Execution without trial

Pages

Listening to Dan Carlin today, and he's saying scary and depressing things again.

From what I gather, the executive branch (Obama) claims the power to execute (different meaning of the word) people suspected of terrorism without a trial. Furthermore, the executive branch also claims it does not need to reveal its evidence on the grounds that such information is a "state secret" and having anyone review that information, even a judge, in his chambers, under strict confidentiality, is a breach of national security.

Which basically means that Obama can have anyone killed he pleases. The only defense they have is pretty much an exciting and unlikely prison break, followed by a dramatic chase to a nation where they can seek asylum. These days that might require a lot of gasoline.

We are a nation of law, and a nation of checks and balances. We are a nation where the president can make people disappear forever, but he's supposed to at least be subtle about it.

Is this the price of security? Are we going to trot out the old excuse that if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about? Are we to assume that no mistakes will ever be made with so dire a decision? Even knowing how very wrong the CIA was about Iraq's WMD program before we invaded?

Obama, please don't take us to war with Iran. That's all we've got left.

Not having heard the show, or seen any documentation that this is based on, I can only assume he's referring to foreign terrorists, and there's probably a ton of caveats to that, if any of this is true.

Seems like there is more to this, but if this is the price of freedom then we don't deserve it.

LobsterMobster wrote:

From what I gather, the executive branch (Obama) claims the power to execute (different meaning of the word) people suspected of terrorism without a trial. Furthermore, the executive branch also claims it does not need to reveal its evidence on the grounds that such information is a "state secret" and having anyone review that information, even a judge, in his chambers, under strict confidentiality, is a breach of national security.

Also sounds like if we have classified information that indicates a foreign terrorist is a threat to the US or it's people, the President can issue an order to have that person taken out. I'm saying the same thing, just with context, which the OP lacks (probably no fault to LobsterMobster).

Shoal07 wrote:

Not having heard the show, or seen any documentation that this is based on, I can only assume he's referring to foreign terrorists, and there's probably a ton of caveats to that, if any of this is true.

He is referring to American citizens. Or specifically, al-Aulaqi. Here's an article on it from The Washington Post.

It's hard to find good information on this since it sounds SO hyperbolic that it usually leads to sites with pictures of Hitler that don't even mention the name of the target. As for al-Aulaqi himself, it sounds plausible that the guy could actually have terrorist connections. Unfortunately, "probably" is not as good as "proven," and US citizens have a right to the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt. This guy is being denied his right to challenge the accusations against him.

Some people say that when it's obvious the guy is guilty, a trial is pointless. I say that when it's obvious the guy is guilty, the trial is quick.

Shoal07 wrote:

Not having heard the show, or seen any documentation that this is based on, I can only assume he's referring to foreign terrorists, and there's probably a ton of caveats to that, if any of this is true.

You're referring to "enemy combatants", which can be citizens who are accused of collaborating with other "enemy combatants" and thus aren't really citizens according to the government (I remember that discussion from earlier this year).

Lobster, all I can say is that I and others have been ranting about this for years (basically since the PATRIOT Act passed) being where our nation was headed, and time and again I've been called paranoid, told to "take off the tinfoil hat", or been disparaged via other barbs and insults.

Anymore, it's hard not to have a bit of a smug "I told you so" attitude (not to you, but to those who responded to me in the manner noted).

Sadly, I didn't want to ever be able to smugly say "I told you so".

Shoal07 wrote:

I can only assume he's referring to foreign terrorists

I wish you were right, but... he's almost definitely referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen currently living in Yemen. Obama has okayed his assassination, far away from any war zone. There's currently a lawsuit trying to stop the killing, and Obama is trying to get it dismissed because litigation would reveal state secrets.

Pretty awful stuff. I know the CIA has likely been guilty of umpteen assassinations over the years, but having it all out in the open like this makes it seem a lot worse, and scarier. The president really, really shouldn't have the overt power to kill folks on nothing more than his say-so.

Edit: Tannhauser'd!

LobsterMobster wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Not having heard the show, or seen any documentation that this is based on, I can only assume he's referring to foreign terrorists, and there's probably a ton of caveats to that, if any of this is true.

