This should terrify every US citizen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/se … sfeed=true
The Obama administration - the head of the party that supposedly respects civil liberties and peace - issued an assassination order of a US citizen who his administration alone declared a terrorist.
Only a decree.
And the US citizen is now dead.
The definition of Terrorist is so vague and malleable. This should terrify every freedom-loving American.
We now condone the execution of our own citizens without a trial.
Welcome to 21st century warfare. We're going to see more of this, and as long as the case can be made publicly that the target is a terrorist, most people will go along - valuing security over legality.
Americans will accept some "collateral damage" from drone attacks more readily than putting more boots on the ground and bringing these guys to trial. Mexico will be the next theater of Hellfire Justice.
OK, so what's the alternative? Tell me you who decry a terrorist's killing by our government. How would you handle it?
I agree with you on this one, Evan. It is scary to think that the government can execute an American citizen without a trial.
The assasinatee was a terrorist who is engaging in terrorist activities, in a foreign country (not a resident of the US), against the US and allies. I don't give a rat's ass if he was born in the White House. He made a conscense decision and deserves what he got. Sorry, I can't shed a tear over this one. Last I heard we were at war with terrorism. Now if he was a US citizen and wanted for a normal crime like murder or bank robbery, then yes, he deserves a fair trial. Terrorists are in a differnet catagory in my book, screw 'em!
I also believe he deserves what he got and I'm not crying because he's dead. However, if our government can declare an American citizen to be a terrorist, then kill him, that's scary.
No. I'm not sympethetic towards terrorists.
"The assasinatee was a terrorist who is engaging in terrorist activities, in a foreign country (not a resident of the US), against the US and allies"
This was never proven in an open court.
You made yourself the judge.
It was proven by the many open confessions to his actions, his current and ongoing threats against the American people, and by his writings in his self promoted magazine. Not to mention his use of the internet for the purpose of recruiting solidiers in his fight against the US and its peoples.
There are a lot of things that upset me, concerning policy since this whole mess started. I have to say, I can't really work up much indignation at the assassination of an enemy combatant.
Hello, Evan. Nice to see you once again.
Your post raises some interesting questions besides taking a swipe at the present government of the United States. It is an issue that has no clear or simple answers, legal, ethical, or otherwise. It is hard for me to believe Anwar al-Awlaki regarded his civil liberties as an American citizen as highly as you seem to. It appears that he chose to join the ranks of al-Qaida as an advisor to terrorists and, by so doing, he knowingly abandoned his constitutional rights.
For a brief discussion of the varied and thorny issues involved, I also recommend http://www3.davidson.edu/cms/Documents/ … 207-09.pdf
It says in part, "But according to Dr. David Perry, professor of applied ethics and director of the new Vann Center for Ethics at Davidson College, the current debate concerning assassination has unfortunately shed more heat than light. Perry, who served from 2003 to 2009 as professor of ethics at the U.S. Army War College, addresses the ethics and legality of assassination and targeted killing in his recent book, Partly Cloudy: Ethics in War, Espionage, Covert Action, and Interrogation."
The part that is most applicable to your OP statement reads, “First, assassination often resembles capital punishment, in that the targeted individual is usually thought to have plotted or committed horrendous crimes like mass murder. Perry argues that in clear-cut cases the target can credibly be said to have forfeited his otherwise equal right not to be killed, so that assassinating him would not necessarily wrong him.”
This is an interesting and timely post, Evan. Thank you.
quote: "It is hard for me to believe Anwar al-Awlaki regarded his civil liberties as an American citizen as highly as you seem to."
It's so hard to point out that you are claiming to be the judge when you are being so civil.
Curse your civility!
Good evening, Evan. How very nice of you to share your considered opinions with me.
I actually wasn’t claiming to judge anything or any one. My thoughts about how he might regard his civil liberties as an American citizen hardly qualifies as judging his self-proclaimed vocation of killing innocent American civilians. Nor would I judge the sincerity and motivation of any person who praises the ideal of due process and the role of the courts in protecting the Constitution of the United States, as you have in this forum thread, after having stated in another … http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/78145?p … ost1691830
Your preference for anarchy is already a matter of public record.
BTW, I’m sorry you find my civility bothersome. It is not intended to offend you in any way.
Have a great day, Evan.
I for one truly respect and come to look for your civility in all the subects and debates here on HP. We may not agree on some issues, but I can always count on you be be honorable and a true gemtleman. I always look forwrd to your well thought out opinions based or backed by facts.
Have a great day my friend
Lol, that was a joke - keep up the civility. It's rare to come across and it throws me for a loop when I encounter it.
He was planning mass murder of US citizens. It is hard to understand why anyone would shed tears for him even in the name of citizen's right. I can understand the argument if he was in US soil. In that case he would have been accorded the due process. He would be in jail for years and years. I believe that is a better punishment for someone like him. He was planning murder from outside US soil so only way to stop him was to kill him. This is the right thing to do. We should have legislation to that effect. Then Ron Paul and ACLU hopefully wont whine about it.
I am not the judge nor do I want to be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion just like you are.
So you are very happy to see innocent Americans murdered by American Terrorists? every American that is overseas who plots against the US should be allowed to continue to kill innocent Americans until he is placed in front of a Jury?
