So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today.

LarryC wrote:

It may be my home culture speaking, but I find nothing paranoid about watching your back when there's even the smallest step towards you by a stranger behind you whom you don't really know. I have always been afraid of the American government because it has always shown itself willing to exercise assassination or capture of individuals without recourse to due process. It seemed that citizenship was once some kind of protection against that, but this case erodes that presumption.

On the one hand I agree with you LarryC, on the other hand...I'm glad to see the end to the hypocrisy and secrecy about what we do. I wonder if we would have gotten away with half the abuses we have if we had been honest about what we were doing and we were doing them to people whose plight is not so easy to ignore.

I just can't figure out why we died as a free country when this took place *outside the country*

So all they have to do is ship you one foot over the border and shoot you there, and it's okay?

If agents of the US government are killing US citizens without a trial, it doesn't matter where it happens.

I saw a great quote on this:

In the coming days, we are certain to hear loud, full-throated praise of Barack Obama's murder of uncharged, untried American citizens. And most of these encomiums will come from heartsworn, true-blue "progressives" -- the very people who savagely denounced George W. Bush for his "murderous tyrannny" when he carried out the very same crimes, in the very same way, in the very same place.

And they will be telling us, yet again, why we must must must support Barack Obama in his quest to win one more term atop the greasy pole of power. They will tell us, yet again, that we must forget these murders -- and the killing of many hundreds of innocent people in similar robo-slaughters in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan -- and work hard to perpetuate and entrench our own slavery in a lawless system whose leaders can kill any one of us at the push of a button, at the pulse of a whim, without charges, without trial, without mercy.

This is not just the usual partisan amnesia, this is not just moral blindness: it is active, open, undeniable complicity with evil.

source: http://www.chris-floyd.com/component... (not working for me ATM, something's screwy in the DNS resolution)

Malor wrote:
I just can't figure out why we died as a free country when this took place *outside the country*

So all they have to do is ship you one foot over the border and shoot you there, and it's okay?

When did I say I'm okay with them shipping people over the border in the first place?

So if you're one foot outside the border, you get a bullet in the brain, but if you're "in bounds", you're safe.

This is okay with you?

Malor wrote:

So if you're one foot outside the border, you get a bullet in the brain, but if you're "in bounds", you're safe.

This is okay with you?

Soon we'll be making "Soviet Russia" jokes about the US. I don't get how people are okay with this. The US is not the US any longer.

Malor wrote:

So if you're one foot outside the border, you get a bullet in the brain, but if you're "in bounds", you're safe.

This is okay with you?

Whether it's okay with me or not, it's not the day we die as a free country, I know that.

DSGamer wrote:
Malor wrote:

So if you're one foot outside the border, you get a bullet in the brain, but if you're "in bounds", you're safe.

This is okay with you?

Soon we'll be making "Soviet Russia" jokes about the US. I don't get how people are okay with this. The US is not the US any longer.

This is what I don't get: on the one hand you post:

DSGamer wrote:

Of course Obama isn't the first person to do it. My anger is over the fact that the powers of the executive branch were expanded far beyond what they were before Bush. Before Bush the US did some terrible things. I've talked about them in P&C extensively. We meddled ceaselessly in the Iran, Viet Nam, Egypt, The Philippines, practically every country in Central America and most of the Middle East. We've done a lot of the bad in the world and earned a lot of the anger the world feels towards us. I've said that time and time again.

What changed under Bush and now Obama is that now we break laws out in the open and flaunt them. Now the executive branch has no check on it. They don't even get investigated for their crimes. What's happened over the last 10 years (from 9/11 through present day) has been one of the largest threats to the integrity of the US in history, in my opinion.

and somehow this event is when the US is not the US any longer. Out of all the things we've done, treating an American citizen the same way we would treat a foreigner is when we stop being the US.

Because as bad of an actor as the US was there was at least a belief that the govt. tried to retain integrity of law regarding it's own citizens. The ability to summarily kill a US citizen without trial nullifies the entire Bill of Rights.

It violates the entire principle that we are founded on, that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot cross certain lines at all, and can cross others only with the strongest of justification.

The government can now kill you simply because it wants you dead. You do not get to argue about this. I believe that one of the two men that were killed yesterday had a family member bring a suit to try to stop the death sentence, and was rebuffed by the courts.

