Ron Paul Condemns Al-Awlaki's Killing

[SnakeBoy]

"I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul told reporters. "Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/30/140950953/ron-paul-condemns-al-awlakis-killing

[in2deep]

I like that this guy sticks to his beliefs. eventhough he sounds crazy most of the time. Still I give him credit.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm surprised he didn't just say "Let him die!".

[clambake]

obama on the hunt.

[Spurminator]

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
BY GLENN GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/30/awlaki/index.html

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki -- including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry's execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists -- criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

From an authoritarian perspective, that's the genius of America's political culture. It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.

* * * * *

In the column I wrote on Wednesday regarding Wall Street protests, I mistakenly linked to a post discussing a New York Times article by Colin Moynihan as an example of a "condescending" media report about the protest. There was nothing condescending or otherwise worthy of criticism in Moynihan's article; I meant to reference this NYT article by Ginia Bellafante. My apologies to Moynihan, who rightly objected by email, for the mistake.

UPDATE: What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here's Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President -- even Barack Obama -- vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.

Also, during the Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration's radical excesses would often ask things like this: would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight? So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this: how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?

[boutons_deux]

OBL is screwing those virgins and laughing his ass off at how his couple $100K suckered America into unending, bankrupting, unwinnable foreign wars and America into violating civil liberties of US citizens, basically suckering America into self-inflicted insanity, and into exposing how trivial, immoral, visionless American leaders are.

[Thompson]

At a minimum, the guy advocated killing American civilians and inspired other terrorists. From what I've read elsewhere, he was also advocating the use of WMD if they could obtain them.

Paul is being myopic. At the point where the guy is openly advocating and encouraging others to murder American civilians (and if nothing else is providing valuable propaganda to the enemy), he's a national security risk and should be taken out.

[JoeChalupa]

He had declared war against the US. Well he wanted it...he got it.

[clambake]

fox news reporting how harmful it can be to kill terrorist. lol

[Thompson]

fox news reporting how harmful it can be to kill terrorist. lol

Sheppard Smith just said something to the effect of 'it was the right thing to do.' They're reporting what Paul said, but they're not taking that position.

If this happened on Bush's watch, you can bet CNN and MSNBC would be screeching about it.

[LnGrrrR]

Good for Ron Paul. Obama has been frighteningly horrible on civil liberties, and this is just another example.

[LnGrrrR]

At a minimum, the guy advocated killing American civilians and inspired other terrorists. From what I've read elsewhere, he was also advocating the use of WMD if they could obtain them.

Paul is being myopic. At the point where the guy is openly advocating and encouraging others to murder American civilians (and if nothing else is providing valuable propaganda to the enemy), he's a national security risk and should be taken out.

If they could take him out, why couldn't they arrest him and put him on trial?

If I say that I'm going to bomb an airport, should I just be summarily shot then as well?

Wouldn't it have looked better if we put him on trial, found him guilty of treason, then took his life?

Or is someone advocating an extremely antagonistic view now enough to assasinate him/her?

[clambake]

Sheppard Smith just said something to the effect of 'it was the right thing to do.' They're reporting what Paul said, but they're not taking that position.

If this happened on Bush's watch, you can bet CNN and MSNBC would be screeching about it.

they were interviewing someone else that said it was harmful. fox is about to show the ron paul interview right now.

[clambake]

If they could take him out, why couldn't they arrest him and put him on trial?

If I say that I'm going to bomb an airport, should I just be summarily shot then as well?

Wouldn't it have looked better if we put him on trial, found him guilty of treason, then took his life?

Or is someone advocating an extremely antagonistic view now enough to assasinate him/her?

how many casualties would be acceptable in capturing this guy in yemen?

[LnGrrrR]

how many casualties would be acceptable in capturing this guy in yemen?

If it was too difficult to capture him, then don't capture him. But that doesn't mean we get to kill him either. He's an American citizen, and has rights.

Of course we're better off without him; we're better off without a lot of people. But I don't think bending the rules of law to take someone out that we don't like is an acceptable outcome.