So it's OK for you to Judge - but anyone who disagrees is not allowed to?
Wonderful - decomacracy at its finest.
Let's try approach this from a different perspective. If a man walks into a crowd and pulls a gun and is about to shoot - should the police wait until he shoots before arresting him? If we follow your rules he actually have to commit the crime before being bought to justice. According to law, police have every right to subdue or kill someone if there is intent to kill or maim other citizens - isn't that exactly what this terrorist was doing?
Would it have been a crime for America to shoot down the Jets that flew into the twin towers?
Where exactly do you draw the line? Do you save lives first and then have to deal with the 'controversy' of failing to uphold laws - or do you let the terrorist do their 'job' and then put them through justice.
The problem really is that there is no right answer - if this hadn't been done and this man had orchestrated a bomb in Time Square, people would be crying 'Why didn't Obama get this man' - if you remember quite a few people complained that Bush did not get Bin Laden prior to the terrorist attacks....
Pulling a gun on someone, (except in cases of self-defense) is a crime in all 50 states....even Arizona
A better analogy in this case would be someone telling someone else to pull a gun. The police would not be justified in shooting the conspirator, but he could be arrested, tried, convicted, and THEN sentenced.
No, your point and mine are quite different. You are advocating execution without due process, I am arguing the opposite.
I think the point is that it's not that simple.
This man had planned terrorist attacks that failed - so in essence he has pulled the trigger and is repsonsible for the crime.
Should we have tried to have captured him and put him through the justice system - sure - but that is almost impossible as we have found out with Bin Laden.
Therefore if there is an opportunity to attack someone who has already attacked us, shouldn't we do it - especially knowing that it is going to save lives.
It is a moral issue - but it is not black and white...
I agree with your last statement, it is a complex issue. I strongly disagree with the people who say it's OK to assasinate suspects without trial, no matter what our own legal system says. The president may well have done more harm to the U.S. than he did to Al-Queda.
But it's not just this President - it's been happening for the last twenty years - Clinton did it in Libya - Bush did it in Iraq etc etc.
How many times have there been attempts on Castro - why is it suddenly becoming an issue?
Most nations have spies and most nations at some time or other have tried to assassinate (or succeeded) other countries leaders.
"The president may well have done more harm to the U.S. than he did to Al-Queda." - the act of going into war with Iraq (legal or not) did far more damage to the US than killing this one man.....
I didn't judge the man.
See how that works? I didn't judge him as having committed a crime because I hadn't seen the evidence presented in a neutral fashion.
Allz I know is that a US citizen was assassinated by a direct command from a US President without any trial.
Under international treaties, assassination is illegal. I would love to see Obama answer for this crime in an open court.
I know it won't happen, though.
As every President whose done the same thing they will say he is a 'war combatant' - very hard to disprove...and I'm sure there are a whole series of lawyers who were consulted before this event.
Again I'll say it's very complex - and as I said before - if someone holds a gun and is about to shoot - he will be shot and killed - no trial...he's guilty by the fact he's just about to commit murder.
This man had said publically that he wants to kill Americans and has urged others to kill Americans....so if we wait to bring him to justice a lot of innocent people could die....
...a very fine line between what is right or wrong here...
I'm just emphasizing that Obama most likely did commit a crime. But I would still want him - and every other human on this planet - to get a fair trial from an as-impartial-as-possible court.
The memo that explains "why" a president can assassinate a US citizen is being held as confidential -- we can't even see what the logic behind assassination is.
We need to be VERY afraid of this kind of thing.
I'm sure that the lawyers will disagree and that's how Presidents and other leaders get away with it. I'm not sure why we should be scared now though - this has been going on for a long long time.
OK so maybe this is the first prominent US citizen to be killed openly - but you surely don't think he's the first US citizen ever to be killed for the good of the country...
Yeah and this guy sure had a Facebook page?
That is good enough reason to murder him!
No other evidence necessary cuz Obama said so.
Well, you know our dear Obama. He thinks holding terrorists in Guantanamo and waterboarding them are cruel inhumane acts. So I guess he just sent Alwaki to 70 virgins as soon as he could, huh?
Give me a break.
Awlaki was a member of an organization that declared war on the US, and his actions have made him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Fort Hood shootings. His death makes you and I that much safer.
This was a legitimate act of war.
And--I'm a liberal.
TROY DAVIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet this man openly advocated attacks on America and it's citizens and you have a problem with our government targeting him?!!!!!!!! What is our country coming to? LORD HELP US!!!
"We now condone the execution of our own citizens without a trial."
Where you been SON? The time for you be all TERRIFIED was way back when the PATRIOT ACT was passed by a terrified(and stupid)Congress.
The President like all President before and after him; have to faithfully execute the laws of the Unite States. Right now, this President also has the duty of Commander In Chief to defend and protect the people of this Country.
He did both. It was a good call.
My point is that he is NOT executing the laws properly.
Here's the law in particular that I'm worried about:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
.... .... ... SON!! ...
But he was a terrorist!
Shouldn't Obama be praised?
He vanquished the dreaded al queda!
Honest to God.....do people LIKE terrorists now??