Everything that our grandparents fought for in WW2 has been thrown out the window. No more Fourth Amendment, no more Sixth Amendment, no more habeas corpus. For some citizens, there is no more justice in this country. Once the government crosses this line, there is no dispute, there is only flight, and then death.

We have instituted the No Life List.

DSGamer wrote:

Because as bad of an actor as the US was there was at least a belief that the govt. tried to retain integrity of law regarding it's own citizens. The ability to summarily kill a US citizen without trial nullifies the entire Bill of Rights.

Really? It nullifies the right to not have to quarter soldiers? This was part of Obama's plan to take away our guns?

Why can't we have this discussion without the hyperbole?

Malor wrote:

It violates the entire principle that we are founded on, that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot cross certain lines at all, and can cross others only with the strongest of justification

The government can now kill you simply because it wants you dead. You do not get to argue about this. I believe that one of the two men that were killed yesterday had a family member bring a suit to try to stop the death sentence, and was rebuffed by the courts.

Part of the issue there was the standing of his father to bring the case. Like the judge asked, if he's got a problem with being on this list, why isn't he here in a court of law himself?

Malor, you're making up facts that just don't exist. This guy wasn't shot on his way into a courthouse or something. You can't pretend he was just because it makes your point sound better.

Why can't you stop focusing on irrelevant details and deal with the real thrust of the argument?

Quartering soldiers. Sheesh. Cognitive dissonance, engage! Anything to avoid the actual issues.

You can't pretend he was just because it makes your point sound better.

Once you are on the No Life List, there is no redress. There is no method to get off it. You cannot see the evidence against you. You cannot confront the witnesses that claim you are a threat. You can run, and you can die. Those are your only options.

DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

What exactly would due process have proven in this specific case?

SallyNasty, I heard you committed a murder. Sorry, they're coming after you now. Do you want to live in that country?

It's funny--you guys had almost the exact same conversation before, and had it almost exactly a year ago:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/5...

I think the lesson to be learned here is that if you have a warrant out for several counts of international terrorism, it is probably wise for you to surrender to authorities and fight the charges in court rather than surrounding yourself with armed thugs in a foreign country.

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (“Time is running out,” said Welch in 1951. “Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.”)

"Terrorists pose an existential threat to the United States and the world. The United States, as the leader of the Free World, must deal with this crisis, no matter how long it takes. If you're not with us, you're against us, especially if you have the balls to criticize the actions we take while pursuing the Terrorists, up to and including killing hundreds of thousands of people and invading other countries. Can't you see that this is a war between the Free World and the Terrorists? They want to establish Sharia Law and a new Caliphate, and it's them or us!"

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader.

"We have secret intelligence that indicates this person is a Terrorist, but we can't tell you or the courts what it is because it's secret. Trust us! We know that these people are bad and need to die! Ignore the fact that we couldn't even hold most of them in the special biased and secret system we set up to contain them, because there was so little evidence!"

He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention.

"We do not negotiate with Terrorists, and we claim the authority to assassinate them anywhere in the world we find them, up to and including sending armed agents and bombs into allied countries to accomplish our goals. Merely associating with them or agreeing with them in their opposition to the United States is grounds for immediate extrajudicial assassination."

This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration.

"We can rebuild an entirely new society from the ground up in Afghanistan after we destroy what's there. We can rebuild an entirely new society from the ground up in Iraq after we destroy what's there. We can police the world and prevent every single one of these beasts from carrying out their mad plans. In a world of seven billion people, we can monitor them all and protect you from all of them should they ever decided to attack us. And we can do so cheaply and effectively, without angering anyone around the world, with few consequences, and without affecting our economy or fundamental freedoms*."

*Except for that pesky Bill of Rights. Sorry about that, but it's for the Greater Good!

Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

"Now that Bin Laden is dead, we can't let up! There are new threats springing up every day, and we must kill them! See? We've killed them now! But look - there's even more out there! We must devote even more money and energy to hunting them down!"

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving.

"Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, had a stash of porn in his secret Pakistan hideout. Al-Qaeda in Iraq liked to behead their hostages, and used prostitutes. There are Al-Qaeda sleeper agents everywhere in the United States ... oh wait, I guess not - but here's these people who were planning attacks, and actually tried to do something*! This guy who posted some anti-American rants on Youtube is clearly a major threat, is linked to these other Terrorists, and could cause new terror at any time! Who knows where he will strike next from his hideout in Yemen!

