Obama administration authorizes killing US citizen
 

Link

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Seems he has effectively eliminated all ties to the US, which in my mind basically nullifies his citizenship and protections under US law. I completely agree with this: “American citizenship doesn’t give you carte blanche to wage war against your own country,” said a counterterrorism official who discussed the classified program on condition of anonymity. “If you cast your lot with its enemies, you may well share their fate.” If he actually ACTS to support terrorists who would target the US and its citizens/soldiers then why wouldn't he be up on the chopping block?

Squash him like a bug, just don't do it on US soil.
When (if) he's here, first lock him up... then squash him like a bug.

They need a judicial process of some sort though. You can't just have an Executive Branch Agency compiling lists of people to kill without a separate impartial clearance. We could be headed back into the bad old days of a rogue CIA creating up long term problems, which of course was Cheney's desire but hardly what Obama ran on.

If any US citizen wants to play terrorist or soldier of fortune, out of the country, he/she are on their own. And if they are fighting us, while out of the country, they're the enemy, and fair game. If Anwar al-Awlaki feels he's being unjustly targeted, all he has to do is come home. I suspect he won't.

Nominally a citizen at best.

Your first amendment rights do not extend to promoting terrorism. Sorry.

Especially since the Constitution specifically denotes "levying war" against the US as a definition of treason. They could convict him in absentia if they wanted to go through the motions.

He's just misunderstood by some and persecuted by others. Poor guy.

If he can't be prosecuted, then persecuted is next best... works for me.:thumb:

I wonder if we could trace back to the source, the very first person, who set this whole "politcal correctness" "Let's not hurt anyone's feelings" wheel in motion.

Then we build a time machine, go back in time to when he or she is about to open their piehole and give a good swift kick in that place we don't love them anymore.

Then, maybe we wouldn't have any questions about what to do with numb nuts like him. Of course we'd need to come up with new things to talk about on the cellars.

You can't build a law-abiding society on a series of special instances or "just this once" scenarios. Things need to be defined so that they apply to EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation of the precedent you are setting. That is what makes this a creepy issue--do we want the government to be able to killl YOU or ME with impunity?

I know, I know..."but, but, this is different because" --right. Finish that sentence. You have to define HOW and WHY it is different and WHAT defines that, legally. Then, that needs to be written down and agreed upon by a body of the government that is accountable.

Once you have an official procedure that has been scrutinized and determined to be applicable and not stupidly worded, and it has been agreed upon and approved, then you have a real law. And then you can do something. This is how you do it....unless you are a bunch of dumb ƒucks.

Somehow the President has the authority to wage war without congress. See Vietnam as an example of this.

This is waging a war on terrorism. We're using drones to remotely kill specific individuals (and anyone unlucky enough to be standing near them) in Pakistan. This is exactly the same thing. Whether this sworn enemy of the US is a citizen or not has no relevance.

These are nice emotional catch-phrases but what do they mean, in concrete terms?

A law-abiding society does not accept "make it up as you go along" as acceptable. If terrorists which present a real threat are using citizenship as a loophole, then we find a legal way to close that loophole and deal with the situation. This procedure should have clearly defined conditions which could cause any US citizen to have their right to exist revoked. If we don't recognize this as a fundamental right, then what the ƒuck. You can't say that being a US citizen has no relevance because that means it NEVER has any relevance.

we kill traitors, don't we?

Yes, and we have a defined procedure for that. A law-abiding society maintains stringently defined legal procedures and definitions.

more concerned about lots of other stuff. like . . . dustbunnies.

Yes, because unthinking, visceral reactions are always better than following things through to their logical conclusion.

We are dealing with an interaction between two entities: the government of a nation and ANY citizen of that nation. Those are the categories. We are also dealing with an extraordinary circumstance. This is the point in the decision making process where you can #1 roll up your shirtsleeves do some hard work, or... you can #2 make a really stupid decision with far-reaching consequences.

Option #2 is easier, and "feels" better.

I'm (mostly) with Clod and Flint.

The British tried a number of Irish terrorists in absentia, many were convicted and sentenced to death. At least one (and probably many) of them remarked "They can hang me in absentia too".

I acknowledge that, in this imperfect world, there are times we need to hunt someone down and catch-or-kill them. So be it; but then we must have and follow a judicial procedure.