What are you taking now Evan. You need to stop. Please seek help before things get much worse. By the way, he was a self proclaimed terrorist and publicly stated his desire for the US demise.
LMC- I agree with you except also praise out intelligence community and our armed forces that carried it out.
He was in a foreign country, in a war zone and aiding and abetting the enemy.
He also publicly stated that he was a traitor, for which the penalty can include death. As he was actively engaged in processes that result in the murder of Americans that penalty would seem appropriate.
What's the problem here? Are we now expected to visit our wartime enemies, politely request they hand over any American traitors that are working on their side and have a trial?
I'm with you, AV - kudos to our intelligence community. Now go out and do it again!
And kudos to Obama, for ordering it? (according to the BBC)
The mobs have spoken: Trials are unnecessary.
Yes, I believe American public opinion would agree with posters here on the whole. There is no need to allow treason resulting in murder of our neighbors and families simply because the traitor has gone over to the enemy.
Simply remove him/her.
No, Americans are not the mobs. The assassinatee was the head of the heinous mobs. He was really a traitor and in all countries, any one who committed treason is put to an end.
George Washington was a treasonous wretch who, by your statement, should have been "put to an end".
And so he would have been, had the British been able to accomplish the task.
So you believe that opposing a government is a larger crime than the government opposing you?
Interesting question. The truck bomb in KC was certainly a bigger crime than govt killing an innocent person, simply because more died.
The shooting of a congresswoman would be a lesser crime than govt killing an innocent person, simply because she didn't die.
I suspect, however, that your thrust is that govt must do anything at all to individuals and that is not so. Govt is, almost by definition, society as a whole. Should you wish to live in any particular society you agree to live by the rules of that society and society has a right to demand that you do while being obligated to follow the same rules.
And before you squawk, that does not mean that individuals incorrectly representing our govt can do no wrong or even that govt can make no mistakes.
Only individuals act. And government is NOT a magical entity that can define this basic law of nature.
Someone pulled the trigger to release the drone's bomb.
Someone ordered him to do it.
That man didn't have the courage to say "he hasn't had a trial".
By the logic of "Government is society as a whole", we should have put the entire German people on trial after WWII and executed them all.
As government is a collection of people representing society that would seem to mean that it can act just as people can. Philosophical distinctions don't mean much when people are dying.
As far as executing all germans, did you read my final sentence: "And before you squawk, that does not mean that individuals incorrectly representing our govt can do no wrong or even that govt can make no mistakes." I might add as well that some countries have governments that do not represent the people at all, only the power base of the leaders.
Government is made up of individuals choosing to act in a similar fashion, just like a company, group, community, church, or any other social creation.
However - ONLY. INDIVIDUALS. ACT. Any one of those individuals in that group can choose to not act in a certain way.
The group on net is not granted any special powers, rights, or benefits because they choose to give their social construct a name. Just because I'm a member of the "white bald guy club" does not mean that I now have the right to a "white bald guy subsidy", or anything else.
Government is the same. Just because we call them the government, only the individuals are acting.
And, finally, your statement that you think I didn't read: "And before you squawk, that does not mean that individuals incorrectly representing our govt can do no wrong or even that govt can make no mistakes."
Of course I read it. But it seems that I'm the only one who understands the implications of that statement: That statement alone disproves your entire argument because a government is simply made up of individuals, and only those individuals can act. You proved me right.
No, he won't. George Washington is loyal to America not to the British Empire. From what I recall from history books, America was NEVER England; it was seized to be a part of the colony.
I agree with you there. I have always thought trials are a waste of time..
this dude may have been born in the America but he wasn't American. There's a huge difference there.
I find it quite funny a lot of behavior of so called liberals in these forums. Obama can not be judge for USA citizen. But every american can be judge for any foreign citizen (may be little bit less for Europeans! Oh Not all Only Western Europeans? a little more for other Europeans but certainly all others may be in one bunch? May be they do not mean that. But often when they argue that is what seems to be their stress?
Do those arguments sound much different than that past Attorney general during Bush time, I forget his name, who was saying some thing like "USA is God's country"? I remember one Jew american professor sitting near me while hearing this was wondering "whose God is it? Does it include my God?"
Thus dude was not collateral damage, he was the enemy. War is legal, even when the enemy combatant is a citizen.
The "dude" was not, the Constitution was.
Would it make you feel better if Obama had declared his citizenship null and void before killing him?
Psyche is right - he was the enemy and not subject to trial for physical reasons (in the company of the enemy and unavailable for trial). We are not required to give our war time enemies a trial before shooting them.
What act of war did he commit ?
I would feel better if more Americans at least thought about the issue before tossing our laws aside like a used kleenex.
Specifically? I don't know, but would bet that Intelligence does.
In any case he was clearly aiding and abetting the enemy.
Yes, we could have, for 200 years, though long and hard before shooting the soldiers coming at our troops with guns blazing. Or their leaders. We wouldn't be here, but we could have done that.
Gee maybe we should all hold a moment of silence and honor all the terrorists that we killed. So we popped this guy, one less POS to worry about.
George Washington launched a war against his government.
I guess he was a POS.