* With the FBI inciting, training, funding, and assisting them.

Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).

"Terrorists have the power to kill us and destroy our values simply by talking! All Muslims are secretly Terrorists, just waiting for the opportunity to kill Americans! Look at what the 9/11 attack did to the economy*! It could happen again at any time, so we need to keep fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq to keep Them over There instead of attacking us here!

* Never mind that all that borrowing and spending was our choice, because we had to do it to protect you from the Terrorists!

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.

I don't think I've ever read a better description of the War on Terror mentality. The assumption of secret special knowledge; the assumption of special circumstances that obviate the rule of law, national and personal sovereignty, and diplomacy; the elevation of the Terrorist into a supervillain; the assumption of unrealistic goals like nation-building and policing the world; Who else but a bunch of paranoids could elevate a handful of guys who lived in caves in Afghanistan to a existential worldwide threat?

Jayhawker wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't feel any less safe today than I did yesterday.

And you probably are. Of course, you appear to more-or-less agree with what was done, so you're not a threat.

The people who need to worry are the minority who disagree, who oppose, who are different, who stand out in some way - they are the ones who need to fear being designated as the next Enemy. All governments (and gangs) depend on a majority of people who at least don't oppose them, usually out of fear. The question is not whether you feel safe, the question is whether you're okay with government agents simply killing people as they see fit anywhere in the world, including our own citizens. The next time it happens, when it's someone who is gay, or black, or Muslim, or an anarchist, or a fundamentalist Christian, or a Mormon polygamist, will you be okay with it? What about a thief, a drug addict, a drug smuggler, a slave trader, or a murderer? Should we simply accept the arbitrary designation of Societal Enemy by the police or the President and stand aside so these Enemies can simply be killed?

And if so, what then makes our government any different from the Zetas or Al-Qaeda, who hang the mangled bodies of their Enemies from bridges and telephone poles?

I live in a good world that could stand to be improved. And despite the 30+ years of doom and gloom I have seen, I'd say we are pretty much okay.

Ironically, I agree with this. However, the world can go two ways - it can improve, or it can get worse. I don't believe that these actions constitute improvement - they constitute a big step towards return to arbitrary rule by tyrant. In order for the world to improve, we have to be working at improving it, not making it worse. I'm not okay with invading a country and killing hundreds of thousands of people on flimsy pretenses just because someone claims they are associated with Terrorists. I'm not okay with firing missiles into even nominally friendly countries and killing hundreds of innocent people in the pursuit of paranoid dreams. I'm not okay with disappearing people and torturing them to further our goals. I'm not okay with using fear and paranoia to control people and get them to do what you want. And I'm NOT OKAY with extrajudicially and publicly assassinating people, including our own citizens, far from any "battlefield", on the simple say-so of the President of the United States. These are not my values.

Again, the 5th Amendment explicitly waves due process for people serving in military forces. Not the US forces, ANY military forces. So Malor, if it was WW2 and you trotted off to join the Japanese military's military propaganda arm, guess what, any US soldier can turn your head into a canoe without reading you your Miranda rights. During our military history there have been many instances of US citizens joining and abetting foreign military forces. This is called Treason, which the US constitution defines as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Our American Al-Qaeda victim assisted in levying war (we have testimony that he helped plan attacks) and even if that was bunk he's still a recruiter, and provides aid and comfort to the enemy, which again I show you that congress has authorized military force against. On top of all this his followers opened fire on US troops in Yemen.

So Malor, take a deep breath, and explain to me how his death is a breach of constitutional rights of US citizens? Bear in mind that as a citizen he does have a right to a trial, and even was asked to surrender at one point and did not. We have a global media, he had access to said media. If he wanted a trial all he had to do was email CNN and have them come pick him up and bring him in for custody. They would have wet themselves at the opportunity to have that exclusive.

Paleocon wrote:

I think the lesson to be learned here is that if you have a warrant out for several counts of international terrorism, it is probably wise for you to surrender to authorities and fight the charges in court rather than surrounding yourself with armed thugs in a foreign country.

What warrant? The only warrant that he's ever had on him was a 2002 warrant for passport fraud. His father tried to take the case to the U.S. courts and it was thrown out. And the U.S. government doesn't put Terrorists in court, so the best he could hope for would be being disappeared to Bagram or a CIA black site to be tortured - if he wasn't simply killed when he turned himself in.