He is referring to American citizens. Or specifically, al-Aulaqi. Here's an article on it from The Washington Post.

It's hard to find good information on this since it sounds SO hyperbolic that it usually leads to sites with pictures of Hitler that don't even mention the name of the target. As for al-Aulaqi himself, it sounds plausible that the guy could actually have terrorist connections. Unfortunately, "probably" is not as good as "proven," and US citizens have a right to the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt. This guy is being denied his right to challenge the accusations against him.

Some people say that when it's obvious the guy is guilty, a trial is pointless. I say that when it's obvious the guy is guilty, the trial is quick.

If we had him in custody, we would try him. Capture is not the same as Kill. For some, Capture is impossible, and there might be a small window somewhere to slip a bullet in. The issue at hand is this particular Al-Qaeda Terrorist/leader happens to be a US citizen. While I agree, kill orders against US Cits should never be the norm, the DoD/CIA brings up a good point:

Miller added, "If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."

"He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." The official stressed that there are "careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens."

I agree most with the last part. If he's actively involved in the killing or attempted killing of US Citizens, at what point do we act, or encourage allies to act on our behalf?

Shoal07 wrote:

I agree most with the last part. If he's actively involved in the killing or attempted killing of US Citizens, at what point do we act, or encourage allies to act on our behalf?

Perhaps, at the very least, when the government is willing and able to prove its allegations in court? "Trust us" is not a good justification for assassination. Is this seriously a gray area for you?

Shoal, did you not read the article? First sentence:

The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets.

Miller's right, being a US citizen does not give you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens. That allegation has not been proven. He has a right to live till we can prove it, and if it's so blatantly obvious it should be really easy to prove. The Obama administration is refusing to prove it in court, and their rationale for that denial does not change the fact that they are violating the rights of a U.S. citizen, even if that citizen is probably a bad guy anyway. We are taking Miller's word for it. If the word of an official was ever enough, we wouldn't need to have trials ever, for anyone.

What's to stop Obama from declaring that YOU are a terrorist leader, and sentencing you to death? The fact that you're not one? According to this precedent, he does not have to prove it. What's to stop him from saying that capture is impossible - whether it actually is or not - and that if government agents get a shot they should take it to eliminate a thread to the United States? What's to stop him from saying that even proving the fact after your death would reveal state secrets?

No matter how unlikely this scenario is, you need to understand that it could happen, and if it did, there would not be a damn thing you could do about it except run or die.

Italics make me right.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Shoal, did you not read the article? First sentence:

The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets.

Miller's right, being a US citizen does not give you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens. That allegation has not been proven. He has a right to live till we can prove it, and if it's so blatantly obvious it should be really easy to prove. The Obama administration is refusing to prove it in court, and their rationale for that denial does not change the fact that they are violating the rights of a U.S. citizen, even if that citizen is probably a bad guy anyway. We are taking Miller's word for it. If the word of an official was ever enough, we wouldn't need to have trials ever, for anyone.

What's to stop Obama from declaring that YOU are a terrorist leader, and sentencing you to death? The fact that you're not one? According to this precedent, he does not have to prove it. What's to stop him from saying that capture is impossible - whether it actually is or not - and that if government agents get a shot they should take it to eliminate a thread to the United States? What's to stop him from saying that even proving the fact after your death would reveal state secrets?

No matter how unlikely this scenario is, you need to understand that it could happen, and if it did, there would not be a damn thing you could do about it except run or die.

Italics make me right. :D

No, you're making a good argument, and I do agree with you. I'm not advocating the Pres kill who he wants, especially US cits, more saying "what can we do?"

jonstock wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I agree most with the last part. If he's actively involved in the killing or attempted killing of US Citizens, at what point do we act, or encourage allies to act on our behalf?

Perhaps, at the very least, when the government is willing and able to prove its allegations in court? "Trust us" is not a good justification for assassination. Is this seriously a gray area for you?