Heck, we took the time to capture Saddam, and he's not even a citizen.

[LnGrrrR]

I read some of the documentation and reasoning on why they took him out, and it seems reasonable/justifiable that, if he was an operational player, he would forfeit his citizen/protected status. However, without any specific law stating that, I still don't agree with this course of action on a legal/moral level.

[clambake]

If it was too difficult to capture him, then don't capture him. But that doesn't mean we get to kill him either. He's an American citizen, and has rights.

Of course we're better off without him; we're better off without a lot of people. But I don't think bending the rules of law to take someone out that we don't like is an acceptable outcome.

Heck, we took the time to capture Saddam, and he's not even a citizen.

yemen is barely hanging on as it is.

take the shot.

and regarding saddam.....junior really wanted that trophy.

[vy65]

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
BY GLENN GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/30/awlaki/index.html

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki -- including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry's execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists -- criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

From an authoritarian perspective, that's the genius of America's political culture. It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.

* * * * *

In the column I wrote on Wednesday regarding Wall Street protests, I mistakenly linked to a post discussing a New York Times article by Colin Moynihan as an example of a "condescending" media report about the protest. There was nothing condescending or otherwise worthy of criticism in Moynihan's article; I meant to reference this NYT article by Ginia Bellafante. My apologies to Moynihan, who rightly objected by email, for the mistake.

UPDATE: What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here's Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President -- even Barack Obama -- vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.

Also, during the Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration's radical excesses would often ask things like this: would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight? So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this: how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?

lol travesty of justice.
lol hack
lol defending occupy wall street protests
lol http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/19/human-rights-usa

[Spurminator]

lol http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/19/human-rights-usa

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? She's not defending the assassination order, she's asking her organization to have some perspective in their defense of Al-Awlaki. I think she's right on.

I would agree Greenwald's piece is somewhat melodramatic. But I think he is right to question the tactic and to question the selective partisan outrage associated with foreign policy like this.

[hater]

LMAO what the fuck does it matter if he had a US citizenship. dude was al quaeda

"did not have evidence" dude was drinking tea wearing a turban with alquaedas in Yemen or wherever :lol

[vy65]

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? She's not defending the assassination order, she's asking her organization to have some perspective in their defense of Al-Awlaki. I think she's right on.

She's actually pretty explicit in saying that the CCR should not be defending Anwar Al-Awlaki:


I am a member of the board of trustees of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in the US and an international law professor of Muslim heritage. I spoke out in the Guardian of 15 November 2010 against CCR's decision to represent pro bono the interests of Anwar al-Awlaki – a jihadist linked to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula – in litigation against the Obama administration over its stated intention to assassinate al-Awlaki.

You're right to say that she opposes "extrajudicial killings" in violation of international law.


As a human rights lawyer, I oppose extrajudicial killings in violation of international law, so I oppose a policy of targeted assassinations by the US government, whether applied to Awlaki or others. However, Awlaki has himself openly called for assassinations, and is at large and continuing to do so (pdf; see pages 24-28, in particular).

How can we defend the principle that assassinations are wrong by standing silently next to an advocate of assassinations? I urged CCR to find other ways to challenge the Obama administration's policy without associating with Awlaki.

That just begs the question of whether or not the assasination of Awlaki was in contravention of international law. Given the rest of her article details how much of a fuck this guy was, I'd say there are no legal problems.


I would agree Greenwald's piece is somewhat melodramatic. But I think he is right to question the tactic and to question the selective partisan outrage associated with foreign policy like this.

His understanding of the law is ignorant, he bastardizes legal arguments to appeal to his partisan position, and preys on the minds of the uninformed. Did you bother to ask yourself why the First Amendment would apply to the speech at issue here? Or why the Fifth Amendment would apply outside the borders of the U.S.?

[ElNono]

tbqh, I find the whole "he advocated murder" defense for justifying this action pretty lame.

Sure, the guy was a murderer asshole and what not, but we are supposed to be better than them. And what makes us better is the moral high ground of having a system of justice that gives rights to a fair trial to everyone, no exceptions. When you lower yourself to "their" standards, you become them and everything you despise about them.