What would you have done in such a situation?

Aetius wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I think the lesson to be learned here is that if you have a warrant out for several counts of international terrorism, it is probably wise for you to surrender to authorities and fight the charges in court rather than surrounding yourself with armed thugs in a foreign country.

What warrant? The only warrant that he's ever had on him was a 2002 warrant for passport fraud. His father tried to take the case to the U.S. courts and it was thrown out. And the U.S. government doesn't put Terrorists in court, so the best he could hope for would be being disappeared to Bagram or a CIA black site to be tortured - if he wasn't simply killed when he turned himself in.

What would you have done in such a situation?

I probably wouldn't have recruited terrorists, bragged about being an enemy of the state, hid out in a hostile country, and been in the same room as the head of an international criminal organization AND a known bombmaker.

But that's just me I guess.

@Aetius

Here's the thing that confuses me. You have a group, Al-Qaeda, who commits multiple global terror acts. Their leader publishes video claiming responsibility for said attacks. So in essence, he's 'extrajudicially and publicly assassinating people, including our own citizens, far from any "battlefield"'. How do you propose a sovereign nation deal with such an individual besides blowing him to kibble at the first opportunity?

bandit0013 wrote:

@Aetius

Here's the thing that confuses me. You have a group, Al-Qaeda, who commits multiple global terror acts. Their leader publishes video claiming responsibility for said attacks. So in essence, he's 'extrajudicially and publicly assassinating people, including our own citizens, far from any "battlefield"'. How do you propose a sovereign nation deal with such an individual besides blowing him to kibble at the first opportunity?

Ask the hostile government of Yemen politely to extradite him of course.

I mean, it worked so well when we asked the Taliban to extradite ObL.

Malor wrote:

Why can't you stop focusing on irrelevant details and deal with the real thrust of the argument?

Quartering soldiers. Sheesh. Cognitive dissonance, engage! Anything to avoid the actual issues.

Just because your argument is not convincing does not mean that people are not paying attention to it.

Seriously - talk of the police by people exercising their freedom of speech is a hard pill to swallow.

The guy was the propaganda head of Al Qaeda! It doesn't matter where he was born. You cannot make a convincing argument that this guy was not an enemy combatant. Everything else is just mental masturbation.

I'll just bullet point my thoughts on this issue:
- Being a "citizen" of U.S. should require you to act in a manner that doesn't work toward the destruction of the country or the murder of it's citizens. Seems to me he renounced his citizenship years ago.
- We're trying to apply provisions of a 200+ year old document that was written during a time that was VERY different from the modern world. The founding fathers never could have envisioned an issue as complex as international terrorism. The Consitution and it's subsequent amendments can't be applied to every modern issue.
- Perhaps it's time for a new amendment that deals with this issue.
- I have a sneaky suspicion that this isn't the first time this has happened. I doubt it will be the last.
- I'm not all that upset about it and it doesn't seem to me like the world is ending. I'm not real worried about being dragged out of my house, driven to Toronto and shot.
- Saying the Constitution died is a absurd.
- The US government was killing native americans by the thousands AFTER the Constitution was written. Where's their justice?

I do agree that there have been serious abuses of the system and tragic cases of profiling and maltreatment from mistaken identity. The case of Maher Arar comes most to mind.

That said, it would be tremendously foolish to make Awlaki the poster boy for government overreach when it comes to conducting policies aimed at the destruction of an international terrorist network. The dude was a public health hazard.

bandit0013 wrote:

@Aetius

Here's the thing that confuses me. You have a group, Al-Qaeda, who commits multiple global terror acts. Their leader publishes video claiming responsibility for said attacks. So in essence, he's 'extrajudicially and publicly assassinating people, including our own citizens, far from any "battlefield"'. How do you propose a sovereign nation deal with such an individual besides blowing him to kibble at the first opportunity?

Well, here's a hint - I don't think we should blow away two entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands of people to "deal" with him. I also don't think that one-upping him in the assassination game is how to "deal" with him either. Is it okay to "deal" with such people by stooping to their level? Should we have "dealt" with Jeffery Dahmer by raping him, dismembering him, and eating him?

Civilizations have standards and rules that apply to everyone - even the worst of the worst. We have those rules for a reason - it's one of the things that separates civilization from barbarism.

