You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
November 12, 2018, 11:54:20 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen  (Read 5088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« on: April 08, 2010, 06:47:12 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp
Quote
The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.
Related

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews
Quote
A Muslim cleric tied to the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner has become the first U.S. citizen added to a list of suspected terrorists the CIA is authorized to kill, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, who resides in Yemen, was previously placed on a target list maintained by the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations Command and has survived at least one strike carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. assistance against a gathering of suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.

...

At the very least, a public trial in absentia could be established. Doing this without any deference to the rule of law whatsoever is a horrible precedent (not that Bush set many fine ones himself).

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2010, 07:38:49 PM »
Shoot the son of a bitch he is a terrorist and not likely retrievable. If he wants to live he can always turn himself in at the nearest US Embassy for extradition to the US.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2010, 07:47:33 PM »
I don't see 'assassinate on sight' on this.. he's been labeled as an 'enemy combatant' and is a legitimate target for any action up and including sanction. It's not the same as 'assassination'. You don't announce assassinations like this. He's most likely going to be shot/missiled/bombed but it's not the same as assassination. I bet most of the groups involved in such actions in the field would give their eye teeth to get him in a cell and eventually trial for treason.

Me personally, I think we should be a little more practical in our actions. Less man in the field targets more recruiters/financers. Get them with the laws and banks, it's hard to recruit folks without recruiters or money.

Of course we could also do like Russians did in the 80s. Someone took a couple Russian diplomats in Beruit, the Spetznatz came in and quietly started shooting folks related to the kidnappers till they returned the diplomats.  Blunt and to the point.


Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2010, 02:53:18 AM »
Would you be equally happy to have that same standard applied to Americans? Quietly start shooting those til they stop doing things others consider wrong? Say for example those who contributed, directly or indirectly, to funding the IRA in the 80s. If the British government had decided to assassinate American citizens, you'd be perfectly fine with this?

Offline Lucius Cornelius

  • When I'm good I'm very, very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Gender: Male
  • Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2010, 05:35:55 AM »
Shoot the son of a bitch he is a terrorist and not likely retrievable. If he wants to live he can always turn himself in at the nearest US Embassy for extradition to the US.

is no there law about be innocent until proven otherwise...or another law about a fair judgment?

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2010, 09:06:33 AM »
Shoot the son of a bitch he is a terrorist and not likely retrievable. If he wants to live he can always turn himself in at the nearest US Embassy for extradition to the US.

There are legal structures to deal with treason. It is a crime like any other, as is terrorism. You cannot support the rule of law or value your rights as a citizen and at the same time support the authorization to kill American citizens without trial.

I don't see 'assassinate on sight' on this.. he's been labeled as an 'enemy combatant' and is a legitimate target for any action up and including sanction. It's not the same as 'assassination'. You don't announce assassinations like this. He's most likely going to be shot/missiled/bombed but it's not the same as assassination.

Because suddenly the method of death matters? Or do you think semantics has any bearing on morality?

Of course we could also do like Russians did in the 80s. Someone took a couple Russian diplomats in Beruit, the Spetznatz came in and quietly started shooting folks related to the kidnappers till they returned the diplomats.  Blunt and to the point.

Yeah, we should totally just start shooting innocents who haven't even been accused of crimes. Or...wait...here's an idea...maybe we could set up these big camps, and you know send all the Japanese Muslim American citizens into them, you know, just in case. [/sarcasm]

It's disgusting how when the words terrorist and enemy combatant start flying around people seem to think that it has an effect on law, morality, and the value of human life.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2010, 09:31:21 AM »
I don't see 'assassinate on sight' on this.. he's been labeled as an 'enemy combatant'

By what court?

Separation of powers exists for a reason. Have a court come to that decision, then the executive branch can carry out necessary action. We should not be so paralyzed as to make that difficult -_-

Offline Aiden

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2010, 10:53:30 AM »
If he is an enemy of the state, then he deserves what comes to him, Kill the son of a bitch.

Offline Lucius Cornelius

  • When I'm good I'm very, very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Gender: Male
  • Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2010, 11:03:34 AM »
If he is an enemy of the state, then he deserves what comes to him, Kill the son of a bitch.
who decides it??
who has to decide it?

if i walk along a street, and talk about kill someone, the police don't shoot me. Even if i kill someone the police arrest me , and have a lawyer to defend...
where is the difference?

Offline Aiden

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2010, 11:08:21 AM »
In this case our legal system, flawed as it is, if the evidence exist that the person in question is guilty then he is an enemy.

I don't think we need to show mercy to those who try to kill us. I feel the same way about convicts and major crimes, rapist, murderers, hardcore gang members, the world does not need them, kill them all.

Offline Lucius Cornelius

  • When I'm good I'm very, very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Gender: Male
  • Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2010, 11:14:34 AM »
In this case our legal system, flawed as it is, if the evidence exist that the person in question is guilty then he is an enemy.

I don't think we need to show mercy to those who try to kill us. I feel the same way about convicts and major crimes, rapist, murderers, hardcore gang members, the world does not need them, kill them all.

who decides it <------This is the question.
All the legal system go  around it.

if the goverment can decide who is guilty and who doesn't , that next goverment, can decide that gay are enemy of the state .

or jews...


Offline Aiden

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2010, 11:21:53 AM »
Whoever is in power at the time.

