDS.
So if it’s a good idea for the president to order the assassination of al-Awlaki, should the president also order the assassination of Ann Coulter and the CEOs of the largest health care insurance conglomerates?
So where do we stop? People have died from eating tainted beef at Burger King and other fast food restaurants because beef producers skimped on their sanitary requirements in their slaughterhouses. Should the president also order the assassination of those CEOs?
People who have unprotected sex give material aid and support in killing other people — HPV produces cervical cancer in women, and you can get hepatitis C and AIDS from unprotected sex, so people who have unprotected sex are also aiding and abetting the deaths of other Americans. Should the president order the assassination of people who have unprotected sex?
People who drive drunk clearly and obviously aid and abet the deaths of other Americans, so should the president order the assassination of people who drive drunk?
You can see the problem here. Contractors who install substandard wiring, food processing plants run by CEOs who skimp and don’t worry about testing for salmonella, car manufacturers who make cars with defective brakes…don’t all these people present an immanent threat to the lives of other Americans? So shouldn’t the president order their assassination before he orders the assassination of a guy like al-Awlaki?
At this point, it should be clear that Darkmoth’s analogy has completely broken down. It’s simply invalid.
I think my analogy (of a watch commander who tells the cops in his precinct that if they hear a rumor that a citzen has shoplifted, they should draw their guns and execute that citizen on the spot) is the valid one. And I also think it’s clear that in my analogy, the cop is committing a crime and that his actions are in no way legal, and would in no way be permitted in a law-abiding society.
Matt
@Uloborus:
They have no evidence against him. They can’t secure a warrant, can’t convene a grand jury. All they have (that they are willing to release) is that he has exercised his Constitutional right to free speech.
If they had evidence, or if they had the slightest interest in the rule of law, they could get an indictment. They could try him in absentia. Our legal system can handle this situation, if only the government was willing to use it. Once his guilt has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the courts, it becomes a matter of public safety and all protections are lost.
But not simply on the word of the President and the Director of the CIA. They simply don’t have the authority to do this. No one does.
brantl
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: SInce when has any government had a problem with trying someone in absentia? None, that I know of. Your argument sucks, Stuck.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@brantl: Maybe you should read more than my first comment before running your mouth. This is why I always read from the bottom up threads I come onto late. Though this particular thread is a mutant monster than needs to be shot through with silver bullets, then burnt to ashes and buried on the Moon.
Darkmoth
@mclaren:
In your first point, it’s inaccurate to use a shoplifter as the alleged felon, because he poses no harm to those around him. More accurate to use a murderer or rapist. It’s also inaccurate to say that the police office is acting on a rumor. The police officer, for whatever reason, believes that he has probable cause to believe the alleged murderer or rapist poses a threat.
So a more realistic version of your take on my analogy is:
The watch commander of the local precinct tells his police officers at roll call “If you come across a murdered woman, and you have reason to believe you see the perpetrator, you are authorized to use deadly force in his capture. However, under no circumstances are you to allow this person to escape.”
Is that legal? Yes, it would seem to be in line with the SCOTUS ruling.
Going further, much of your post seems to be tied up in the fact that you don’t trust the CIA’s intelligence. I understand your feelings, because frankly I don’t trust cops.
Unfortunately, my distrust of cops has no bearing on the fact that the government trusts cops, and the fact that their powers are predicated on a basic presumption of trustworthiness. When a cop somewhere shoots a running suspect, they don’t consult me. My opinion doesn’t matter (unless I’m a juror). Moreover, my opinion is not supposed to matter. If the cops have to consult me to do their jobs, then they have to consult you, and Jim DeMint, and the other 300 million people in the country. Which would obviously be unworkable, so our system gives certain people our trust by proxy.
There are parallels to the birther situation. Birthers seem to believe that each and every American needs to physically verify a President’s birth certificate before he’s eligible. That’s fucking nuts. Someone has to verify it, but not everyone.
By the same token, it’s nuts to believe that every American has to verify the CIA’s intel on a particular situation, or even be aware of such intel. Someone has to verify it, but not everyone.
So basically, you can’t evaluate this situation from your personal perspective. It’s irrelevant how much intel you or I think we have on al-Awlaki, what relevant (from a legal perspective) is how much intel the CIA thinks they have.