Even Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy received a fair trial.

[ElNono]

Or why the Fifth Amendment would apply outside the borders of the U.S.?

SCOTUS hasn't really ruled on it, albeit has hinted towards extraterritoriality of that amendment. Actual reading material, starting on page 1940:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n4/1929/LR103n4Lichter.pdf

Definitely still a gray area, IMO.

[Spurminator]

She's actually pretty explicit in saying that the CCR should not be defending Anwar Al-Awlaki.

You're right to say that she opposes "extrajudicial killings" in violation of international law.

Right. She believes Awlaki deserves due process but she doesn't want her organization defending him as though he was an ordinary US citizen. Those positions aren't diametrically opposed. Maybe YOU didn't read this part of the article:

However, today, the CCR is acting as lawyers for Nasser al-Awlaki, Anwar's father, as representative of his son's interest. Given Nasser al-Awlaki's romantic view of his son expressed in press accounts, this is tantamount to representing, without comment, the father of the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan who claims his son is a good man.

Would a progressive human rights group do that, even if the son faced abuses at the hands of the US government? And if they did, would they be silent about the grave harms done by the KKK?


Is she saying that klansman doesn't deserve due process? No.


Did you bother to ask yourself why the First Amendment would apply to the speech at issue here?

That's what our courts are designed to decide.


Or why the Fifth Amendment would apply outside the borders of the U.S.?

Why wouldn't it?

[SnakeBoy]

Sure, the guy was a murderer asshole and what not,

Allegedly

[Viva Las Espuelas]

and regarding Al-Awlaki.....Obama really wanted that trophy.

All to easy.....

Oh, and we didn't kill saddam. Nor did we try him, but yeah "junior really wanted that trophy" :jack

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Question:
For all the people completely ok with this, does this mean torturing is ok? Being that they have " declared war" on us.

[vy65]

SCOTUS hasn't really ruled on it, albeit has hinted towards extraterritoriality of that amendment. Actual reading material, starting on page 1940:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n4/1929/LR103n4Lichter.pdf

Definitely still a gray area, IMO.

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about detention of U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. We're talking about entertaining constitutional rights in a war zone. The court's have rejected due process arguments in this context:


Kar asserts that the "due process violation in this case derives from the totality of circumstances defining [his] indefinite, arbitrary and prolonged detention," focusing on three specific circumstances:

(1) his detention without charge, and therefore, without notice of any charge; (2) his lack of opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner at the Detainee Status Board hearing; and (3) his continued detention despite being found innocent. See Dkt. 18, at 27-29.

(1) Kar was both charged and given notice of the charge. The officer who interrogated him only hours after his arrest "explained about the washing machine timers," which was the factual basis for his arrest. Compl. ¶ 28. Kar then received formal notice of the cause of his detention on July 1, in the form of a letter from the Detainee Status Board stating that the military suspected that he possessed explosive materials. Id. ¶ 48. Thus, he did receive "notice of the factual basis for" his detention. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 533, 124 S.Ct. 2633.

(2) At his Detainee Status Board hearing, Kar was not permitted to summon certain government personnel as witnesses, was refused access to his interrogators' reports, and was denied access to counsel. He asserts that, taken together, these facts offended the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Hamdi that a detainee is entitled to "a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker," and "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel." Id. at 533, 539, 124 S.Ct. 2633.

The Hamdi decision applied the Mathews balancing test, weighing the individual's interest against the government's interest. See id. at 529, 124 S.Ct. 2633. If those interests are weighed here, they strike a different balance.

Kar was being held on the battlefield, where, as the Hamdi Court noted, the government has a strong interest in ensuring that the "military officers who are engaged in the serious work of waging battle ... [are not] unnecessarily and dangerously distracted by litigation," and a strong interest in protecting reports that might divulge military tactics. Id. at 531-32, 124 S.Ct. 2633. The government's inability or unwillingness to summon certain military personnel as witnesses and its refusal to turn over reports that might divulge interrogation techniques were acceptable given the interests at stake.

