So, the US Government assassinated two american citizens today.

Pages

It's okay, though, because they were really bad men.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...

bleeding heart ACLU lawyer wrote:

"As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts," Jaffer said. "The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President - any President - with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."

Last year, Awlaki's father tried to sue Obama and other administration officials to save his son's life, but the case was thrown out of court. I'm a little surprised they didn't send a drone to kill the father, too. Clearly he approves of his son's terrorist activities.

Collateral damage. They were trying to destroy the jump drive Awlaki had in his pocket.

I think this is the original discussion we had on the topic:

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

The Constitution died with Al-Alwaki. It was terribly ill before, but today, September 30, 2011, it passed into history.

Wow. That's some serious 1984 stuff. I think you've finally arrived at the full-fledged Big Brother state, gentlemen.

Another terrible precedent has been set with this action. The post 9/11 government - now across more than one administration - continues to disregard the law and due process for the sake of expediency. Where will it end? Orwell is spinning in his grave.

IMAGE(http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/126/314/3cd8a33a.png?1306264975)

I think the comparisons to 1984 is what's got Orwell spinning in his grave.

I wonder, though, how many American citizens have been murdered (actually targeted) throughout history as a result of a presidential decision. I would be shocked to find out that Al-Alwaki is the first time it's happened. I think this administration is just the first one dumb enough to brag about it.

Well, sh*t.

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

SallyNasty wrote:

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

Why are people assumed innocent until proven guilty? Are you willing to throw out presumption of innocence and let the group with the most guns or money determine who is guilty and determine what their punishment should be?

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?

Mis-read, nevermind.

Edit: I am curious; what would due process look like here? Would it be effective?

Grubber788 wrote:

Mis-read, nevermind.

Edit: I am curious; what would due process look like here? Would it be effective?

Well, first off someone has to commit a crime. The US has never been able to produce evidence that he even committed a crime. He contributed to terrorism by speaking against the US. So he committed "ThoughtCrime", I suppose. But I don't know that the US ever planned to edict him for anything.

DSGamer wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

Mis-read, nevermind.

Edit: I am curious; what would due process look like here? Would it be effective?

Well, first off someone has to commit a crime. The US has never been able to produce evidence that he even committed a crime. He contributed to terrorism by speaking against the US. So he committed "ThoughtCrime", I suppose. But I don't know that the US ever planned to edict him for anything.

Hold on--leaving aside all the other stuff, he wasn't just speaking out against the U.S. He was speaking out in publications of al-Qaeda. And not by mailing them pages from his cabin somewhere--there's a lot of connections between him and an actual terrorist group.

Maybe that shouldn't be a crime either, but you can't go calling that "ThoughtCrime" without reducing the term to utter meaninglessness. It's one thing to speak out against one side in a war; it's a whole other thing to go join the other side's propaganda department.

CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

Mis-read, nevermind.

Edit: I am curious; what would due process look like here? Would it be effective?

Well, first off someone has to commit a crime. The US has never been able to produce evidence that he even committed a crime. He contributed to terrorism by speaking against the US. So he committed "ThoughtCrime", I suppose. But I don't know that the US ever planned to edict him for anything.

Hold on--leaving aside all the other stuff, he wasn't just speaking out against the U.S. He was speaking out in publications of al-Qaeda. And not by mailing them pages from his cabin somewhere--there's a lot of connections between him and an actual terrorist group.

Maybe that shouldn't be a crime either, but you can't go calling that "ThoughtCrime" without reducing the term to utter meaninglessness. It's one thing to speak out against one side in a war; it's a whole other thing to go join the other side's propaganda department.

Oh sweet, we declared war? When was this?

bnpederson wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

Mis-read, nevermind.

Edit: I am curious; what would due process look like here? Would it be effective?

Well, first off someone has to commit a crime. The US has never been able to produce evidence that he even committed a crime. He contributed to terrorism by speaking against the US. So he committed "ThoughtCrime", I suppose. But I don't know that the US ever planned to edict him for anything.

Hold on--leaving aside all the other stuff, he wasn't just speaking out against the U.S. He was speaking out in publications of al-Qaeda. And not by mailing them pages from his cabin somewhere--there's a lot of connections between him and an actual terrorist group.

Maybe that shouldn't be a crime either, but you can't go calling that "ThoughtCrime" without reducing the term to utter meaninglessness. It's one thing to speak out against one side in a war; it's a whole other thing to go join the other side's propaganda department.

Oh sweet, we declared war? When was this?

Exactly. The nice thing about a stateless perpetual war is you can choose who is and isn't an "enemy combatant" and who is and isn't fair game.