But, is any trial without the defendant present legitimate? Not the last time I checked. Even if they get a person, called a Judge, to sign off on it, does that make it more legit? How? Are they uncorruptable? Should we have a Trial with a Judge & Jury to decide? Possibly, but that would compromise national security information. Maybe in this case it should be compromised. But what if 100 other people die because their information was compromised, and the people who live next to them in their host country turn them in? Is it worth risking more lives for a Judge and Jury to do a farce trial which wouldn't be accepted as legit anyway?

Yes, there should be checks and balances here. I don't think banging the "It should go in-front of a Judge" drum is the answer. That seems like just asking one more dude who may tow the party line what he thinks.

I don't know if there's anything we can do.

My problem - aside from the violation of a US citizen's rights - is that we don't really know that it would compromise national security information. What I do know is that the government can and has used that defense to avoid revealing things that are simply embarrassing. In fact, that's precisely what they did in the case where they set the precedent; they denied a widow access to information about the plane crash that killed her husband by arguing that the plane contained classified equipment. When finally she got a copy of the report, years and years later, that's as specific as it got: there was equipment on board the plane. What sort of equipment, it didn't specify. What the report did show was negligence in maintaining and operating the aircraft.

Can judges be corrupted? Absolutely. Can the "state secrets" defense be used legitimately? Definitely. These are considerations to be made. That said, I don't think the answer is simply to trust the government, not trust the judges, and kill a US citizen on sight. Even if there's nothing we can do, it's important that we remember this.

As for the man in question, he has rights. Even if those rights are pointless and useless, he has them. If we deny him them, they are not rights. That too, we must remember.

Glenn Greenwald had a great article on Saturday about just how scary this really is. Right on the money, IMO.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Listening to Dan Carlin today, and he's saying scary and depressing things again.

From what I gather, the executive branch (Obama) claims the power to execute (different meaning of the word) people suspected of terrorism without a trial.

Why is it every time I see a Dan Carlin reference, it's a bunch of junk? That guy needs to stop scaring and depressing people. At least, for the wrong reasons.

LobsterMobster wrote:

As for the man in question, he has rights. Even if those rights are pointless and useless, he has them. If we deny him them, they are not rights. That too, we must remember.

I think Shoal07 quoted an important point here:

Shoal07 wrote:

Miller added, "If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."

"He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." The official stressed that there are "careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens."

I agree most with the last part. If he's actively involved in the killing or attempted killing of US Citizens, at what point do we act, or encourage allies to act on our behalf?

One, he has whatever rights Yemen gives him. So let's not say he has no rights--he has whatever rights there are for people in his jurisdiction.

Two, do we have to treat terrorist organizations like criminal enterprises or can we treat them more like enemy armies? We can't kill members of a criminal enterprise to 'hurt' it, but we can do that to members of enemy armies. Where does a terrorist organization fall? Would it be okay if during WWII we assassinated Nazis in South America? Is the issue here really about a right to trial or is it about a requirement of trial protecting us from government misbehavior?

jonstock wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

I agree most with the last part. If he's actively involved in the killing or attempted killing of US Citizens, at what point do we act, or encourage allies to act on our behalf?

Perhaps, at the very least, when the government is willing and able to prove its allegations in court? "Trust us" is not a good justification for assassination. Is this seriously a gray area for you?

This is why maybe this particular scenario stands apart: it's an assassination, not a kidnapping. This is the capture or kill list: does the government need to do everything it would if it were arresting someone here in the US? I bet a lot of people who have a problem with the US killing people without trial wouldn't have a problem with the US capturing people without a warrant, which is false imprisonment. Or how about a wiretap? Does a US secret agent need a court order to place a listening device when operating 'overseas'?

That's why maybe 'kill' is different from 'capture': the suit phrases it in a very interesting way: "extrajudicial execution." While many other actions are seen as part of the process of apprehending someone and bringing them to eventual trial, a killing is the infliction of punishment, which is left exclusively to the judiciary.

I think the big question here is how much the actions of the US in foreign jurisdictions must resemble those permitted in the US when acting as law enforcement. Is there anything in between the government acting as a soldier and the government acting as a cop?