As much as that may seem to suck, I’m not sure it could be otherwise. Would you honestly expect every decision to be vetted by the entire American populace? Even more sobering, would you trust the American populace to vet these decisions? Unfettered Democracy brought us Proposition 8, if you recall, and part of the genius of the Constitution is exactly that it enables Democracy while avoiding mob rule.
Someone has to decide who to shoot at. You don’t trust the CIA to decide. I don’t necessarily trust you (no offense), nor should you trust me. I doubt either of us trusts Rush Limbaugh to do it. So we rely on the law. And, frankly, the law is not that cut and dried in this instance.
Corner Stone
@Darkmoth: I read back through your posts, and it seems we’re discussing two different means to reach the same outcome.
You’re talking about killings and I’m talking about sanctioned execution after review.
Both lead to the state taking someone’s life but they aren’t the same thing.
The Police Watch Commander giving the all clear on a possible suspect, and that person ending up being killed on the street does not equal the decision by head of state to methodically pursue an individual with an order to terminate.
The CIA doesn’t have to clear their material with me, on that we agree. But since when did it become ok for us to take the government’s word on anything involving life and death? At trial we trust in a process, and the judgement of our peers (or a judge we have some mechanism of accountability over).
Cops on the street who kill a suspect are not given terminate orders when they leave the House.
IMO, these two theories aren’t comparable.
the pair
@Uloborus:
That argument is insanely stupid for the same reason as the Israelis’ constant whining about “they hide with civilians and use them as shields so it’s THEIR fault we killed a bunch of kids” – if you knew the second you stuck your head out and said “hey! I’m over here! arrest me and give me a totally fair trial! I want the same awesome due process everyone at Gitmo has!” that some collateral murder drone jockey would blow it off your shoulders, would you? I guess if Obama told you to, you probably would. I don’t know why I bother anymore.
Anyway, what exactly are the charges? He had a blog? DEAR GOD NO! They hate us for our freedom and our cascading style sheets! Once again, all the administration has to do is say “terrorist boogeyman” and America says “how high?”
Daniel
@mikey: Spot on!
TenguPhule
Who has this guy killed? Who has he raped? How the fuck did we get here?
Le Sigh.
mclaren
@Darkmoth: With respect, your revised analogy is still incorrect. There are several crucial issues here that people who support the president authorizing the assassination of an American citizen miss.
[1] Uloborus nailed it when he points out “Cops are not given terminate orders when they leave the house.”
Ordering the assassination of any American citizen, without charges and without a trial, is not how things are done in a law-abiding society. Period. Therefore your police officer analogy simply doesn’t hold. Police officers are never given orders to assassinate American citizens — at least, not lawfully.
[2] @Darkmoth:
No, that’s not inaccurate, because no one has demonstrated that al-Awlaki has committed any kind of serious crime. Where’s the equivalent of the murder or the rape, and what specific direct evidence ties al-Awlaki to it?
It’s one thing to say that a cop might see a murdered body and have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone committed that crime. But it’s a whole different kettle of fish to say that some American citizen in a different country is making anti-American statements and conclude from that that he is directly and specifically responsible for murdering Americans.
Here are the so-called “crimes” of al-Awlaki:
Source: Militant Islam’s global preacher.
That’s it?
That’s the supposed “murder” this guy al-Awlaki has committed? He broadcast some messages?
How is that equivalent to a murdered woman a cop finds on a street?
That’s not equivalent at all.
Someone who broadcasts messages is entirely different from someone who commits murder.
Broadcasting a message is public speech. Murdering someone is a criminal act. The two are completely different. You’re confusing apples with oranges here, Darkmoth.
So if you really believe your analogy is valid, Darkmoth, answer this one — in the days immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Dixie Chicks spoke out against the Iraq War. Americans were dying in Iraq. Should the president have authorized the assassination of the Dixie Chicks?
You might retort that there’s no direct evidence that the Dixie Chicks’ statements killed any Americans…but that failed and faulty rebuttal falls apart because there is also no evidence that al-Awlaki’s statements killed any Americans.
How about the Democrats during the period from 2002 to 2008? Lots of Republicans claimed that the Democrats were urging the destruction of America during that period — but the Republicans never offered any evidence of any direct connection between what the Democrats said and dead Americans then, just as no one has offered any evidence of any kind of direct connection between what al-Awlaki is saying and dead Americans today.
So if your analogy holds, George W. Bush should have authorized the assassination of all Democrats, shouldn’t he?
That’s so obviously crazy and so completely incompatible with a workable society that it speaks for itself.