Funny how that works - no doubt if we let this traitor continue his actions and al-qaeda eventually destroyed America he would be a hero just as G Washington is.
Actually I would prefer that America be the one to determine who is a traitor and who is a hero though.
OK... go ahead: Was Minamoto no Yoshitsune a hero? What about his brother, Yoritomo?
... g'head America! Without an open court, openly decide who the "heroes" of history are!
Sorry - I don't recognize any of them.
Yes. American heroes are defined by America, typically those people that do great things for America.
Japanese heroes will be defined by Japan, English heroes will be defined by England and so on.
Very occasionally we find a hero the whole world will define - Mother Theresa, perhaps.
Traitors will be defined the same way, just as this one was.
Why should it be any other way?
To the British Govenment at the time, Washington was considered a traitor and if caught, they would of shot or hanged him along with the forefathers.
Do you have proof that he hasn't plotted and carried out attacks against the U.S. or our allies? If so you should make this information available to the media. The only reason that this is coming out and Obama is even mentioned is its election time and Obama needs some brownie points to show how hard he is. I think this guy was a traitor and received his punishment for it, sucks to be a traitor.
That post is so brilliant; the logic so pure...
I have no way to refute it.
God bless you mighty patriot.
You are correct, you have no way to refute it. I guess that makes you right and me wrong?
Our CIA is the judge, and it seems that Wilderness trusts the unnamed, vague "intelligence" to be the Judge of his future.
The seems an interesting parallel between this and another thread running where some cops beat a homeless man to death and I have insisted that the courts be allowed to do their job instead of the mob.
It only appears parallel on the surface, however. Consider the following:
The cops were readily available for arrest and trial; the traitor isn't and never well be.
The cops have not made a public news statement that they are guilty of murder; the traitor has declared that he is proud of being a traitor.
The cops are not war criminals, aiding the enemy and fighting in the company of American enemies and were not engaged in military actions.
When it is all added up, this man has clearly forfeited any rights of American citizenship, is by his own declaration guilty of an offense punishable by death, is and will remain unavailable for trial and actions taken against him were military actions in time of war. None of that is true of the civilian cops; there is no actual parallel at all.
If you are demanding that all intelligence gathered about our enemies be shared with the public before taking any action, you plainly have no concept of how wars are fought or won, and the same holds true if you think our enemies should be ignored and left alone as they fight and kill Americans. Vietnam was lost mostly because the politicians and public opinion would not let our armed forces do their job and micromanaged every aspect; lets not make the same mistake with the war on terrorism.
"Vietnam was lost mostly because the politicians and public opinion would not let our armed forces do their job and micromanaged every aspect; lets not make the same mistake with the war on terrorism."
This is off topic, but I cannot BELIEVE that people still say this crap. I thought this theory was put to rest with the massive failure of the invasion of Iraq. Bush repeatedly told us he was following the recommendations of his "generals on the ground," and look what a mess it was, a mess predicted by many people, including Daddy Bush.
You cannot occupy a country that is divided and "win" when the people don't want you there.
Let's see - in Iraq our objective was (apparently) to end the regime of Hussein and remove him. This was done with very minimal loss of life. Similarly, the invasion of Kuwait accomplished the goal of kicking out the invaders with low loss of life and was quite successful.
On the other hand, Vietnam saw a truly massive cost in American lives for apparently no gain at all.
I know which ones I would call a "win".
Terrorists or even U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.
I don't think the president has the authority to cancel someone's citizenship.
If he did, you'd have to throw out Amendment 14.
Apparently you never heard of the Nationality Act of 1940 which dealt with dual citizenship. The 14th Amendment was written in 1868 to over overturn the 1857 Supeme Court ruling that slaves were not citizens of the US and also pertained to former Confederate soldiers.
I just heard of it now, and read the synopsis of it.
... Unfortunately for your argument, the law has no effect on this situation.
Nice try though.
He was born a US Citizen - and no where in the law can that be taken away from him by the President --- especially not by the President ALONE.
So, no. Your argument is incorrect.
So you think senior Al-Qaeda leaders who send people to blow up planes (e.g. the shoe bomber) should be given immunity if they have American citizenship? The man was actively and openly implementing terror attacks in the US. I assure you, I thought about it and looked into what he did rather than assuming he is innocent because he has American citizenship. There is plenty of videotape and public intelligence out there on this guy.
I believe he was guilty, just as I believed Timothy McVeigh and Scott Roeder were guilty. I still believe our system requires a fair trial before conviction and death. Would you have been fine with a government-ordered execution for them, too?
The rules of law apply to domestic situations where arrest is possible. To avail himself to the rule of law, all he needed to do was come home.
The rules of war apply to international situations where arrest is not possible. A man who attempts multiple bombing attacks is an enemy combatant.
I think killing him is better than the only other option, letting him live and send more bombs to planes and synagogs--with the inevitable consequence that one of them gets through.
I am far more outraged by the black sites and "extraordinary rendition" (torture) of foreigners--many of whom are innocent of any crime, than the killing of man who was part of an ongoing plan to kill American civilians.
I think whether you are making war, or committing crime, is far more important in deciding what rights you should have than whether you are an American.