I think our government as reached a point that it will not target a specific group like that anymore, but we never know.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2010, 11:30:15 AM »
I frankly, can't understand why people insist on giving terrorists things like fair trials, rights to lawyers, and all those other things listed in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is for Americans, not foreign mass murderers who use our own laws against us while plotting to slaughter us all. They could go through the formalities of stripping this guy of his American citizenship (if that's possible, I don't know), but as far as I'm concerned, if he's in any way responsible for the Ft. Hood attack, then he's lost any rights to claim being an American anymore. Call me insensitive, but I think there's a lot more to citizenship than having your name written on a piece of paper - i.e., not carrying out or inciting acts of horrific violence against your fellow "citizens". 'With us or against us' is a stupid concept, but if you're unabashedly and blatantly against us, then it is pretty obvious you're not with us and should not be treated like you are.

Tl/dr: Obama +1. I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but I think he made the right decision here.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 11:31:52 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2010, 12:02:58 PM »
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html
http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

It would be trivially easy to get his citizenship revoked. Or should be. Let that decision be made and be public.

Following the procedure here means that a future administration would not have it within their rights to conduct a political, religious, or ethnic pogrom.

Offline Lucius Cornelius

  • When I'm good I'm very, very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Gender: Male
  • Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2010, 12:10:45 PM »
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html
http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

It would be trivially easy to get his citizenship revoked. Or should be. Let that decision be made and be public.

Following the procedure here means that a future administration would not have it within their rights to conduct a political, religious, or ethnic pogrom.


 that was exactly what i was trying to say.    XD

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2010, 12:58:43 PM »
People sort of assume that the Holocaust occurred without precedent or at random. Many Jews had nothing to do with the usury and scams that led up to the Great Depression, but they got blamed for it anyway. Some on the lunatic fringe are blaming them for it again already. Most Americans don't consider the banking crisis to be a Jewish problem, thankfully. Most Americans consider it to be a greedy fucking leech problem, so I doubt we'll see a repeat of the Jewish holocaust.

Islam, however, has a different problem. Terrorism is seen as an Islamic problem. Honor killings are seen as an Islamic problem. "Revenge rape" is seen as an Islamic problem. They should thank the Catholic Church for so carelessly handling its pedophilia problem. These things are evil, yes, but we can't tear down our laws in pursuit of them. Smooth them out, make them leaner, make them better. Replace the Jury with a tribunal if needed, but the separation of powers serves a very important function.

To quote A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt:

Quote
Sir Thomas More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2010, 03:24:48 PM »
People sort of assume that the Holocaust occurred without precedent or at random. Many Jews had nothing to do with the usury and scams that led up to the Great Depression, but they got blamed for it anyway. Some on the lunatic fringe are blaming them for it again already. Most Americans don't consider the banking crisis to be a Jewish problem, thankfully. Most Americans consider it to be a greedy fucking leech problem, so I doubt we'll see a repeat of the Jewish holocaust.

Islam, however, has a different problem. Terrorism is seen as an Islamic problem. Honor killings are seen as an Islamic problem. "Revenge rape" is seen as an Islamic problem. They should thank the Catholic Church for so carelessly handling its pedophilia problem. These things are evil, yes, but we can't tear down our laws in pursuit of them. Smooth them out, make them leaner, make them better. Replace the Jury with a tribunal if needed, but the separation of powers serves a very important function.

Thank you Veks. Especially for the Man for All Seasons Quote.

Look, I get that not everybody is going to get on board with me in saying that the death, much less the wilful killing, of any human being for any reason is an act that should never be considered anything less than horrific (and in the case of killing immoral). I know I can be a little morally inflexible at times (it comes with being Kantian). But this goes beyond that issue. To support this is to say that an American can be stripped of their rights by fiat. This action is not being subject to the will of the public or the logic of the courts. This is an unbalanced source of a terrible power, and no matter how justified you see its use in the current circumstance, it is doubtful that this unprecedented instance will remain unique. There are checks on power like this for a reason. To remove them can turn the best intentioned of us into a formidable source of evil and tyranny.

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2010, 04:14:31 AM »
Justifiable homicide is not some terrifying new idea.  Government agents are allowed to kill terrorists, whatever nationality they are.  This just seems to recognise in law the fact that al-Awlaki is a member of Al Qaeda and is subject to the consequences of that status.

Offline Revolverman

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2010, 05:44:44 AM »
Justifiable homicide is not some terrifying new idea.  Government agents are allowed to kill terrorists, whatever nationality they are.  This just seems to recognise in law the fact that al-Awlaki is a member of Al Qaeda and is subject to the consequences of that status.

Recognized by who? I don't remember any kinda trial.

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2010, 05:58:50 AM »
Osama Bin Laden hasn't been tried either.

Offline Revolverman

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2010, 06:08:43 AM »

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2010, 07:30:00 AM »
Hasn't been tried for 9/11, which you must admit sort of sparked all this interest in him off.  The point is that members of Al Qaeda do not need to be tried in court before our soldiers and agents are allowed to kill them.  Presuming that nobody here has a problem with that, the only controversy here would seem to be if this guy's membership in Al Qaeda were in doubt, which doesn't seem to be the case, so I don't see the problem.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2010, 11:33:00 AM »
Osama Bin Laden hasn't been tried either.