A US citizenship doesn't give you a diplomatic immunity. As far as I remember the US had trouble getting terrorist extradited from Islamic countries in the past .I also heard that Yemen isn't exactly in control of their country and I doubt any Al Quida operatives can be apprehended alive ( I think that Yemen's government prefer shooting them ).

I looked it up and found that Treason is punishable by death in the US . In this case the US military was the executioner. If the "victim" wanted a fair trial he could have turned himself in and defended himself in court. If he was found guilty the court would consider the fact he turned himself in and may give him a lesser punishment. If he would have been sentenced to death you could then execute him "the proper way".

Treason usually indicates declared wars against states. A person could literally go to a mosque that gave money to Al Qaida and be executed without trial under current precedent. That that isn't crazy to people blows my mind.

DSGamer wrote:

Treason usually indicates declared wars against states. A person could literally go to a mosque that gave money to Al Qaida and be executed without trial under current precedent. That that isn't crazy to people blows my mind.

How would you fix this problem? The U.S. does have state-less enemies and we will presumably continue to see this problem in the future. Protesters talking about Big Brother aren't particularly useful to policy makers who have difficult decisions to make.

Grubber788 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Treason usually indicates declared wars against states. A person could literally go to a mosque that gave money to Al Qaida and be executed without trial under current precedent. That that isn't crazy to people blows my mind.

How would you fix this problem? The U.S. does have state-less enemies and we will presumably continue to see this problem in the future. Protesters talking about Big Brother aren't particularly useful to policy makers who have difficult decisions to make.

Well, if we make their jobs harder they can always knock us off, at least. That option is open.

CheezePavilion wrote:

It's one thing to speak out against one side in a war; it's a whole other thing to go join the other side's propaganda department.

That is pretty much my take on it. If I take a job with a jihadi outfit, aren't I kind of throwing my lot in with them?

SallyNasty wrote:

If I take a job with a jihadi outfit, aren't I kind of throwing my lot in with them?

Eh, Man's gotta work. I hear the benefits are sh*t but it beats a shift at Walmart.

Rezzy wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

If I take a job with a jihadi outfit, aren't I kind of throwing my lot in with them?

Eh, Man's gotta work. I hear the benefits are sh*t but it beats a shift at Walmart.

Oh, that was the outfit I was specifically referencing.

OK, so if the problem is that it can't be treason against someone involved in a stateless war, why not make actual laws about what is and isn't illegal as far as collaborating with terrorist organizations? I'm sure congress would be falling all over themselves to ram something like that through. If everyone can agree he's a bad guy who was putting our country in danger and we just don't have a process for it, then why not MAKE a process and THEN prosecute him?

Just shooting someone because they're hangin' with the boogie man makes us no better than them. (Hm, I hate that phrase... how about: makes us no better than the caricature of them that we portray them as?)

(Incidentally, Hangin' with the Boogie Man is my Screamin' Jay Hawkins cover band.)

sheared wrote:

I wonder, though, how many American citizens have been murdered (actually targeted) throughout history as a result of a presidential decision. I would be shocked to find out that Al-Alwaki is the first time it's happened. I think this administration is just the first one dumb enough to brag about it.

One that specifically comes to mind is Operation Pastorius. They were tried in a secret military tribunal, the SCOTUS upheld the decision on appeal, and they were executed in 14 days. It's worth noting, though, that we were actually in a declared war at that point.

DSGamer wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Treason usually indicates declared wars against states. A person could literally go to a mosque that gave money to Al Qaida and be executed without trial under current precedent. That that isn't crazy to people blows my mind.

How would you fix this problem? The U.S. does have state-less enemies and we will presumably continue to see this problem in the future. Protesters talking about Big Brother aren't particularly useful to policy makers who have difficult decisions to make.

Well, if we make their jobs harder they can always knock us off, at least. That option is open.

My question was serious. [color=green]Great serious response![/color]

Glad to see my font is catching on.

Minarchist wrote:

Glad to see my font is catching on. :D

I just wish it was next to the spoiler button. It would be so much easier.

There is plenty of evidence that he has committed Treason (which as others have pointed out is allowable to be punished by the military). If you read the history of the two year operation that was tracking him down, you will find that US Troops at one point had located the town he was hiding in, demanded he be turned over. However his followers opened fire on US Troops and he escaped.

I think at that point you're pretty justified in killing him. If he had turned himself in he would have gotten a trial and everything citizens are afforded. I mean, you can't say it's a violation of due process if cops surround the house of a suspected criminal, the guy and his friends open fire on the cops, and then later a cop shoots him.

Pages