No one had to declare this man a terrorist, he did that when he packed explosives in packages and Fedexed them to Chicago--something he proudly and publicly admitted.
My emotional side does not disagree with you. My rational side says this could easily be abused.
Note how easily you threw out the term "enemy combatant," a redefinition applied by the Bush administration to allow circumvention of the rules of war. It was controversial at the time. That circumvention played a role in the abuses that so concern you.
This idiot declared he was a terrorist, participated in terrorist activites, and who's goal it was to kill innocent people. We are at war with terrorism and that's why he was deemed an enemy combatant. Enemy combatants are considered fair game - no need for a trial. He killed by a missle and didn't know what hit him. At least Bin Laden was face to face with a US Navy SEAL and the last thing he saw was a muzzle of an automatic rifle.
It used to be the case that American citizens could not be declared enemy combatants. The Bush administration succeeded in changing the rules so that Americans could be denied their constitutional rights.
That bothers me. It just does.
Sure, the subject of this thread deserves what he got. But, saying it's okay for the executive branch of our government to try and execute an American citizen is scary to me.
I guess it's not scary to most people here.
"Enemy combatant" is rather a recent term. But American citizens have been treated as such since the founding of this country. Benedict Arnold ring a bell (G Washington had issued orders to hang or shoot him on sight) or the entire Southern States during the Civil War? FDR threatened to strip Americans of their citizenship if they went to England and join the Royal Air Force (prior to Dec 7, 1941). Anyone (no matter of citizenship or religion)who declares themself a part of a terrorist network, participates in the planning and execution of murdering innocent people and ends up being killed, doesn't bother me a bit.
There is no declaration of war, so, no, we're not at war.
I, as of right now, officially declare that it is my duty to murder babies. I am now declaring myself a baby-killer.
... will a drone shoot a missile at me know?
I can claim a lot of things: it doesn't make them so.
DEATH TO BABIES
Are you on foreign soil, unavailable to our justice system?
Are you targeting American babies?
Are you in the company of sworn enemies of the US and helping them to also shoot American babies?
Have you declared yourself to be treasonous?
Have you declared war on the US?
If so, then I would hope a drone missile will take you out as well.
Was he? Show me proof.
Not just any proof, but proof that is completely unbiased. Proof that was reviewed by someone trying to maintain the man's innocence.
What's that? There is no such thing in this situation?
Yeah. THAT'S BECAUSE HE WAS ASSASSINATED WITHOUT A TRIAL.
If you're at all a fan of the scientific method, you'll find parallels between "open scientific peer review" and "open justice peer review".
Read the link you provided in your OP. The one man in the entire world that knows the entire truth of the matter declared him to be treasonous. Himself.
Have you ever seen a trial where the defendant pleaded guilty but there was still evidence presented and a jury verdict rendered? No? Why would you demand one here then?
Have you ever seen an enemy combatant, in enemy territory, given a trial and convicted of being the enemy before shooting him? No? Why this time then?
I know you're joking, but in case you're not:
I demand to see the declaration by Congress.
War has its own laws, no trial here, justice is a relative thing. We should stop wars, all those terrible wars. Every day somebody's child is getting killed, and for what? I cannot imagine being a mom of a dead soldier...
There is no declaration of war - we're not at war.
Can you imagine your son being a slave or incinerated in an oven? Some wars have to be waged to save lives.
Is this a "Look we are winning the War on Terror" moment or a ramp up to the next "False Flag"Attack ?
It could easily be abused, and in fact is. But this is not such a case. And, unlike Bush, I see an enemy combatant as being someone you can legally kill in a war action (like bombing)--not someone you can abduct to a third country and torture contrary to the Geneva convention. Once you have detained someone, if they are a citizen, they need to get due process. And even if they are not a citizen international law applies.
I agree, or at least the government has convinced the media which has convinced me.
I stand by my belief that all American citizens accused of a crime should receive a trial.
My last reply was to your first statement only.
Since you added to it, I must say it doesn't really matter how YOU define enemy combatant, does it? What matters is what it means to those who either capture or kill them, and the redefinition by the Bush administration almost directly resulted in the abuses you deplore.
The fate of this particular guy doesn't bother me. What does, is the fact that we have created and are constantly refining a world without privacy, where anyone can be tracked and (in principle) killed by remote control.
Does anyone seriously believe that such a 'big brother' world is going to lead to world peace and stability? The more we alienate and exclude, the more we drive people to radical resistance, aka terrorism.
What I don't understand is how many on the left applaud this action when they screamed about waterboarding and Gitmo. Is it just because Obama did it? If Bush had ordered it, these same people would have said it was unconstitutional. It works the other way, too. Some on the far right who denounce this action by Obama would have cheered Bush on. We're so divided now that everything seems to be viewed in shades of political partisanship. If your guy did it, it's good. If their guy did it, it's bad.
Dual standards - the natural consequence of extreme partisanship! As an outside observer, I think the US has a worse case of it than almost anywhere else in recent times.
I agree with you Habee - that's why I put this post up.
But be careful: I see the right doing the exact same thing all the time.
Actually, Habee, I don't think that the rabid politicos on these forums are very representative of Americans in general.