He's not an American citizen.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2010, 12:21:58 PM »
Justifiable homicide is not some terrifying new idea.  Government agents are allowed to kill terrorists, whatever nationality they are.  This just seems to recognise in law the fact that al-Awlaki is a member of Al Qaeda and is subject to the consequences of that status.

You obviously have no idea how government agencies work. Every bullet fired from a government agent's gun means a pile of paperwork. And if someone is killed by that bullet it means inquiries, because for something to be a justifiable homicide, it has to be proven to be justified. Most government agents never discharge their firearms in their entire career. Despite what TV has told you there is no "licence to kill" which gives any agent the right to shoot terrorists willy-nilly. They have no more right to kill than the average citizen does, which is to say in defence from a clear danger. This is why the CIA has a list in the first place. This list does not include 'every member of Al Qaeda', but rather select individuals that are believed to be, by their very continued existence, unacceptable threats to the safety of the nation. It is not a good precedent to set that American citizens can be placed on this list without trial. It in fact violates the constitution in multiple ways and ignores established procedures for dealing with this.

Hasn't been tried for 9/11, which you must admit sort of sparked all this interest in him off.

Either you are very young or 9/11 eclipsed lots of other stuff for you (not surprising, many Americans only believe things are wrong if they happen in America). Bin Laden was active for years, maybe even decades, before 9/11. But that is beside the point. Osama bin Laden was not a naturally born US citizen.

The point is that members of Al Qaeda do not need to be tried in court before our soldiers and agents are allowed to kill them.  Presuming that nobody here has a problem with that, the only controversy here would seem to be if this guy's membership in Al Qaeda were in doubt, which doesn't seem to be the case, so I don't see the problem.

Again, not even the military gets to kill people just because they are part of Al Qaeda. They must be a clear, armed danger. Rules of engagement are very specific on this and soldiers that violate them are tried and disciplined within the military court system. It is very rare to set up a kill list and the names on that list should be there with no other alternative, and your rights as an American citizen should prevent you from being put on such a list at all. It is a clear violation of constitutional rights. They could have tried him for treason (there are methods for trying people in absentia in unavoidable circumstances). They could have stripped him of citizenship. They didn't.

To appeal to the pragmatist consider the precedent this sets. Even if you can approve of this realize that the next time it is applied it might not be a situation you agree with. This is a big blunt instrument being given to the executive branch with no oversight by the legislative or judicial. That is a recipe for disaster.

If you will indulge my hyperbole for a moment, this is Pandora's box, and it is baffling to think that you are so short-sighted as to be cheering its opening.

Offline sleepingferret

  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Location: Someplace with warm weather and no silly politicians...oh wait, that'd be my dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • Conflict is inevitable...How we solve it, matters.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2010, 02:34:22 PM »
America's legal system has sadly come down to a bunch of high dollar lawyers and who can afford the best one..and that pretty much wins.  The supposed stuff about truth and justice for all?  That'll be written on America's headstone if people don't wake up and realize certain things have to start changing and changing now.

Freedom?  Hey I'm all for it.  But at times, freedom comes with a cost.  And if that cost is outright killing a terrorist, so be it.  Better him or her than some innocent law abiding citizen or even some person just visiting the country that's minding their own business and not causing trouble.

Besides, it's about time Obama stepped up and realized if he's going to be sitting in that chair he can't just play pacifist with terrorists.  Doing stupid things like closing Guantanamo Bay isn't going to deter terrorism.  And as for Mr. Awlaki, well committing acts of treason isn't going to win anyone's heart over.  Does he expect a medal of honor or something?  Treason is the one crime that stands as the one crime that is pretty much absolutely punishable by death throughout the US, and while there may be "official" ways of handling it...including court trials.  What do those do?  Aside from generate more press for our enemies and cost us more money.  Kill the traitor and be done with it, unless there is any significant evidence contradicting his guilt.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2010, 03:03:16 PM »
What exactly is so hard to understand about this?

Quote
Article 3, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

You all remember article three, right? The powers given to the Judiciary? You know, one of those two branches that is not the Executive? Have you even bothered to read this thing?

Offline Sabby

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2010, 04:45:51 PM »
Islam, however, has a different problem. Terrorism is seen as an Islamic problem. Honor killings are seen as an Islamic problem. "Revenge rape" is seen as an Islamic problem. They should thank the Catholic Church for so carelessly handling its pedophilia problem. These things are evil, yes, but we can't tear down our laws in pursuit of them. Smooth them out, make them leaner, make them better. Replace the Jury with a tribunal if needed, but the separation of powers serves a very important function.

That made a lot more sense then the gung-ho, stars and stripes BS that's been flying around at the mention of this issue (and yes, in this thread as well).

I can understand feeling passionate about your home and ideals, but spouting "I'm American! Kill all these terrorists!" Is just a generation or two away from making America the devil the terrorists feel it is already. Beautiful in its irony, but not a desireable future.

Offline sleepingferret

  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Location: Someplace with warm weather and no silly politicians...oh wait, that'd be my dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • Conflict is inevitable...How we solve it, matters.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2010, 07:17:30 PM »
I can understand feeling passionate about your home and ideals, but spouting "I'm American! Kill all these terrorists!" Is just a generation or two away from making America the devil the terrorists feel it is already. Beautiful in its irony, but not a desireable future.