Aetius wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

@Aetius

Here's the thing that confuses me. You have a group, Al-Qaeda, who commits multiple global terror acts. Their leader publishes video claiming responsibility for said attacks. So in essence, he's 'extrajudicially and publicly assassinating people, including our own citizens, far from any "battlefield"'. How do you propose a sovereign nation deal with such an individual besides blowing him to kibble at the first opportunity?

Well, here's a hint - I don't think we should blow away two entire countries and kill hundreds of thousands of people to "deal" with him. I also don't think that one-upping him in the assassination game is how to "deal" with him either. Is it okay to "deal" with such people by stooping to their level? Should we have "dealt" with Jeffery Dahmer by raping him, dismembering him, and eating him?

Civilizations have standards and rules that apply to everyone - even the worst of the worst. We have those rules for a reason - it's one of the things that separates civilization from barbarism.

No one here is going to justify the invasion of Iraq in the name of combating Al Qaeda so you can neatly put that back in your pocket.

The question still remains though. You have a dude that is actively recruiting terrorists to blow up Americans. He is bragging about it. He has surrounded himself with armed thugs in a hostile nation. He has skilled bombmakers and is a clear and present danger. Any attempts through official channels to extradite him are going to be met with a NY wave and a hearty "death to America". He will kill again.

What do you propose to do?

Paleocon wrote:

I do agree that there have been serious abuses of the system and tragic cases of profiling and maltreatment from mistaken identity. The case of Maher Arar comes most to mind.

That said, it would be tremendously foolish to make Awlaki the poster boy for government overreach when it comes to conducting policies aimed at the destruction of an international terrorist network. The dude was a public health hazard.

Says who? Based on what evidence? What crimes was he charged with? None. The only public evidence we have is that he liked to rant against America, which certainly doesn't make him unique. We have words for systems where secret evidence is used in secret trials to secretly disappear people the government doesn't like - they are called "tyrannies" or "dictatorships" or "autocracies".

Aetius wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I do agree that there have been serious abuses of the system and tragic cases of profiling and maltreatment from mistaken identity. The case of Maher Arar comes most to mind.

That said, it would be tremendously foolish to make Awlaki the poster boy for government overreach when it comes to conducting policies aimed at the destruction of an international terrorist network. The dude was a public health hazard.

Says who? Based on what evidence? What crimes was he charged with? None. The only public evidence we have is that he liked to rant against America, which certainly doesn't make him unique. We have words for systems where secret evidence is used in secret trials to secretly disappear people the government doesn't like - they are called "tyrannies" or "dictatorships" or "autocracies".

Riight. Seriously. Read his resume. The dude is a walking, talking, suicide bomber factory.

The government can now kill you simply because it wants you dead. You do not get to argue about this.

Sure we do. This is still a free country.

Aetius wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

No one here is going to justify the invasion of Iraq in the name of combating Al Qaeda so you can neatly put that back in your pocket.

Why not? Based on your standard of evidence for the Awlaki killing, all that is required is that the President needs to designate Iraq and Iraqis as the Enemy, and then it is perfectly acceptable to kill as many of them as necessary. The government didn't have any proof then either, but that didn't stop them. What's the difference?

The question still remains though. You have a dude that is actively recruiting terrorists to blow up Americans. He is bragging about it. He has surrounded himself with armed thugs in a hostile nation. He has skilled bombmakers and is a clear and present danger. Any attempts through official channels to extradite him are going to be met with a NY wave and a hearty "death to America". He will kill again.

What do you propose to do?

And again, says who? The Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was lying to the investigators, surrounded himself with armed thugs, was the leader of a friendly hostile nation (sorry, fell behind on my propaganda there), and certainly had skilled bombmakers and was a clear and present danger.

What I propose is that we stop killing people around the world. I propose that we withdraw from our foolish imperial occupations and bases. I propose that we arrest these people if they come to the United States and if we have crimes to charge them with, and then prosecute them openly in a court of law, but otherwise we leave them alone because it's not our business. I propose that we stop creating enemies to fight. I propose that the War on Terror needs to end, because the cure is far, far worse than the purported threat.

The big difference is that there was no evidence of a compelling threat from Iraq. In Awlaki's case, we have public admissions of responsibility of terrorist acts. This is NOT the guy you want to make your crusade. Seriously. You need to step off the ledge. It's not doing your cause any good.