I don't think you will find very many saying it is right or wrong based on who is in office - they are just pleased that another major enemy helping the terrorists is gone.
I agree this is not a political issue and I don’t think it should be treated as one.
Washington Post, 01/26/10 ----'After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official. The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 0012700394
There is no prevailing judicial or ethical consensus. So, each of us is left to our own resources to arrive at a conclusion.
Exactly Habee...that is why I said what I did.
I think drone killing is disgusting.
Remove yourself from the actual death, and it's like a video game!
I hate all violence and "war".
I just feel like you do......If Bush had done this, we would never hear the end of the kudos.
And you see--people give credit to the intelligence agencies, but not Obama!
I saw Dana Priest on Maher last night....she said that there is a small group of FBI, CIA who know this stuff, and are capable of getting it right.
Meanwhile, we have something like 12,000 secret agencies that are all classified!
9/11, DHS.....it started it all.
If it were your daughter pulling the trigger, would you rather it be a joystick on a game controller from miles away or facing each other at 50' over gun sights.
I think drones are great tools to save our soldiers lives.
As long as you are OK with it when your daughter is dodging those drones herself.
“On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question “Is it right?” And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right “ MLK Jr.
That is the bottom line...for presidents AND us!
Oh yeah...and they use Contractors, because we "hate" gvt so much, we don't want to add more gvt employees...but the contractors cost 3 times as much!!
We are being squeezed like oranges.
Presumably Al Quaida or whichever Red under the Bed that America is currently at war with - could declare Obama to be a terrorist and murder him. Certainly on any standard both Bush and Blair are war criminals.
Is it OK for the standards, and I use the term sadly, to apply in either direction? So no rule of law for anyone?
One thing that is clearer with each day that passes. America and it's fawning 'allies' such as the UK are consistently on the wrong side of any moral argument.
Time and again the laws and democracy are thrown to one side under the guise of "fighting the enemy" - a bit of hackneyed and meaningless propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of.
Todays news which marks another new low in the total lack of humanity, decency and regard for other people which I am sorry to say is what the American flag means to a great deal of the rest of the world... todays news is that Congress are going to punish the Palestinians for having the temerity to ask the UN if they could have a state.
The Palestinian request is a legal one.
The Congress reaction is immoral.
America, and it's fawning allies, will carry on pretending in this battle against the rest of the world - because they have nowhere else to go.
But for each new low - and the extra judicial killing and the Palestinian collective punishment are two today - more people will stop buying into the fading Hollywood dream.
He was in a foreign country plotting against this country. He has claimed that he is a terrorist. I am surprised that Obama actually had the stones to do it. Hum that’s right election time is coming. He has to look like he can be tough make himself look like a leader and decision maker. I am really surprised that he didn’t want to talk to him and tell him how sorry he is for the way this country has treated him.
In war, traitors are executed. There was plenty of evidence.
Well I'm more accustomed to that old fashioned way of doing things - you know - with a trial and lawyers and stuff.
Still I suppose if America is no longer interested in the rule of law we should all just go along with it.
Funny old thing - democracy, freedom, international laws. Only seems to apply in one direction.
Not everyone in America has forgotten about the rule of law. I feel embarrassed for our country, that so many people seem to have lost their rational minds.
Gee embarrassed why? Do you think any middle eastern country was embarrassed that there citizens crashed 4 planes in the United States. killing innocent people, who where just going to work? NO they celebrated the fact and still do especially the Palestinians. So whats to be embarrassed about ? To much political correctness again. Its getting to be Election time Obama is looking for votes.
The immaturity of your reasoning is what is embarrassing. Are we such cowardly people that we are willing to discard our principles because we're afraid of the big, bad terrorists? If, as so many "patriots" are quick to say, we are the "greatest nation in the world," we should be able to protect ourselves from criminals without sacrificing the rule of law.
We have a whole different idea on which middle eastern country celebrated 9/11.....
You are the one being politically correct, my friend. From my POV.
How many trials have you seen, heard of or participated in where the accused is an active member of a foreign military and has declared so?
Or does the military simply shoot him when they see him?
Point me to the declaration of war and I'll bother listening to you.
Sorry, wilderness, but 911 wasn't a declaration of war.
I know "emotions" are hard to deal with, but that's why we need to shackle government with a constitution that demands a declaration of war.
There is none.
The last declaration of war was WWII. We have not been in a single war since.
Being completely reactionary and judicious has already cost many lives, from many nations, to be lost from radical Muslim terrorism. I think its far more prudent, when the President of the United States is brought irrefutable evidence that a citizen is aiding the cause of those that would hurt America, to strike first, before being struck. Yes, bring enemy combatants to justice where possible, of course, but death is a fair punishment for treason - according to American law.
By the way, anyone that is saying the President of the United States ordered the recent assassinations of extremist leaders, who would gladly harm the rest of civilization, to gain electoral votes in the upcoming election, has little faith in the character of Americans that have attain America's highest office. Or Americans in general, I guess.
Bombing other countries, causing terror in the people. Countries that are not war zones. Assassinating its own citizens with NO due process? Assassinating other human beings in non war zone countries. Terrifying half the world that the giants missiles are coming.