So you're saying what exactly?  That I should just let the terrorists claim their religious bullshit reasons for using suicide bombers, chemical weapons, or even outright old fashioned gunfire or just flat out beating someone to death and say or do nothing about it?

Yeah, don't think so.  If the rest of the world wants to view me as the devil, fine.  Then so I am.  But as far as I'm concerned when it comes down to it, I wasn't the one killing innocent people or disrupting the lives of those just trying to have a decent life for themselves.  If it means that I have to lay down my life or even condemn my soul to eternal damnation then so be it.  Because I for one, shall not be enslaved by terrorism.

Offline Paladin

  • Angel/Demon Hybrid
  • Restricted
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Gender: Male
  • Without my Honor I am Nothing. Try to understand
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2010, 07:21:41 PM »
From a Military standpoint though once he left the US and started working against the US if it can be prooven then he is infact an enemy of the US... as I said IF the proof is there. Its a time of war folks, by military standards the only punsihment dure time of war is Death.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2010, 07:29:51 PM »
From a Military standpoint though once he left the US and started working against the US if it can be prooven then he is infact an enemy of the US... as I said IF the proof is there. Its a time of war folks, by military standards the only punsihment dure time of war is Death.

Bullshit. The military takes prisoners all the time. War criminals are tried.

And the entire point here is that it cannot be proven without a trial. That is his right as an American citizen. If he is convicted of treason then the Congress shall declare his punishment for treason. If that punishment is death, so be it. But until convicted in open court he has not committed treason. Definitionally. Read the Constitution. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

The irony here is that the entire reason that is in the Constitution is to ensure that the executive branch does not have the power of the British monarchs of the age. This is a fundamental concept in American identity.

Offline Paladin

  • Angel/Demon Hybrid
  • Restricted
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Gender: Male
  • Without my Honor I am Nothing. Try to understand
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2010, 07:34:03 PM »
Bullshit. The military takes prisoners all the time. War criminals are tried.

And the entire point here is that it cannot be proven without a trial. That is his right as an American citizen. If he is convicted of treason then the Congress shall declare his punishment for treason. If that punishment is death, so be it. But until convicted in open court he has not committed treason. Definitionally. Read the Constitution. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

The irony here is that the entire reason that is in the Constitution is to ensure that the executive branch does not have the power of the British monarchs of the age. This is a fundamental concept in American identity.


Yea theres just one problem with following the consittution. The military tends to make its own rules. Aslo let please keep it civil. I am not cussing at you. I don't appriciate being cussed at.

Offline Brandon

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2010, 07:49:28 PM »
Paladin's pretty much dead on right about the situation. The military will do what they have to do. If they can take him alive they will, if he shoots back then the soldiers on site are going to do what they have to do. That might mean killing him or it might not

From my point of view, he has a means to preserve his life and ensure that hes given due process under American law and thats turning himself into one of the Various US embassies around the world. I grantee if he turns himself in it'll be a lot easier on him then if we have to send people looking for him too.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2010, 08:21:57 PM »
Yea theres just one problem with following the consittution. The military tends to make its own rules. Aslo let please keep it civil. I am not cussing at you. I don't appriciate being cussed at.

Apologies.

And what you have pointed out, if it were true, would be a problem with the military. However, I believe the the military remains loyal to America and its ideals, and to suggest otherwise without providing evidence is a bit tasteless. This is an irresponsible action on the part of the President and the CIA, specifically a violation of the principles of the Constitution they are duty-bound to uphold.

Do you really believe that the Constitution should be discarded in favour of killing one man?

Offline Paladin

  • Angel/Demon Hybrid
  • Restricted
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Gender: Male
  • Without my Honor I am Nothing. Try to understand
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2010, 08:26:01 PM »
Apolagy accepted. Now onto the facts. The thing about the CIA is even without presidential order they probably would have still gone after this guy. the CIA, if you look in books and read the stories is known for its black ops deal and missions without telling anyone... not even the president. The Military as a whole does try to uphold to the laws and they will only do whats nessisary. The CIA though I don't trust them to give me the time of day.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2010, 08:33:37 PM »
We should never discard the Constitution, but adhering ourselves too closely to it in the wrong situations could end up shooting ourselves in the foot. One of reasons, among many many others, for why we're having such a difficult time in Iraq is that the insurgents know we have to stick to certain rules of engagement and simple legal/moral principles flatly stated out in our laws (which are freely viewable for anyone), and know exactly how they can abuse those rules and laws to cause us as much grief as possible while being completely uninhibited by anything resembling scruples of their own.

 It's always better to be on the morally superior side, but if I absolutely had to pick between being morally superior and dead, or guilty that I violated my moral principles but alive and able to atone for such, it's going to be option number two for me. Along that lines, if endorsing a violation of this man's Constitutional rights means it could stop another Ft. Hood or similar attack, then I'll take that option and live with it. I take it for granted that other people don't feel this way, but it's how I look at situations like this with no 'good' answer, only 'bad' and 'less bad', with ambiguity as to which one is which.

And Paladin's got a point, the CIA probably already had this guy on a list to 'terminate with extreme prejudice', the only thing this does is bring it out of the black books and made public, whether such was politically motivated or not.

