Execution without trial

Robear wrote:

Does anyone really believe Obama is better at hiding things than Bush?

Well, the fact that this thread exists and this is a topic being discussed, suggests that Obama is pretty horrible at hiding distasteful realities of government.

I would be pretty sure similar shenanigans happened under all previous presidents and didn't get out in the open.

Well, the "it's the tip of the iceberg" argument assumes that there's much more hidden than we see today.

The "we'll scale back this sort of thing when we're no longer in war" argument doesn't really hold much water with me. I don't think Islamic Terrorism is going anywhere anytime soon. Even if we end our current combat mission in Afghanistan, there will still be terrorists plotting against us, thus an excuse to keep using this power.

A bill just passed the House which expands the people who must be notified of highly classified operations from the "Gang of Eight" to the entirety of the intelligence committees. Seems like a start.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Well, the fact that this thread exists and this is a topic being discussed, suggests that Obama is pretty horrible at hiding distasteful realities of government.

I'm not sure this *was* hidden: how did this guy's father find out his son was on the list in the first place? The claim (one of four claims) by the government is that in order for the government to prove he belongs on the list, they would have to divulge state secrets. I think that's the secret part--exactly why he's on the list (I think they made some stuff public like Underpants Bomber named him as the one who ordered that operation or something) is what is being kept secret--I don't think there's been any attempt to hide anything we're discussing in this thread. The only thing my poking around reveals is that maybe this list was part of what came out in the Wikileaks incident?

I found this:

The possibility that Mr. Awlaki might be added to the target list was reported by The Los Angeles Times in January, and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing.

Which suggest the list itself and who is on it isn't being kept secret.

I would be pretty sure similar shenanigans happened under all previous presidents and didn't get out in the open.

It didn't involve an American citizen, but not only was it out in the open, the only controversy I can remember it causing was whether it was an attempt to Wag the Dog.

Which suggest the list itself and who is on it isn't being kept secret.

O we're pretty clear when you're on the "We're going to f*cking murder you" list. If you have any doubts, sit outside a public place for a few hours then walk slowly home. If you don't get shot at, bombed or kidnapped, you're probably not on the list. If this guy would just come outside for awhile, we'd clear the whole confusion up.

MaverickDago wrote:
Which suggest the list itself and who is on it isn't being kept secret.

O we're pretty clear when you're on the "We're going to f*cking murder you" list. If you have any doubts, sit outside a public place for a few hours then walk slowly home. If you don't get shot at, bombed or kidnapped, you're probably not on the list. If this guy would just come outside for awhile, we'd clear the whole confusion up.

Heh--you made me think the list should be published in the form of a rap video. You've also reminded me of this:

Heh--you made me think the list should be published in the form of a rap video. You've also reminded me of this:

We'll stick to confidential memos, that way it's bound to be published on the internet.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Even if the monster is free to kill other innocents?

Yes. If you know (can prove) that you have a monster, you don't let it go. If you don't know, you might make a mistake and let one go. Either way, you can be sure of one thing: you are not the monster. I am not so afraid for my safety that I am willing to give up that which makes me human.

But the American government seems pretty sure about the monster, and the monster is hesitant to prove its innocence. While it is tempting to keep one's hands clean sometimes hard choices need to be made for the greater good.

Since so much of this thread has been about word choice, let's look at the words you've chosen here, MrDeVil. First let me say that you're right, there is a point at which diplomacy becomes too difficult, messy and dangerous to be worth the risk. I consider that to be a failure of diplomacy, but a reasonable one (if that makes any sense). You use the word "hard" and the term, "the greater good." Let's look at "hard" first.

Assassinating the guy is not physically hard, compared to bringing him in and trying him. It's actually a good deal easier than that as they both have the same minimum prerequisite (find the guy) but putting a bullet in him has only one further step whereas detaining him has many more. There's also the matter of how a detention can be reversed; if it turns out it was illegal to take him we can let him go and deal with the consequences. You can't call a mea culpa and undo a death. Killing him is "harder" in that there's likely to be more fallout and we need to live with what we've done, but if our only goal is to take this man out of the picture? It's absolutely easier. Less risky, too, as it ensures he's gone now and has no way to get out of it no matter what. Threat eliminated. Assuming he is a threat, of course.