TERRORISM and those that have committed these acts. Terrorists.
We know now in the current climate what happens to TERRORISTS, right?
Think all you citizens must be missing something, the American government, in it's many guises, have been 'terminating' inconvenient citizens for years, this one was just a mite more public and loud, for the purposes of both warning all of you and all of them that nobody is safe, and nobody can disobey the US Empire.
Wake up and start your second 'revolution of independence' or the fascist gangsters that are manipulating you will have you all cowed into submission.
In an ideal world I would have few problems with this sort of action.
We don't live in an ideal world though, all we know is what the media and government want us to know.
Before sanctioning this sort of action we would need to have a completely fair and honest media and a completely fair and honest government backed up by a completely honest and fair population.
For pities sake, how many Americans actually believe that Hitler was a socialist! And yet you expect these people to be open and fair about press reports that this man was a terrorist!
Just a matter of time now, the Government labels you a terrorist and pop goes your life. Slippery slope for sure!
We can hope. You label yourself a terrorist, help other known terrorists carry out their murderous aggression and yes, pop goes your life.
Or we could wait, I suppose, until a self declared terrorist comes into the country and murders your family whereupon we could put him on trial for murder.
So you would just disregard any Constitutional rights to due process which is a promise to every American Citizen.
This man was not killed due to resisting arrest, he was targeted for assassination. There was no attempt to apprehend him.
I think our Federal Government assassinates these people because they do not want them to be able to testify as to the facts pertaining to their alleged crimes. Especially if their testimony might implicate persons connected to the Federal Government.
There is no burden of proof responsibility when the Federal Government takes on the role of Accuser, Judge, Juror and, Executioner. American Citizens have a RIGHT to present a defense against claims made against them. Since this man was never convicted in a court of law then the Federal Government assassinated an innocent man.
Innocent until proven guilty.
If you plead guilty, there is no evidence given, no jury decision and no trial. He "pleaded" guilty by making the statement he was a traitor to America.
In these circumstances he also "pleaded guilty" by defecting to the enemy and aiding them, although that is of little consequence given his oral statement.
Did anyone prove he declared himself a terrorist? Was that proof reviewed by a group of people trying to maintain the man's innocence?
Ok then. You'll have to stop saying that.
On a much smaller (and certainly not criminal) scale; as someone whose life has been seriously damaged, affected, by bad information being presented into the court system; I have to say, the idea of no trial DOES seriously concern me. Of course, having seen what a kangaroo court some trials/hearings can be (not to mention other factors that make justice a lip-service-only thing in the court systems), I'm pretty terrified by how that whole thing works as well.
How this individual (the guy - no point mentioning his name, as far as I'm concerned) was dealt with at least makes the news and makes a lot of people aware of how things can be done. The "Constitution-on-Paper-Only Thing" is something that's far more common and wide-spread for a lot of "average" citizens, and something too many people even see exists because most of the people who have had their lives and freedom robbed/damaged don't make the news. THAT's what people ought to be very worried about. As far as this one individual in question goes - no comment. I haven't bothered to read much about him beyond the main stuff that's shown up.
Al Awlaki was not a US citizen, although he was born in the United States, his parents had no intention of living here, and were only here to go to school. They did not own a permanent domicile and residence as is one of the determining factors in the supreme court decision made in "United States vs Wong Kim Ark."
It is also a fact that Al Awlaki came to the United States on a scholarship from Yemen (which does not recognize dual citizenship) and was here under a student visa thus he renounced his US citizenship.
Point being, we did not kill a US citizen. We killed a dangerous maniac with a large following who was bent on killing Americans.
That decision I support fully.
Collateral damage is fine with you also, terrorizing innocent Yemeni citizens is also justified.
Yemen is not a war zone and the precedent being put in place will ultimately be detrimental to all people on the globe.
The U.S. says your a bad man so off with his head?
What do you think the Yemeni people consider the United States. I am sure they consider us a terrorist organization so by U.S. standards assassination of labeled terrorists would be justified.
"Al Awlaki was not a US citizen, although he was born in the United States,"
... ERROR ERROR!! THE CONSTITUTION STILL EXISTS!! ERROR ERROR!!!
The error would be not reading the entire paragraph. Even if in an open court you were to win a legal battle as to the man's alleged citizenship claim, he would then be in violation of that other clause in the constitution that condemns treasonous scum to death.
Wow, Onusonus this is the first time that i have agreed with you. This man has killed and planned on killing anyone he could. even if he was a US citizen, He is a murder. He should have gotten killed. send him to the father for judgment
well he lost his rights when he plotted against the govt and the citizens.
he is guilty of treason and here's the legal definition.
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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"
I think there were more than enough witnesses.
You can only be Guilty of treason if that is the verdict of your TRIAL. Not really fair to just claim someone a criminal and imprison them without giving them a chance for a defense.
example: Your a shoplifter, now please show up to a correctional facility to serve your 3 month sentence. There justice done.
Hitler never really killed anyone. Should he have been targeted? Those who knowingly and purposely incite others to commit violence towards another group of people, MAKE themselves enemies of those people.