Offline Brandon

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2010, 08:53:11 PM »
It wouldnt be the high road if things were easy. We've known that for years but its still the right thing to do (by our societies standards) so we adhere to doing whats right. I guess the question should be asked, do you want to maintain our country's high standards of morality or do you expect us to make warfare easier by letting the soldiers and police forces commit far more questionable acts to protect us?

Offline Paladin

  • Angel/Demon Hybrid
  • Restricted
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: Southern Indiana
  • Gender: Male
  • Without my Honor I am Nothing. Try to understand
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2010, 08:58:59 PM »
It wouldnt be the high road if things were easy. We've known that for years but its still the right thing to do (by our societies standards) so we adhere to doing whats right. I guess the question should be asked, do you want to maintain our country's high standards of morality or do you expect us to make warfare easier by letting the soldiers and police forces commit far more questionable acts to protect us?

Thats why we have the CIA. So they can do all the stuff we arn't proud of and we can continue to pretend we are still the good godfearing nation that has no idea this stuff occures.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2010, 09:00:45 PM »
That's the key thing, and what makes the question so difficult - how far are principles worth going for, possibly up to the point where doing so gets you killed and you don't have any principles at all? I'm not in a position to make that choice, and I'm indescribably happy for this fact. But I won't be judgemental against people who are in that position, and do have to make those choices, potentially on a daily basis.

Offline Jude

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2010, 09:11:25 PM »
From a practical point of view this is clearly the right thing to do and from a principled point of view this is clearly the wrong thing to do.  It's a matter of which should win out.

Personally I'd say principles should always win out as long as the cost isn't too high; in this case it wouldn't take much at all for the Obama administration to have his citizenship revoked, a trial held, or to have him convicted of treason.  In principle, this is no different than the way the Bush administration overstepped its executive authority, but in practice I'd say it's a more tolerable violation.  Whatever that means.

Offline Alexiel

  • Loki's Goddess Of Mischief
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2010
  • Location: On my knees for my King.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am burdened with glorious purpose.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2010, 09:39:09 PM »
It looks like some people lost their train of thought along the way in there. This drifted from one thing to another and lost sight of the main problem being presented to us. To call back a previous statement, who decided this man was guily at all? Ok, so they have the evidence. Wonderful news, now bring him to trial. According to the law, every American citizen has the right to a speedy, fair trial with decent representation by a lawer of their choosing or one appointed to them.

So all those who are saying just to kill this man, I ask you one single question. If it were you, and they claimed they had evidence, would you still agree that you deserved to be shot on sight without a trial of any kind, and no chance to do anything but die? If the answer is yes, I don't know what to tell you, because I would like to think I had a right to a trial, at the very least.

As an American citizen, I would like to think that some rights in this country are still upheld, but it seems that little by little, humanity is losing that which it claims to have the most of. Freedom. There is no freedom if we let them do things like this and agree with it, but that's just my opinion.

This wasn't meant to offend anyone, and I apologize here and now if I have offended anyone, but I do have a right to my own opinion. (Unless the government takes that away next -_- )

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #40 on: April 11, 2010, 03:08:39 AM »
That's the key thing, and what makes the question so difficult - how far are principles worth going for, possibly up to the point where doing so gets you killed and you don't have any principles at all? I'm not in a position to make that choice, and I'm indescribably happy for this fact. But I won't be judgemental against people who are in that position, and do have to make those choices, potentially on a daily basis.

If this were a case of mosques and other Islamic orders arming themselves and preparing for an armed rebellion against the United States - well, that's part of why there is an appropriate case in which the Habeas Corpus can be temporarily suspended. The framers of the Constitution were geniuses and gave us a document that - at its core principles - is sound enough that compromising it is not a matter of wordplay but simply a matter of bald-faced contradicting it like in this case.

Radical Islam is going to continue trying the West's patience, and eventually those strings are going to snap. That's not going to end very well for them, but they don't believe that. When that occurs, though, what is it going to mean next? If militant atheists are the dominant political force by then, that means all religions may get cut down a notch or ten. Fundamentalist Christians - well we're all familiar with the sorts of steps they would like to take.

Our principles are what ensure that when we perform an action, we can stop at an appropriate point, rather than letting whatever dominant political force have its way with any further freedoms.


Offline Huginn

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #41 on: April 11, 2010, 05:50:18 AM »
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror
A good writeup on this one that seems to make a bigger point in mentioning what I will go on about. First a couple little gripes.

First off. The charge on him is not treason. As I can find no evidence to support trial in absentee as it would be all sorts of bad. So this is not treason even if he is treasonous (It seems pretty obvious he is at the moment. But even that doesn't let us go in guns a blazing)

http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=m64888&hd=&size=1&l=e
Seems to have a great writeup on what is going on here. A ways down it explains what may be the power base behind this choice. Specifically it links further in to....
http://timeenoughforlove.org/saved/YahooNewsU_S_CanTargetAmericanal-QaidaAgents.htm
So! Now we are getting somewhere. It seems Bush worked in the power to target US nationals specifically if they are acting as a agents of Al Qaeda


The connection is here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews ""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." "

So as we can see, The foundation for this act has long been around. It is not new  and seems to have been used in the past to excuse the killing of an American citizen (Even if they were not the primary goal of the attack.)