[3] You go on to make a completely invalid argument about your analogy, which constitutes a further error and is entirely different from your incorrect analogy itself.
@Darkmoth:
In other words, the people in authority have secret evidence, but we can’t see it for “national security reasons,” and therefore people in power in America should be able to order the murder of an American citizen without producing any evidence.
Sorry, that’s completely contrary to the constitution. It’s totally incompatible with a free society.
This is the same phony false invalid argument that was made for every unconstitutional law in America, from the Alien and Sedition Act in 1798 to the detention of American-born U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during WW II to the illegal bombings in Cambodia and the Phoenix Program assassinations in Viet Nam and Laos during the Vietnamese War.
In every single case, the American officials responsible for these criminal acts made the bogus claim “We have secret evidence but we can’t divulge it for national security reasons.”
In every case, they turned out to be lying.
Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether they were lying or not, because that’s now how America works.
In America, we don’t execute people summarily for secret charges which cannot be revealed. That’s what dictatorships do, Darkmoth. That’s what Pol Pot did in Cambodia during Year Zero. That’s what Stalin did in Russia during the purges.
One of the most basic principles of an open democratic society is that before a citizen can be executed, there must be public charges made against hi/r and the evidence against that citizen must be publicly revealed in a trial by jury.
Once you throw out that basic principle, Darkmoth, you’re living in a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Sorry, but at this point, your attempt to revise the analogy completely collapses. The constitution is specific on this point. Amendment 5 and Amendment 6 don’t say “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless someone in power claims there’s secret evidence that cannot be revealed.”
Here’s what Amendment 5 of the constitution says:
In your analogy with the police officer, the corpse of the murder victim and the personal observation of the police officer of the suspect who committed the crime provides “due process of law.”
But where’s the due process of law in the case of al-Awlaki? There is none. Someone is power decided we should execute this guy because they don’t like what he’s saying.
Suppose someone in power doesn’t like what you’re saying, Darkmoth? Should the president be able to authorize your execution and then claim “There was evidence against that guy Darkmoth, but it’s classified, we can’t reveal it”?
There’s a name for that kind of sanctioned judicial murder, Darkmoth — a star chamber proceeding. Secret evidence presented in a secret session that no one else is permitted to review. A star chamber proceeding is a hallmark of tyranny.
This is where your analogy falls apart entirely. In the case of a murder victim and someone running away from the murder victim with a smoking gun in a his hand and a cop chasing and killing that suspect, everyone can see the evidence against the suspect.
In your analogy the evidence is plainly visible and incontrovertible. Perhaps, by some strange coincidence, an innocent bystander happened to fire a starter pistol and then ran away from the murder victim when the cop told him to stop, but in that case, the police officer would be comletely justified in shooting that innocent person because all the available evidence clearly and self-evidently points to the innocent guy holding the smoking starter pistol as a criminal.
But now you’re telling us that we can’t see the evidence against al-Awlaki. That’s a completely different situation from the analogy you gave us. To revise your analogy, we’d have to have the police officer shooting some bystander in the head in public and then proclaiming, “There was evidence against this person, but I can’t reveal it.”
Would you accept that as legal?
No one would. No one should.
The bogus discredit phony argument “There’s secret evidence against this person we’re going to execute by order of the state, but the evidence is so hush-hush and so important that we can’t reveal it” is the oldest scam ever run by a tyranny. Anyone who accepts that long-discredited argument rejects the fundamental principles of a free society.
Dictatorship and tyranny follow from a public acceptance of the judicial murder of free citizens on the basis of secret evidence that no one is allowed to say, as the night inevitable follows the day.
With these points, I believe it’s clear that your analogy fails. More to the point, your essential argument boils down to the claim “We must trust the state to commit extrajudicial murder on the basis of secret evidence we cannot see” and both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton explicitly rejected this argument in The Federalist Papers when they argued for the ratification of the constitution of the United States.
I refer you to James Madison in The Federalist Papers Number 48, in which he warns that
When the president of the united states arrogates to himself the powers of judge as well as jury as well as executioner, this is the very defintion of tyranny…threatened by executive usurpations.
We have a jury system which is separate from the police for a good reason — so that everyone may hear the evidence and be satisfied that no tyranny is going on, that no private judicial murder is occurring outside the law. Your argument, Darkmoth, that we should not be able to see the secret evidence against someone who is executed by executive fiat, so completely contradicts all the writings of the founders of this country as set forth in The Federalist Papers that it is impossible to sanction your faulty argument even if your analogy with the police officer were accurate — which it isn’t, your analogy is entirely inaccurate.