I don't believe that Bin Laden personally killed anyone either. I can't believe all this sympathy for terrorists this posting created. During WW2, if a citizen of the US joins the German Army, is he a US citizen that should be brought to trial or shot at like the rest of the men in German uniforms? Keep in mind they have no problem shooting us.
Hitler was a military target! We were in a WAR with Germany and Hitler would have been command and control so a justified Military target.
We are in a war with terrorists! Or did you forget that? The nationality of a terrorists who encourages others to kill Americans doesn't mean they are not our enemy. The fact that people offer this guy the protection of the constitution, (which he obviously detests himself), is really screwed up. He is a terrorists, therefore we are at war with him, therefore he is a military target.
Terrorist is a label placed on a human being. There is not a nationality or a race that are "terrorists".
No evidence brought before a Court of Law? Anyone can make the claim that any human being is a "terrorist".
AAAAGH look it's a witch, let's burn them.
At least the witches had trials, although misled and irresponsible. They did have some form of Justice?
Now if we were at war with Yemen it would make sense but this is about targeting and assassinating a human being while never haven given them the chance to put forward a defense.
While never having need to show a burden of proof. By completely circumnavigating any real form of Justice. While dropping missiles on a sovereign nation populated by innocent civilians. By causing terror in these people without any need to stand before anybody to explain their actions. This is not a justified killing it was simply murder!
Silly me I thought speech was protected. The constitution - that's so yesterday.
When you incite violence towards someone, you have overstepped your limits. However, how would you like it if someone were inciting others to commit violence towards you or your family? If your American, that is what he was doing. People like you gas me. Everyone else in the world is ok with defending themselves, yet it's prohibited for Americans. I believe in the constitution, and the Bill of Rights, but to allow others to target you and do nothing to protect yourself is foolish! And remember, Obama took an oath to protect the constitution against enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC! To ignore this person and his actions, would violate that oath.
I hadn't thought of Obamas oath - it certainly would seem that he had to personally track down this foreigndomestic traitor and throttle him with his own hands. No doubt about it.
Give it up Danny. There will always be lawyers, politicians, "haters of anything American" and even a handful of honest people that will twist and spin our laws, history and whatever else they can find to demand that America never defend itself against others.
But ignoring the Texan?Mexican border where U.S. citizens are ACTUALLY being harmed is ignored. Two generals have written the President this week informing him that this border zone qualifies as a WAR ZONE.
What was the Presidents answer?
" I'm going to uhm get in a quick uhm round of golf."
Funny I hear a constant refrain on the media of
attack Iran. Must be protected no one complains.
I suppose it would save a lot of money if we just lined up all the Guantanamo detainees on their knees and shoot them. They have been accused of being "terrorists". We already have a precedent. Foolish....
NO! They would rather march them in to Manhattan and provide a trial for them?
The darn Hypocrisy?
This just in: Assassination is actually illegal under international law!
Not that I'm a huge fan of international law, but it further emphasized the fact that we should be giving enemies a trial instead of blowing them up without verifying if they are guilty or not.
"Black's Law Dictionary defines assassination as "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons." If termed "assassination," then attacks on leaders have been construed as prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Convention of 1899, which outlaws "treacherous" attacks on adversaries, and by the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), which prohibits attacks that rely on "perfidy.""
Mike Doyle is a Democratic Congressman who represents parts of the City of Pittsburgh and much of the eastern end of Allegheny County.
Doyle was quoted as stating that the Tea Party members in Congress, who had refused to yield on most points, were acting like terrorists. The Vice President was alleged to have expressed agreement.
I agre with that. They are inciting insurrection against the president.
They have 0 respect for him, treat him like dirt, an act like they don't have to pay him any mind!
THEN claim they are some high-fallootin Patriots!
TP'er do NOT serve the United States of America. (at least the Koch/Fox/House of Reps variety)
When you accuse Alawaki of treason....we can look closer to home!
IMO IMO IMO
Thank you for pointing out how such a precedent as the murder of "terrorists' can be manipulated to target political opposition.
There is a great part of population that will stand by and allow atrocities to happen on their behalf. This is the dangers of allowing a central government to act in a dictatorial manner. Answering to no one and allowing no questioning of their decisions or their authority.
We need to participate not pontificate
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/02 … r-country/
any American who sides with the enemy during a time of war has revoked their own citizenship . We are at war and this is how we deal with the enemy DEATH FROM ABOVE that clown never knew what hit him
by Reality Bytes3 years ago
A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming...
by Brenda Durham3 years ago
His trial is finally starting; they're picking the jury. This one is of huge interest to me.I can't imagine any feasible defense he can put forth, yet he's trying, and the stupid legal system is gonna give...
by TMMason5 years ago
Could this be true? If it is he, is out and should be arrested... and given a long sentence. Not to mention every law with his signiture on it is null and void."Registration transcript states ~ Name: Barry Soetoro...
by Credence26 months ago
The Constitution requires that an eligible candidate for president must be a naturalized citizen. That means born in the U.S. or subject jurisdiction, or not born on AMERICAN soil but either parent is an American...
by Prophecy Teacher8 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/ … rs_co.html
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
Even though he stated he would veto the bill if it included the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama signed the NDAA bill in to law. Now an injunction is administered by a judge questioning the...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.