Right or wrong it seems it has stood up to at least some legal scrutiny before. And although it is hardly focused on in any of these stories they do state that this is a "Capture or Kill" I think we can all hope that Capture is the primary objective, no matter what the truth is, the possibility of "Kill" is what made this story, and because of that we are going to focus on that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp
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.

(Note. I think the reason it is legal from a purely legal standpoint is the boundary between ideologue and someone partaking in direct action. The stories seem to point out that he has stepped over from recruitment and speaking to partaking directly in actions that harm others. In this he seems to have opened himself up to harsher reprisal. I don't honestly know where I would cross the line and say its ok to shoot first and ask questions later, but I would prefer if the order was to take him in if at all possible, with the understanding that in doing so, the lives of the agents/servicemen doing so were the primary concern, and to behave appropriately.)
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 07:51:44 AM by Huginn »

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #42 on: April 11, 2010, 02:28:47 PM »
Again, not even the military gets to kill people just because they are part of Al Qaeda. They must be a clear, armed danger. Rules of engagement are very specific on this and soldiers that violate them are tried and disciplined within the military court system.

You're wrong on this point.  Members of Al Qaeda are pre-approved military targets - US soldiers do in fact have a licence to kill them.  (Edited to remove unnecessary bitching.)
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 02:29:52 PM by September »

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2010, 02:29:29 PM »
If this were a case of mosques and other Islamic orders arming themselves and preparing for an armed rebellion against the United States - well, that's part of why there is an appropriate case in which the Habeas Corpus can be temporarily suspended. The framers of the Constitution were geniuses and gave us a document that - at its core principles - is sound enough that compromising it is not a matter of wordplay but simply a matter of bald-faced contradicting it like in this case.

Agreed.



Huginn, I think you are missing the point a bit. If I am understanding you there are two major threads of argument in your post:

So! Now we are getting somewhere. It seems Bush worked in the power to target US nationals specifically if they are acting as a agents of Al Qaeda

[...]

So as we can see, The foundation for this act has long been around. It is not new  and seems to have been used in the past to excuse the killing of an American citizen (Even if they were not the primary goal of the attack.)

[...]

Right or wrong it seems it has stood up to at least some legal scrutiny before. And although it is hardly focused on in any of these stories they do state that this is a "Capture or Kill" I think we can all hope that Capture is the primary objective, no matter what the truth is, the possibility of "Kill" is what made this story, and because of that we are going to focus on that.

Just because something has been done before is neither an argument for its constitutionality nor morality. Also, I don't think the argument that Bush did it so it is okay is really that useful... It seems like what you are saying here is: Obama is not the only one to do this. Fine. I don't think that was anybody's main point. The point is that it is unconstitutional and immoral. That is not mitigated by any other president doing it before.

First off. The charge on him is not treason. As I can find no evidence to support trial in absentee as it would be all sorts of bad. So this is not treason even if he is treasonous (It seems pretty obvious he is at the moment. But even that doesn't let us go in guns a blazing)

To reiterate. Read the Constitution. Treason is defined in article three, section three.

Quote
Article 3, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

"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."

[...]

(Note. I think the reason it is legal from a purely legal standpoint is the boundary between ideologue and someone partaking in direct action. The stories seem to point out that he has stepped over from recruitment and speaking to partaking directly in actions that harm others. In this he seems to have opened himself up to harsher reprisal. I don't honestly know where I would cross the line and say its ok to shoot first and ask questions later, but I would prefer if the order was to take him in if at all possible, with the understanding that in doing so, the lives of the agents/servicemen doing so were the primary concern, and to behave appropriately.)

To me. This sounds an awful lot like "levying War against them [these United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". You know, the exact thing there is a very clearly defined section of the Constitution dealing with. A part which explicitly grants the power of determining and dealing with treason to the Judiciary and Legislature and not to the Executive branch or its agencies. To not call it treason is to try to use semantics to end-run around law. If I go kill someone with full knowledge and malice aforethought I cannot get off of prosecution by playing a word game and not calling it murder. Whatever term you want to apply to him, his actions are the same. Which is to say the actions he is accused of constitute a clearly defined grievance against the United States. A grievance known as treason, the right to determine the veracity of that accusation lies solely in the hands of the Judiciary and the right to punish lies solely in the hands of the Congress.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2010, 02:32:57 PM »
You're wrong on this point.  Members of Al Qaeda are pre-approved military targets - US soldiers do in fact have a licence to kill them.  May I advise you to consider reading the rules of engagement before lecturing people about what you imagine the contents to be.  Thanks.

I have read the rules of engagement, thank you. However I admit I may have misinterpreted them. Since you purport to have knowledge contradicting my claim, perhaps you could actually provide it? Where in the rules of engagement does it say you can attack a person solely due to organizational affiliation regardless of whether or not they are an armed threat? Or that the military does not accept surrender nor take prisoners?

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2010, 02:50:19 PM »
Apologies for being unnecessarily bitchy.  I deleted it, but after you read it.

However, you have definitely misinterpreted the ROE.  Al Qaeda and terrorists in general are part of what's called (from memory) a "pre-designated target set" or a "preplanned target set" or something.  A soldier on the ground can kill one if he IDs one.

Offline VekseidTopic starter

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2010, 02:54:49 PM »
Apologies for being unnecessarily bitchy.  I deleted it, but after you read it.