The Court's observation that Hamdi "unquestionably [had] the right to access to counsel" was made in the context of a habeas proceeding in Virginia. Id. at 539, 124 S.Ct. 2633. The differences between such a proceeding and a Detainee Status Board in Baghdad are obvious. No court has found a right to counsel in such a proceeding, in such a place, at such a time, and it certainly cannot be said that Kar had a "clearly established" right to counsel.

(3) I cannot find a constitutional violation in Kar's detention for six days following the Status Board's pronouncement of his innocence. The government could not simply open the door and let Kar walk free into the middle of Baghdad. Under the circumstances, the two days that it took to formalize the Status Board's decision, and the four days that it took to arrange for Kar's release, were not unreasonable given the government's interest in ensuring Kar's proper and safe release.

Here's a little summary of the case: Cryus Kar, a U.S. citizen, was seized and detained by the U.S. military in Baghdad for nearly two months in 2005. He sues for violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The defendants—the Secretary of Defense, two generals, and John Does—move to dismiss. The motion will be granted.

[vy65]

Right. She believes Awlaki deserves due process but she doesn't want her organization defending him as though he was an ordinary US citizen. Those positions aren't diametrically opposed. Maybe YOU didn't read this part of the article

Where does she say that? She says she opposes assasinations - not that Awlaki is entitled to due process. You understand there's a difference there, right?




That's what our courts are designed to decide.

Why wouldn't it?

Our courts are designed to protect militant ideologues making death threats on americans, recruiting soldiers in a jihad against civilians, while hiding in the mountains in Yemen?

So you have no basis for claiming the first amendment would protect this type of speech and you're just asking me a question to hide your ignorance?

[ChumpDumper]

Question:
For all the people completely ok with this, does this mean torturing is ok? Being that they have " declared war" on us.Do you think torture is ok?

[clambake]

All to easy.....

Oh, and we didn't kill saddam. Nor did we try him, but yeah "junior really wanted that trophy" :jack

:lmao viva taking up for b girl and now terrorist.

[ploto]

Don't we kill the enemy in war all the time. Isn't that what all the big supporters of war believe. If we are at war with Al-qaeda, then we kill them- do we not?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lmao viva taking up for b girl and now terrorist.

I believe in that 3 year old thread I owned up to my mistake....

Nice deflection :golfclap

[clambake]

I believe in that 3 year old thread I owned up to my mistake....

Nice deflection :golfclap

:lol from defending a chick that tries to start a race riot, to defending al-queada.

whats your next loser move?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They should have tried him in absentia or the like.

[ElNono]

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about detention of U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. We're talking about entertaining constitutional rights in a war zone. The court's have rejected due process arguments in this context:

Here's a little summary of the case: Cryus Kar, a U.S. citizen, was seized and detained by the U.S. military in Baghdad for nearly two months in 2005. He sues for violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The defendants—the Secretary of Defense, two generals, and John Does—move to dismiss. The motion will be granted.

I don't agree at all that this case and that case are similar. At all.
That guy was arrested and seemingly charged, he was indeed in a war zone (Congress authorized military operations in Iraq), and he was let go once cleared of the charges.

Now, that doesn't automatically mean I think due process applies extra-territorially. I think events like this one will eventually cause the SCOTUS to be clear on it.

[vy65]

The court held that fifth amendment due process protections don't apply in a warzone where a US citizen was engaged in hostilities. You don't think that supports not extending due process protections to a US citizen inciting an enemy whom we've declared war on and who is in a region overflowing with Al-Qaeda?

Are there any cases that support your position? I mean, if you don't think they're analogous, you must have a more analogous case in mind, right?

[ElNono]

The court held that fifth amendment due process protections don't apply in a warzone where a US citizen was engaged in hostilities. You don't think that supports not extending due process protections to a US citizen inciting an enemy whom we've declared war on and who is in a region overflowing with Al-Qaeda?