IMAGE(http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a447/cheezepavilion/GWJ%20iCandi/LtKGWJ.jpg)

CheezePavilion wrote:

I agree most with the last part. If he's actively involved in the killing or attempted killing of US Citizens, at what point do we act, or encourage allies to act on our behalf?

I think we act at the point the government feels it has a strong case that can be proven against him in a court of law. So what if he has state secrets, aren't there judicial mechanisms for handling cases with classified information? Or is there a danger here that a government already embarrassed by leaks from Afghanistan will have even more dirtly laundry revealed.

One, he has whatever rights Yemen gives him. So let's not say he has no rights--he has whatever rights there are for people in his jurisdiction.

True, but I would expect we would want any American citizen to be treated better than the average Yemani and extradited to the U.S. to stand trial.

Two, do we have to treat terrorist organizations like criminal enterprises or can we treat them more like enemy armies? We can't kill members of a criminal enterprise to 'hurt' it, but we can do that to members of enemy armies. Where does a terrorist organization fall? Would it be okay if during WWII we assassinated Nazis in South America? Is the issue here really about a right to trial or is it about a requirement of trial protecting us from government misbehavior?

To me the primary issue is that the fellow, no mater how bat crap crazy he may be, is an American citizen first. He is a member of a terrorist organization second. It's that fact that we stand up for the rights of criminals, and their right to a trial, that is supposed to set us apart from the nations we're so quick to condemn. Otherwise, we're just living up to our negative press.

It may be hypocritical, but I have less of an issue carrying out an assassination against a non US entity than against an American citizens, no matter how vile he or she may be.

At a stretch, people might be ok with President Obama wielding this kind of authority, but what about a President Palin, or Gingrich, or some other unknown, ascendant politician?

Then, as they're about to launch a legal challenge "the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control announced that it was applying the designation of global terrorist to Mr. Awlaki. That blocked his assets and made it a crime for Americans to engage in transactions with him or for his benefit without a license."

Change we can believe in indeed.

Ballotechnic wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I agree most with the last part. If he's actively involved in the killing or attempted killing of US Citizens, at what point do we act, or encourage allies to act on our behalf?

I think we act at the point the government feels it has a strong case that can be proven against him in a court of law. So what if he has state secrets, aren't there judicial mechanisms for handling cases with classified information? Or is there a danger here that a government already embarrassed by leaks from Afghanistan will have even more dirtly laundry revealed.

That's actually Shoal07, not me. I think I might be misunderstanding you: just because the government is invoking state secrets doesn't mean they necessarily have no case--maybe the government is invoking state secrets because we are at the point the government feels it has a strong case that can be proven against him in a court of law.

One, he has whatever rights Yemen gives him. So let's not say he has no rights--he has whatever rights there are for people in his jurisdiction.

True, but I would expect we would want any American citizen to be treated better than the average Yemani and extradited to the U.S. to stand trial.

Two, do we have to treat terrorist organizations like criminal enterprises or can we treat them more like enemy armies? We can't kill members of a criminal enterprise to 'hurt' it, but we can do that to members of enemy armies. Where does a terrorist organization fall? Would it be okay if during WWII we assassinated Nazis in South America? Is the issue here really about a right to trial or is it about a requirement of trial protecting us from government misbehavior?

To me the primary issue is that the fellow, no mater how bat crap crazy he may be, is an American citizen first. He is a member of a terrorist organization second. It's that fact that we stand up for the rights of criminals, and their right to a trial, that is supposed to set us apart from the nations we're so quick to condemn. Otherwise, we're just living up to our negative press.

It may be hypocritical, but I have less of an issue carrying out an assassination against a non US entity than against an American citizens, no matter how vile he or she may be.

Well one, you're (and the discussion in general is) mixing two different ideas here:

--the way the American government must treat American citizens,

and

--how the American government must treat criminals.

Even illegal aliens get the right to a trial. Without getting to whether it's hypocritical, it's more that it's inconsistent: you're kinda saying 'we stand up for the rights of criminals, but we *really* stand up for the rights of *American* criminals, and not as much for the rights of non-American criminals'. Or I guess 'your status as a member of a terrorist organization comes first, unless you're an American citizen, in which case that comes first.'