Shining light on the hill? Or most heavily-armed gangster? I go for the shining light, with a precise little death-ray laser mounted on it.

fuckin A men

We pretty much do for every citizen in the country, and some non-citizens in the country. It's spelled out in mind boggling detail.
Anwar al-Awlaki, however, falls in neither category and as far as I'm concerned has forfeited his citizenship to become a traitor, the enemy.

:lol: I am sure many a bleeding-heart would agree with that statement.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.
Federalist Paper 47; James Madison politically correct liberal pansy

One of the biggest casualties of the war on terror has been the system of checks and balances that worked so well for so long.

I don't see how this is any different than an undeclared war like Vietnam. I don't particularly like it, but history clearly shows that the President has the power to blow things up and do random violent shit in other countries without Congress declaring war. That's what we are talking about here. How does it matter who is being blown up?

The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.

International law may be another issue, but that only matters if somebody enforces it. Also, if Congress passes a law that says you can't do something specific, like support the Contras, you might get in trouble if you do.

It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.

It started way before Truman. There has always been threats to the US that the Federal Govenment has had to deal with, the only difference now is we know more about it.


Some people just need killin'.

He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)

As a result of CIA excesses from Truman through Nixon, legislation resulting from the Church Committee restored some level of control and accountability over the CIA.

As a result of presidential actions by Johnson/Nixon in Viet Nam, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (Resolution).

Since 9/11, those Executive Branch excesses and/or unilateral interpretation of US laws and treaty obligations, have returned.

The Executive Branch alone should not be able to adjudicate on the rights of citizens or what constitutes legal enhanced interrogation as opposed to torture or other abuses we have seen (extraordinary rendition, improper use of National Security Letters by the FBI, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

What would we have done differently? Not support the Shah? At the time is served our national interests.

Right now, I trust the executive branch more than I trust congress, to make rational decisions.

Neither can be trusted, but I would agree that Congress is certainly not trustworthy at all.

Throw the Bums Out.

For example, if you took your family on vacation, outside US borders? At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason? Or should we, maybe, specify exactly what the acceptable parameters are here?

Doing something "just this once" because it "feels right" is a stupid way to make decisions in any area of life, and this is no different. If something seems like a "no brainer" it is because you aren't USING your brain.

It's a slippery slope.

Patriots have no reason to leave the country, unless of course they're in the military going to do god's work. Anybody else, snuff 'em... and their children... and their cats.

It's an immediate precipice.

No one killed Jim and I when we left the country, can't be that immediate.

But if that did happen, you would be cool with it?

It didn't. Not by chance - but because we aren't traitors, hanging out with known terrorists, planning to do destructive shit or overthrow the government.

But it is for a reason and with a purpose. Whether it is right or wrong is another question. But it certainly has purpose.

I'm not an idiot. I'm saying that when something needs to be done, it needs to be done RIGHT. In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

I never meant to imply you were an idiot. The disagrement I suspect is the definition of what is "RIGHT".

I would have to be an idiot not to know there is a reason/purpose that applies in this limited instance. I would REALLY have to be an idiot not to know why there is a difference between this guy and jinx/lj. Congratulations to jinx on the Captain Obvious award--you win!

I don't disagree with what needs to be done, or whether it is "right" or not. I mean nothing more an nothing less than exactly what I've said. What is at issue is HOW we do this. IF: there is no procedure to separate this guy into a different category from other citizens THEN: what happens to this guy applies to EVERY citizen. This is not rocket science. What seems like a good idea "just this once" usually isn't a good basis for decision making.

I understand your point.

But on the otherhand. If you step off.... and do your own thing, outside the protection of the reach of the protections of the Consitution, then you may be taking a chance that someone who disagrees with you may reach out and touch you. I would suggest you reconsider. Hey, but make no mistake, I am fully supporting of sending the guy a Airborne Express message of our sentiment.

I want to see this defined, i.e. exactly what constitutes this scenario. NOT by way of vague but colorful anecdotes; NOT by way of ominous but generally convincing news blurbs; but something substantive and more respectful of the RULE OF LAW in a civilized nation. For ƒuck's sake, folks.

Don't get shitty with me for being glib - because you're not really saying anything at all.
You want every possible way you can be a traitor spelled out somewhere? What the hell good does that do, next year it won't be relevant because times changes and the way people betray the country changes. Today it's islamic terrorists, but in 20 years, who the fuck knows?
That this list doesn't exist is not a good enough reason to sit around with your thumb up your ass waiting to get blown up.