Are there any cases that support your position? I mean, if you don't think they're analogous, you must have a more analogous case in mind, right?

I don't know that we've assassinated a US Citizen in a non-war zone before, without any kind of due process. Do you have any analogous case? Because the one you posted isn't it.

Not that I think anybody in the executive or the administration is going to get dragged to court over this, but it does raise the question where does the buck stop.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lol from defending a chick that tries to start a race riot, to defending al-queada.

whats your next loser move?

I guess "owned up to my mistake" is too hard for you. Pity. And where did I say I supported al-queada? I'd hate for you to talk out of your ass twice in one sentence.

[vy65]

I don't know that we've assassinated a US Citizen in a non-war zone before, without any kind of due process. Do you have any analogous case? Because the one you posted isn't it.

Not that I think anybody in the executive or the administration is going to get dragged to court over this, but it does raise the question where does the buck stop.

Lol so you don't know of any other case then huh? You could just admit it you know.

You're also moving goalposts. We were talking about the extra territorial application of the fifth amendment, not assassinating us citizens, remember? Do you think the Kar case doesn't support withholding due process protections from US citizens caught in battlezones while fighting along with AQ?

[ElNono]

Lol so you don't know of any other case then huh? You could just admit it you know.

I never claimed there was another analogous case. As a matter of fact, the uproar, if any, about this case is that it's setting new ground. Do you know of any analogous case? I don't think there is.
I merely pointed to divergent case law that attempted to tackle the extra-territoriality of the 5th Amendment.


You're also moving goalposts. We were talking about the extra territorial application of the fifth amendment, not assassinating us citizens, remember? Do you think the Kar case doesn't support withholding due process protections from US citizens caught in battlezones while fighting along with AQ?

Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (emphasis mine)

What is an assassination if not a deprivation of life? And what battlezone? He was residing in a country we're not at war with, as a civilian.

There's plenty of questions arisen by this case, IMO.
Can the administration simply assassinate any US Citizen they don't like residing in a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US? What about countries that deny an extradition? Does the 5th apply to US Citizens abroad?

I can't answer those questions. I think at some point they will need to be answered, and I think the venue to seek those answers will be the SCOTUS.

[clambake]

I guess "owned up to my mistake" is too hard for you. Pity. And where did I say I supported al-queada? I'd hate for you to talk out of your ass twice in one sentence.

my point is that you're a running comedy of errors.

[vy65]

I never claimed there was another analogous case. As a matter of fact, the uproar, if any, about this case is that it's setting new ground. Do you know of any analogous case? I don't think there is.
I merely pointed to divergent case law that attempted to tackle the extra-territoriality of the 5th Amendment.

I agree that there is no US court case dealing with a situation where a US citizen is summarily killed outside the US by US military forces.

What I don't agree with is your assertion that there is "divergent case law" regarding the extra-territorial application of the fifth amendment. The Kar case pretty explicitly says that a US citizen fighting along with an enemy in a foreign war zone has no fourth or fifth amendment rights. The ilaw journal you linked deals with an entirely different context - detainees claiming due process protection against their incarceration by US military forces abroad.


Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (emphasis mine)

What is an assassination if not a deprivation of life? And what battlezone? He was residing in a country we're not at war with, as a civilian.

The whole issue is whether the fifth amendment applies outside the US at all - so I don't see what good quoting the amendment does for you.

The battlezone would be wherever Al-Qaeda resides and operates. We were never at war with Afghanistan - but the AUMF essentially desclared war on Al-Qaeda and legitimized the deployment of military forces. I don't see how this situation is any different, i.e., while we're not at war with the government of Yemen, we are at war with Al-Qaeda operatives, like Awlaki, working there.



There's plenty of questions arisen by this case, IMO.
Can the administration simply assassinate any US Citizen they don't like residing in a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US? What about countries that deny an extradition? Does the 5th apply to US Citizens abroad?

I can't answer those questions. I think at some point they will need to be answered, and I think the venue to seek those answers will be the SCOTUS.

Do you honestly think this case allows Obama to murder any US citizen he doesn't like?