Next, the "greater good." I see what you mean here but the term "greater good" seems to exclude even the possibility of the alternative. It's a value statement, that the global war on terror is a good thing, and to not conduct this war would be abandoning an opportunity to do good in the world, if not actively condoning evil. You may believe that and it's a valid perspective. I simply wish to point out that there are alternatives that are not evil. I do not feel threatened by terrorists and do not think I would be MORE threatened (or dead) were we to try a different sort of "greater good," by which I mean not going to war in the first place. I certainly don't feel so threatened that I think we need to execute U.S. citizens without trial in the name of this "greater good." We're talking about an objective here. You may consider that objective to be good but it remains an objective. If we abandon it entirely, life will go on.

I agree with you that the government does seem pretty sure about this guy. I think I've made it clear just how much legal value I place in how things "seem." I also think I've made it clear that I don't always assume the government wants things for the right reasons, and I'm definitely sure that the government is OK with a little collateral damage. In short, the government is willing to do whatever it pleases and apologize later.

When you see, "making hard choices for the greater good," I see, "taking shortcuts towards completion of an objective." Then again, if you'd like to argue that I'm a hopeless cynic you have plenty of evidence.

Detailed response Lobster. I can't even pick apart your argument because I actually don't disagree. Ideally I would like a world where politicians don't make choices that would involve in a person's death. And I'm also distrustful of politicians.

Let's explain my word choice though. :p Okay, killing someone isn't physically 'hard.' Put a bullet in him and vanish into the crowd. But I'm working under the (possibly erroneous) assumption that your president isn't a sociopath and won't flippantly order someone's death. The choice of that course of action can't be easy. The morally easy choice would be to get the Yemeni authorities to hand the guy over, but I'm guessing it won't be an easy course of action to take.

And 'greater good' is always a slippery concept. The people who decide what that is are usually the people we can trust the least, but what can you do? Ultimately I think the problem here is that this has entered the public sphere. It may be a distasteful thing, but similar actions are probably taken every day.

I'm pretty cynical myself, but here it's the accused hiding behind the skirts of another country that arouses that the most. Really, he could very publicly hand himself over and use every legal method to keep his trial in the open, but he chooses not to. Instead he looks all innocent while making the US government bear the burden of being the moral party. It makes me suspicious.

Sorry about the verbosity, MrDeVil. Something I'm working on, along with constantly editing my crap so it's slightly less crappy.

I don't disagree with you either. My concern was that "making hard choices for the greater good" sounds like a political talking point akin to "fighting to defend our freedom (by invading a country on the other side of the planet)."

I'm also not saying this guy is innocent. In fact, I'm fairly confident he's guilty, too. As far as I'm concerned, all the more reason to try him. It'll be quick and conclusive. Everyone gets what they want: the government gets to deal with a threat and we see that the system still works even in a time of crisis.

As for whether or not he can hand himself over, can he? Who would he hand himself over to? What guarantees would he have that they wouldn't kill him on the spot anyway? Doing it in a nice public place would protect him for a while but at some point a door is going to close and he's going to be alone with someone whose word is worth a lot more than his. I'm not saying that the CIA gleefully awaits the next chance to murder someone unprovoked or anything but we've done nothing to give the guy any real reason to trust us. Remember, even if he isn't an enemy of the United States, he probably doesn't like the US a whole lot either.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Sorry about the verbosity, MrDeVil. Something I'm working on, along with constantly editing my crap so it's slightly less crappy.

I don't disagree with you either. My concern was that "making hard choices for the greater good" sounds like a political talking point akin to "fighting to defend our freedom (by invading a country on the other side of the planet)."

Nothing wrong with verbosity if you are using it to clarify your point. Yeah I realise what I said can be seen as political snake-speak, but my intent was just to say it in the easiest way possible. I'm an African, hi-falutin' rhetoric is beyond me.

One thing I can be sure about in this debate? I'm glad I will never need to make any choices like this.