So, if doing things right is hard, just give up and half-ass it. Good plan. That has longevity written all over it.

What's your plan Einstein? Try to actually say something... an actual plan I mean.

If the guy is guilty of committing treason, and no one here has suggested that he has not committed treason, he should be indicted and tried in federal courts, in absentia if necessary....after which he is found guilty, he is subject to death.

That is how the law works in a nation of laws.

I agree, redux. But if he gets killed in the melee of killing terrorists, even specifically targeted because he's a particularly nasty terrorist - well that's fine too.

The rule of law is very simple. We elect a President who makes those decisions. Let's hope we always choose wisely.

"Rule of the Law" should go out the window when they changed the rules. Period.

Fight them on the same plane or perish.

As long as there are those who believe the Constitution is a " living document," then any behavior by government fiat will happen. How many Americans have been killed sice Roe VS Wade?

Oh no you did not just drop an Einstein bomb on me, Buns Of Steel. And now I have to come up with a plan--what am I, an expert on this stuff? Jesus, have some kind of military tribunal and say he isn't required to appear because he is in contempt of court or something. How the hell should I know how you do it?

I'm more concerned about where we're heading as a nation if we don't even consider this a serious issue that should have a little thought applied to it. Should we just write the government a blank check on this one?

Dude, the rule of law I'm talking about is here to protect YOU and ME and the integrity of our whole system, NOT to coddle criminals or terrorists--you've got it completely backwards (or else you're just trying to read "code talk" into my posts). Do you not understand that a stable society with an accountable system of justice is a fragile luxury that we should cherish, and seek to protect? The privileges we have didn't just fall into our lap.

Those are exactly the rules and procedures that thwart our government from reacting to terrorist threats, as they arise.
Captain, were got three of them in our sights, permission to shoot?
No, one of they is Anwar al-Awlaki, and he hasn't been tried yet.

I would agree partially with both sides of this argument.

If the person is a U.S. citizen and is arrested in the U.S. (or can be arrested abroad and brought back), they should be tried in this country in the federal justice system. As much as I don't like trying (alleged) terrorists in our courts...if they are citizens, they should be afforded all rights. If they are convicted of treason, they should be executed as is spelled out by the law after all appeals are exhausted.

If the person is NOT a U.S. citizen and is caught IN the U.S., they should be turned over to the military or intelligence agency. They should then be tried in a military tribunal and, if found guilty, executed after any and all appeals are exhausted. However, they should NOT be afforded the same rights as would a citizen.

If the person is NOT a U.S. citizen and cannot be apprehended without great risk to others, they should be taken out by any means necessary. Whether it is a sniper shot to the head from 1000 yards, a missile from a Predator drone or a 1000 lb bomb. Before that point, however, all information against the potential dead guy should be presented to a special panel who must vote unanimously that the guy has to cease to exist for the sake of national security. Who sits on that panel would need to be worked on. Should it be members of the military? Senators? Intelligence Operatives? Citizens? I don't know.

Add: After thinking about my response...I don't think I hit on the MAIN conflict...the killing of someone who IS a U.S. citizen. I covered the situation wherein they are inside of the U.S. and can be apprehended. If the person is located outside of the U.S. and cannot be apprehended safely...see the solution provided for in the above paragraph.

Just bomb the area and call al-Awlaki's death collateral damage.

[threadjack]
How about the many American women who have not died due to horrible medical conditions in illegal abortions? Abortion happens whether it is legal or not, in legal countries it is no more prevalent. In countries where it is illegal the death rate due to abortion is deplorable. Most abortions are not just a simple choice, they are due to extenuating circumstances. Such as rape, incest, young age or poverty.
If you really want to work against abortion, the legality of the procedure is not the problem. Comprehensive sex education and access to low cost birth control are the most responsible way to reduce the number of elective abortions.
The public needs choice about their procreation, not condemnation.
[/threadjack]


Now as you were....

I favor Choice. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If abortion is immoral, then (insert your chosen deity here) will deal with the immoral when the time comes.

PS: Being gay is the surest way to avoid pregnancy, yet that is bad, too, for those who oppose abortion, generally speaking.

Removing options for women to determine whether or not they wish to give birth is Patriocracy. If women had been the dominant gender for the last 3000 years, there wouldn't even be a discussion.

...nor a population problem

So if women think it's safer for them to kill any man at will, then they can trump the constitution's bill of rights?