However, you have definitely misinterpreted the ROE.  Al Qaeda and terrorists in general are part of what's called (from memory) a "pre-designated target set" or a "preplanned target set" or something.  A soldier on the ground can kill one if he IDs one.

No one reasonably expects our soldiers, in combat, to pick out - much less spare - traitors in the midst of combat. This is about conducting an assassination off of the battlefield, and what that means.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2010, 03:41:36 PM »
Apologies for being unnecessarily bitchy.  I deleted it, but after you read it.

However, you have definitely misinterpreted the ROE.  Al Qaeda and terrorists in general are part of what's called (from memory) a "pre-designated target set" or a "preplanned target set" or something.  A soldier on the ground can kill one if he IDs one.

Not a problem, emotion runs high in issues like these.

However, I am afraid you are misinformed. Soldiers cannot kill compliant individuals or individuals otherwise not resisting or displaying hostile intent. This is why prisoners of war exist. This is why enemy combatants can surrender themselves to US forces. This is why if we find a militant hospital, our troops don't just go down the line shooting everyone in the head. Organizational affiliation is not enough to warrant deadly force. To the best of my knowledge, no US Military rules of engagement for any specific operation, standard rules of engagement for any US Military branch, the Geneva Convention, or any international rules of engagement used by a coalition of troops the US Military has been part of has held otherwise.

As a for instance, CJCSI 3121.01A (US Joint Chief of Staff Standard Rules of Engagement) contains the following line:
Quote
US forces will comply with the Law of War during military operations involving armed conflict, no matter how the conflict may be characterized under international law, and will comply with its principles and spirit during all other operations.

A few applicable tenants of the Law of War (paraphrased from US ARMY FM 3-07.1) being:
Quote
   
-Do not harm enemies who surrender; disarm them and turn them over to the chain of command.
-Do not kill or torture detainees.
-Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.

If you know  of any specific example that contradicts this, please let me know.



No one reasonably expects our soldiers, in combat, to pick out - much less spare - traitors in the midst of combat. This is about conducting an assassination off of the battlefield, and what that means.

Exactly. If he is actively resisting in the midst of armed conflict his death is well within the ROE. This order specifically circumvents the ROE, and that is the problem.

Offline September


Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2010, 05:06:51 PM »
What does CDE stand for?

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2010, 05:08:57 PM »
Collateral Damage Estimate.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2010, 06:09:39 PM »
Yeah, it is a little hard to understand without the document that it is a supplement to.

Which is to say Annex E to OPORD 01-04.

A document that includes the specific instructions:
Quote
A commander must consider the assigned mission, the current situation, the higher commander's intent, and all other available guidance in determining the level of force required for mission accomplishment. The level of force employed should not exceed the force required to accomplish the assigned mission.
A document that, if it is legitimate, is still subject to the command of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and still subject to the Law of War.

On the battlefield, lethal force can be considered necessary. In a non-combat situation it is not. I do not believe that our soldiers walk around Iraq going from door to door shooting unarmed Al Queda members. The military does not carry out executions of detainees, nor does it shoot wounded or surrendered individuals. Precisely because it violates what is clearly spelled out in these rules of engagement.

The issue at hand is an action of the Executive branch allowing exactly that, beyond the scope of the ROE and a notion of necessary force. Can we please get back to that issue?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 06:11:58 PM by DarklingAlice »

Offline Oniya

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2010, 06:21:38 PM »
[Removed as superfluous]

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2010, 06:31:28 PM »
Alice, read section B-1-B of the very document you just linked to.  It explains that members of Al Qaeda are "proper targets of attack".  This seems to be all the Executive Branch has done, designated this guy as a proper target of attack.  The military will take care of the rest.  It's not a "first they came for Al Qaeda" kind of thing.

Offline Huginn

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #54 on: April 11, 2010, 07:27:15 PM »
My point about Treason is simply that it could be in no way considered a ruling a treason, for the point you mentioned.

Secondly I am not justifying the action due to any previous ruling or law, I am simply pointing out where the power to designate a target in this manner comes from. It is because he is actively operating with a specific group that he has been targeted.

My only other real point is that we don't know the degree to which the "Capture" of the "Capture and kill" Is being stressed. It may seem like semantics but if the primary objective is Capture and protect yourselves, its a lot better then "Run in and shoot him as he surrenders" What nobody here knows is what the exact order is, at least if someone has the wording I would love to hear it, as I spent  3 hours last night jumping around trying to find the power behind this.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #55 on: April 11, 2010, 07:54:38 PM »
Alice, read section B-1-B of the very document you just linked to.  It explains that members of Al Qaeda are "proper targets of attack".  This seems to be all the Executive Branch has done, designated this guy as a proper target of attack.  The military will take care of the rest.  It's not a "first they came for Al Qaeda" kind of thing.

Yes, he is a proper target of attack, within the bounds of necessary force. I have never asserted anything else. The military is authorized to use a level of force up to deadly force when engaging him. The level of force employed must however be justified and deemed necessary, this is precisely what military inquiries and the military justice system are there for, to ensure that soldier behaviour is necessary and proportional

The problem is how does an American citizen get declared a proper target of attack in the first place? What court, what oversight, what balance of power? What evidence is sufficient, what rigour must be applied when examining that evidence? What safeguards are in place to prevent the abuse of this ability? There do not appear to be any, and that is what I find troubling.