Also, you expressed concern about the things that are supposed to set us apart from the nations we're so quick to condemn and about not living up to our negative press, I don't think 'what Obama is doing is terrible! oh, he's not an American? well then I have less of an issue with it' is going to disprove any of that negative press.

At a stretch, people might be ok with President Obama wielding this kind of authority, but what about a President Palin, or Gingrich, or some other unknown, ascendant politician?

Then, as they're about to launch a legal challenge "the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control announced that it was applying the designation of global terrorist to Mr. Awlaki. That blocked his assets and made it a crime for Americans to engage in transactions with him or for his benefit without a license."

Change we can believe in indeed.

Um, I don't see how that would affect the legal challenge.

How do you guys know that the evidence has not been judged in the FISA court?

Robear wrote:

How do you guys know that the evidence has not been judged in the FISA court?

Does it matter? I didn't think the FISA courts were there to let you proceed directly to the execution.

Sorry for the quote-tastrophe, didn't mean to assign any words to you that were not yours...it's been a long day.

If the government has a strong case that can be proven in a court, then why not try him. There are systems that would protect state secrets while seeing justice is served.

According to the article the lawyers can no longer work on his behalf because "(the Treasury Dept) made it a crime for Americans to engage in transactions with him or for his benefit without a license. The sub link in that first story goes on to another Times article that explains...

"But the group has found itself in a Catch-22-like bind: because the government has designated Mr. Awlaki a terrorist, it would be a crime for the lawyers to file a lawsuit challenging the government’s attempts to kill him."

Yes, IMO his citizenship trumps his terrorist affiliations. The gist of my point that the executive branch should not be able to dismiss his rights as an American citizen without some degree of judicial oversight. Any American accused of a crime is supposed to be entitled to due process of law.

While I don't always agree with the US's tactics against non-citizens, black ops have a long history in international relations or state craft (for lack of a better term I can't think of right now). I find it particularly troubling to see a fellow US citizen's rights dismissed so casually by our government, regardless of his offenses.

I simply don't trust politicians to do what's right without some sort of oversight of their actions. No branch of goverment should be outside the system of checks and balances prescribed by the constitution.

As a bleeding heart liberal I feel bad saying this - but I really have no problem with strategic strikes. This guy wants to plot against America? Take him out. Why waste his time and our with a trial?

BOOM!

CheezePavilion wrote:

Two, do we have to treat terrorist organizations like criminal enterprises or can we treat them more like enemy armies? We can't kill members of a criminal enterprise to 'hurt' it, but we can do that to members of enemy armies. Where does a terrorist organization fall? Would it be okay if during WWII we assassinated Nazis in South America? Is the issue here really about a right to trial or is it about a requirement of trial protecting us from government misbehavior?

I'm sorry to pick just this out but it seems others are doing a good job with the rest of your posts.

It would not be OK if we were to assassinate a Nazi in South America if that Nazi was a US citizen and only "probably" a Nazi. A Nazi, by which I assume you mean a soldier and enemy in that context rather than someone who simply sympathizes without providing any material support. As distasteful as it may be, in the 40s it was not illegal to think the Nazis were right and today it is not illegal to think Al Qaeda is right. The crime is not agreeing with them but helping them. You might say that after we had gone to war with Germany that a Nazi soldier was an enemy of the United States and could not be a citizen, and that would be right. The point of the trial would not be to determine whether or not a Nazi soldier deserves to be assassinated, but whether or not that individual actually is a Nazi. If the answer turns out to be, "no he's not," then suddenly there is a huge problem with assassinating him because he is not an enemy. He is a US citizen.

You can't ask whether it's about a right to a trial or a requirement to protect our other rights because that's the purpose of the trial: to prove whether or not we have done something so bad that we deserve to lose some rights, temporarily (prison) or permanently (execution). Not many people ask for a trial because they really enjoy being charged with a crime.

PS. Godwinning it already? Really?

SallyNasty wrote:

As a bleeding heart liberal I feel bad saying this - but I really have no problem with strategic strikes. This guy wants to plot against America? Take him out. Why waste his time and our with a trial?