It goes without saying that the constitution itself explicitly rejects this meretricious argument in whole and altogether.
So not only is your analogy wholly inaccurate and incorrect, the argument you make on it is faulty nd bogus and must be rejected out of hand, as the founders of America did in The Federalist Papers and as the constitution itself explicitly does.
bdop4
@mikey:
Amen, Brother. We ARE a nation of cowards who drank the Bush/Cheney koolaid and accepted the bullshit GWOT terminology. Both Dems and Republicans.
It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which people will gladly hand over their civil rights for a sliver of perceived security.
EthylEster
They didn’t assassinate Ezra Pound.
teo
The biggest problem with Darkmoth’s argument is that conspirators all around the country — the world — are given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against them and these conspirators are dangerous.
So, in this instance, take what the government is saying as true: this guy in Yemen is planning attacks against the United States. He’s meeting with fellow attackers and recruiting people to attack the United States. Take it all as being true.
If we know where this guy is and our people are not being shot at or otherwise being presently lethally endangered by this man, I don’t believe we can kill him under the laws of the US and the Geneva Convention. That is, we are not at war with Yemen so this man — however horrible he may be — is entitled to certain protections under the GC (and even if we were, he’d receive these protections). If he were shooting our officers or our troops and we acted in self-defense, it would be a different story. But, it sounds like what we have is our government merely ordering his trial, verdict and execution.
This is not progress. We need to pick the guy up, throw him in jail, interrogate him, try him, convict him and throw away the key.
pointus
All this baloney about how al-Awlaki must be murdered because he’s “hiding in a cave” is just that: baloney. If there’s an indictment against him, let’s work through lawful, international diplomatic means– with logistical assistance to the Yemeni authorities if necessary– & capture him, if indeed he is a fugitive.
Assassinations of political opponents (committed by those who hire current & former US operatives to carry them out) are unfortunately a fact of life in this country. Victims include Michael Connell, Rove’s IT guru; Paul Wellstone; Mel Carnahan; MLK, Jr; JFK… the list goes on: I wouldn’t be surprised if the JSOC assassination program which Sy Hersh has written about had its roots in the same right-wing political machine which carried out the aforementioned killings.
polyorchnid octopunch
Holy shit, I don’t believe it.
I’m a little late to this party. I’ve read some of the top stuff.
Look, you don’t need access to him to take what you’ve got to the judiciary, and, based on law passed by the legislature to enable this action, use it to include him in an Afghan wedding party. Lots of people (me, for instance) might question the wisdom of such an action, not to mention its legality in a broader sense, but… at least every part of the government is in on the action, and having that is a big part of what having a republic actually means.
What they’re talking about completely drops the judiciary and the legislature out of the picture. This is simply not legitimate according to the basic principles of how a republic is supposed to function. Having all three branches involved is how you protect yourselves from the state.
So all this stuff about how he’s hiding out in the hills is completely irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. Conviction in absentia is an old and well-established legal tactic. However, in order to have such a conviction, you have to have had a trial involving a judge to discuss exactly what laws passed by Congress this guy’s broken that carry the death penalty. Then, and only then, should the executive act. Doing it on its own is tyranny. Period.
It’s not like the US doesn’t already have plenty of star chambers. Pick one and use it once you get law from Congress that enables it by creating a crime that carries execution as punishment.
It doesn’t matter who the person running the joint is.
Acharn
@Uloborus:
I’m not sure either. Most of the earlier news stories I read about him suggested he advocated active resistance to the American War On Islam, but I haven’t seen any flat-out statement that he advocated killing people.
Acharn
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: The Yemeni government isn’t trying to kill him. They don’t care about him. What they want to do is make a deal with the separatist faction that he’s hanging out with. Most of them (that particular rebel faction) couldn’t care less about AQ — they have their own grievances with the Yemeni govt. and Awlaki just happens to be a guy they like and let hang out with them. Trying to bring Yemen in as a democratic freedom-loving ally of ours is ridiculous. They’re worse than the Kuwaitis.
Ken Lovell
Jeez this thread really is an eye-opener. And it’s on a ‘progressive’ blog!
Enjoy your ‘war’ guys. Christ the USA is a fucked up country.
JT
Bravo, I had to laugh, until I cried…