Offline LIAR

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2010, 02:35:23 AM »

Terrorist suspects are guilty until proven innocent and while it may be morally repugnant, these claims aren't made lightly. Shoot first, investigate later.

Offline Revolverman

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2010, 02:37:00 AM »
Terrorist suspects are guilty until proven innocent and while it may be morally repugnant, these claims aren't made lightly. Shoot first, investigate later.

And what if he was innocent?

Offline LIAR

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2010, 02:44:55 AM »
What if he is? What if he isn't?

I am fine with taking the chance on this. I don't feel like we've yet overstepped a boundary. Where do we cross the line? I don't know. But this isn't it- only a step towards it.

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2010, 02:50:32 AM »
The problem is how does an American citizen get declared a proper target of attack in the first place? What court, what oversight, what balance of power? What evidence is sufficient, what rigour must be applied when examining that evidence? What safeguards are in place to prevent the abuse of this ability? There do not appear to be any, and that is what I find troubling.

Becoming an officer in Al Qaeda seems to be the most efficient way to go about it.

Offline Kip

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #60 on: April 13, 2010, 02:52:33 AM »
I'm of the opinion that assuming guilt is a bad path when the punishment is death.  Human life should be considered worth protecting.  Terrorists terrorise by taking life - doing the same without proof or trial is past the line in my opinion.

That's a bit of a separate argument to events that happen in war and, specifically, this video.  The environment is different and decision making processes (both individual and organisational) come under severe time pressure.  I'm generally anti-war so I'm biased from that perspective.

Offline Revolverman

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #61 on: April 13, 2010, 03:04:37 AM »
What if he is? What if he isn't?

I am fine with taking the chance on this. I don't feel like we've yet overstepped a boundary. Where do we cross the line? I don't know. But this isn't it- only a step towards it.


What is the boundary then? 1 innocent to 1 Guilty? 2? 5? 100?

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #62 on: April 13, 2010, 12:09:19 PM »
Becoming an officer in Al Qaeda seems to be the most efficient way to go about it.

And all I am asking for is for two witnesses to testify to that fact in open court, and for the Congress to determine a response. Exactly as laid out in the Constitution for exactly this circumstance. These are not difficult rules to understand. As it stands there has been no open court and the response has been determined by the Executive branch. This is a problem.

Accusations of any crime are serious things which must be handled with gravity and due process of law. Do I doubt that this man is a terrorist and a member of Al Qaeda? No. Do I doubt that the guy at a crime scene standing over the dead body with a knife in his hand and proudly shouting: "I KILLED THE BASTARD" is guilty of murder? No. But in neither case should these people be punished for their crime until that crime has been demonstrated and ruled on in open court. This is necessary for the rule of law, a cornerstone of the concept of Justice, and the lack of such systems is explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as one of the grievances against the British Crown.

Now if the man with the knife attacks his arresting officer, or if al-Awlaki presents an armed threat to the US Military they have every right to defend themselves with the necessary level of force up to and including lethal force. This is also not at issue here. Their rights to that effective self-defence are very clear. What they do not have the right to do is execute someone on the basis of the crime they have not been proven to commit.

Nor am I (in this instance) arguing against the ability of the executive branch to put out a kill order on any number of militants, terrorist leaders, etc. Let us grant that right to the Executive branch for the sake of this argument.

The substantive factor here is that this man is an American citizen. He was born in New Mexico and remains the countryman of every American. We have certain rights as afforded by our Constitution. Regardless of any accusations against him, any right denied him is a denial and an affront to the rights of all other citizens, and guaranteed proceeding not granted him is an affront to the Constitution.

What if he is? What if he isn't?

I am afraid I don't follow. Would you elaborate on why you think killing an innocent would not be the wrong thing to do?

Offline September

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #63 on: April 14, 2010, 03:12:46 AM »
But he's not a criminal, he's an enemy soldier.  You may think recognising him as such without a courtroom trial is a bad precedent, I say introducing lawyers and juries into military decision making is worse.  Civilians often do not understand very basic concepts of warfare, such as the rules of engagement.  Bear in mind also that the evidence against terrorists and insurgents may well be classified for good reason.

...if al-Awlaki presents an armed threat to the US Military they have every right to defend themselves with the necessary level of force up to and including lethal force. This is also not at issue here. Their rights to that effective self-defence are very clear. What they do not have the right to do is execute someone on the basis of the crime they have not been proven to commit.

And you're still wrong about this.  Look at the flowchart again.  Start at the very first box, which asks if the unit is acting in self defence or is involved in combat.  Answer "no", and see if you're allowed to kill anybody.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 06:46:21 AM by September »

Offline Huginn

Re: Obama Approves Assassination of US Citizen
« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2010, 03:28:00 AM »
Something cropped up today that seemed pertinent to this conversation.

Currently, 8 USC 1481 reads, "A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing" the following act, among others, "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States."

From http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/05/lieberman-seeks-to-strip-citizenship-of-americans-overseas-with-ties-to-terror-orgs/

The "Problem" that they are arguing is if this should work when its a designated terrorist group as well as a nations army. I have to wonder what the process of this loss of nationality takes.