BOOM!

OK, we really need to establish this once and for all, so I'm going to bold it. It'll be obnoxious and for that I apologize.

This is not about whether or not we should kill enemies of the United States. This is about whether or not we have to prove they are actually an enemy before we do it.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

Hey, I heard SallyNasty was an enemy of the United States. Yeah, totally plotting terrorist attacks. You're welcome for that intel, Mr. President.

You're saying you wouldn't mind someone dropping bombs on you without a trial, SallyNasty?

SallyNasty wrote:

As a bleeding heart liberal I feel bad saying this - but I really have no problem with strategic strikes. This guy wants to plot against America? Take him out. Why waste his time and our with a trial?

BOOM!

We have a fair bit of a history of defining "wants to plot against America" as "smokes a bunch of pot with other morons and talks about how cool it would be to blow some @#$ up" (see: Joe Padilla).

I dunno, if news around the world is calling me a terrorist, and I don't raise my hand and say - hey dudes, I am not a terrorist, I just don't necessarily agree with how you guys roll - you have my permission to assume that I am up to no good.

And this guy seems to be doing a bit more than just saying F you america.

I am not totally for assassination - don't get me wrong - I am not blood thirsty. I just want to assume that the government knows a bit more about this than I do, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

*Edit*

Also, I think that Americans in America have a very different set of rights than Americans abroad.

LobsterMobster wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

As a bleeding heart liberal I feel bad saying this - but I really have no problem with strategic strikes. This guy wants to plot against America? Take him out. Why waste his time and our with a trial?

BOOM!

OK, we really need to establish this once and for all, so I'm going to bold it. It'll be obnoxious and for that I apologize.

This is not about whether or not we should kill enemies of the United States. This is about whether or not we have to prove they are actually an enemy before we do it.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

Bingo. it's about the legal precedent being set here too. Just because this may be a cut-and-dry case (and I honestly don't know if it is or not), we have to set legal precedents that will hold in all (or almost all) circumstances. If we set the wrong precedent now, then next time we may have a very grey area case, but the government wants to make it black-and-white. What then? It'll be too late to say "oh crap, wait, change the rules!"

Doesn't work that way.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just want to assume that the government knows a bit more about this than I do, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Honest question: why are you simply willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt? History shows that time and time again the governments of many nations (including the US) have flat out lied to their constituencies, and used scapegoats to hide their own guilt.

Nevermind that this entire thing is completely unconstitutional. I'm not okay with that, SallyNasty.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Sorry for the quote-tastrophe, didn't mean to assign any words to you that were not yours...it's been a long day.

If the government has a strong case that can be proven in a court, then why not try him. There are systems that would protect state secrets while seeing justice is served.

No worries! Just wanted to keep things clear--I agree with the gist of what he said so your point applies to both of us.

Sure, but now we're talking about a different question of what our policy should be and not about law and justice and all that. Maybe that's what the government *should* do, but is it what it *must* do otherwise it's violating someone's rights?

According to the article the lawyers can no longer work on his behalf because "(the Treasury Dept) made it a crime for Americans to engage in transactions with him or for his benefit without a license. The sub link in that first story goes on to another Times article that explains...

"But the group has found itself in a Catch-22-like bind: because the government has designated Mr. Awlaki a terrorist, it would be a crime for the lawyers to file a lawsuit challenging the government’s attempts to kill him."

Ah, okay. It also says they can get permission to represent him despite his being on that list, though.

Yes, IMO his citizenship trumps his terrorist affiliations. The gist of my point that the executive branch should not be able to dismiss his rights as an American citizen without some degree of judicial oversight. Any American accused of a crime is supposed to be entitled to due process of law.

While I don't always agree with the US's tactics against non-citizens, black ops have a long history in international relations or state craft (for lack of a better term I can't think of right now). I find it particularly troubling to see a fellow US citizen's rights dismissed so casually by our government, regardless of his offenses.

But *any person* accused of a crime is supposed to be entitled to due process of law by America, at least when it comes to execution orders. I get the gist of your point, but your point is mixing facts and feelings, which I think is at the center of all this: on the one hand it's law enforcement, on the other hand, it's what I would call the spy game (maybe that's the term you're looking for? That's why I put up the 007 graphic--wasn't just being flippant, was also making a point).

I simply don't trust politicians to do what's right without some sort of oversight of their actions. No branch of goverment should be outside the system of checks and balances prescribed by the constitution.

Well that's part of the question here: what is the check and balance prescribed by the constitution?

LobsterMobster wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Two, do we have to treat terrorist organizations like criminal enterprises or can we treat them more like enemy armies? We can't kill members of a criminal enterprise to 'hurt' it, but we can do that to members of enemy armies. Where does a terrorist organization fall? Would it be okay if during WWII we assassinated Nazis in South America? Is the issue here really about a right to trial or is it about a requirement of trial protecting us from government misbehavior?

I'm sorry to pick just this out but it seems others are doing a good job with the rest of your posts.

It would not be OK if we were to assassinate a Nazi in South America if that Nazi was a US citizen and only "probably" a Nazi. A Nazi, by which I assume you mean a soldier and enemy in that context rather than someone who simply sympathizes without providing any material support. As distasteful as it may be, in the 40s it was not illegal to think the Nazis were right and today it is not illegal to think Al Qaeda is right. The crime is not agreeing with them but helping them. You might say that after we had gone to war with Germany that a Nazi soldier was an enemy of the United States and could not be a citizen, and that would be right. The point of the trial would not be to determine whether or not a Nazi soldier deserves to be assassinated, but whether or not that individual actually is a Nazi. If the answer turns out to be, "no he's not," then suddenly there is a huge problem with assassinating him because he is not an enemy. He is a US citizen.

Sure, but you're jumping from "we need to figure out if he's part of that organization" to "we need a trial to figure it out" without demonstrating why we need a trial to figure it out. You're missing that essential middle part, where you show only a trial can do the job.

You can't ask whether it's about a right to a trial or a requirement to protect our other rights because that's the purpose of the trial: to prove whether or not we have done something so bad that we deserve to lose some rights, temporarily (prison) or permanently (execution). Not many people ask for a trial because they really enjoy being charged with a crime.

I didn't though--I think you unconsciously changed my words because you didn't catch the point I'm trying to make. I asked whether it's about a right to trial or a requirement to protect us from government misbehavior. I think this is an issue with the discussion too: while all violations of our rights are instances of government misbehavior, is all government misbehavior a violation of our rights?

This gets back to what I was saying about even capturing him: if we need a trial to 'execute' him, do we need a court to sign off on putting a listening device in his house in Yemen, like we do in order to put one in a mob guy's house on Long Island or something? If the kill list is extrajudicial execution, is the capture list false imprisonment?

PS. Godwinning it already? Really? ;)

God that term is the bane of the internet...Godwinning involves making an analogy, not treating the term 'Nazi' as if it were the secret word on Pee-Wee's Playhouse.

"Nazi!"

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fTT9xlgZ9CU/S0y8zTklfAI/AAAAAAAAh98/h2BPPTHmMwE/s400/PeeWee.jpg)

"AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

DSGamer wrote:

Nevermind that this entire thing is completely unconstitutional. I'm not okay with that, SallyNasty.

Ok, what do you want me to do about it? I am not the one putting the orders together, I am just a guy who says - hey, if it bends the rules to use a surgical strike, I am more ok with that than I am with a legal war where thousands will die.

Farscry wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just want to assume that the government knows a bit more about this than I do, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Honest question: why are you simply willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt? History shows that time and time again the governments of many nations (including the US) have flat out lied to their constituencies, and used scapegoats to hide their own guilt.

That is totally fair, and that is a question I need to put some critical thinking into.

Farscry wrote:

"Nazi!"

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fTT9xlgZ9CU/S0y8zTklfAI/AAAAAAAAh98/h2BPPTHmMwE/s400/PeeWee.jpg)

"AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

IMAGE(http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a447/cheezepavilion/GWJ%20iCandi/GdwnGWJ.jpg)

Pages