[SnakeBoy]

Do you think torture is ok?

Are you ok with the Al-Awlaki killing?

[djohn2oo8]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[ElNono]

I agree that there is no US court case dealing with a situation where a US citizen is summarily killed outside the US by US military forces.

What I don't agree with is your assertion that there is "divergent case law" regarding the extra-territorial application of the fifth amendment. The Kar case pretty explicitly says that a US citizen fighting along with an enemy in a foreign war zone has no fourth or fifth amendment rights. The ilaw journal you linked deals with an entirely different context - detainees claiming due process protection against their incarceration by US military forces abroad.

The whole issue is whether the fifth amendment applies outside the US at all - so I don't see what good quoting the amendment does for you.

The battlezone would be wherever Al-Qaeda resides and operates. We were never at war with Afghanistan - but the AUMF essentially desclared war on Al-Qaeda and legitimized the deployment of military forces. I don't see how this situation is any different, i.e., while we're not at war with the government of Yemen, we are at war with Al-Qaeda operatives, like Awlaki, working there.

I just don't agree this person was on a war zone. Or your definition of a war zone. That means anywhere where there's a person of interest by the US military is automatically a war zone. That's just simply preposterous, not to mention very likely a flagrant violation of sovereignty.

Under that premise, China can send an drone and blow up Guantanamo under the guise they're at war with the Uygur.


Do you honestly think this case allows Obama to murder any US citizen he doesn't like?

I think it's a slippery slope that can be abused. It doesn't have to be Obama, it can be anybody that comes later on. What prevents, say, assassinating any US Wikileaks members overseas now? Where is the checks and balances on this authority?

Note that this is an entirely academic discussion. I don't think anybody is going to miss this fuck, nor that any family he might have had are going to sue for violation of his 5th amendment right (although it wouldn't surprise me if it happened, lol).

[mingus]

Don't we kill the enemy in war all the time. Isn't that what all the big supporters of war believe. If we are at war with Al-qaeda, then we kill them- do we not?

no according to some of the crazies out there. we're supposed to put our lives and our citizens' lives in danger to protect terrorists.

[Capt Bringdown]

"Any place AQ resides and operates is a battle zone." Therefore, the entire globe, including the US, is a battle zone.
They don't call it the Global War on Terror for nothing.

Obama's death squads just terminated the 5th admendment. What are we fighting for again?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

my point is that you're a running comedy of errors.

If you accuse and stick to false assumptions, which you are doing, then yes. It is a comedy of errors. Whenever you're ready to stop with false accusations then maybe we can continue this. Is that too hard for you, clammy?

[ElNono]

no according to some of the crazies out there. we're supposed to put our lives and our citizens' lives in danger to protect terrorists.

We did it for Saddam and the oil. Who were the crazies then?

[Galileo]

Ron Paul rocks. The man had no criminal record.

[Wild Cobra]

Ron Paul rocks. The man had no criminal record.

That may be true, but this is another one of the few times I disagree with Paul. I see Al-Awlaki as changing alliances, to a faction we are at war with. It is now no longer a criminal act, but he is warring against us.

People are targeted in war. just that simple.

[ChumpDumper]

Are you ok with the Al-Awlaki killing?Tough call. If it's war, it's war. I thought all the law enforcement theories about terra have been thrown out. I'll let the supremes figure that one out.

War or no, I'm against torture.

Are you for torture?

[mingus]

We did it for Saddam and the oil. Who were the crazies then?

We did what? Had a trial for him? We invaded Iraq long before his capture. We had boots on the ground. A trial was easy. We aren't in Yemen though, just like we weren't in Pakistan when we killed Bin Laden. Drones make sense in these situations.

[vy65]

I just don't agree this person was on a war zone. Or your definition of a war zone. That means anywhere where there's a person of interest by the US military is automatically a war zone. That's just simply preposterous, not to mention very likely a flagrant violation of sovereignty.

Under that premise, China can send an drone and blow up Guantanamo under the guise they're at war with the Uygur.



I think it's a slippery slope that can be abused. It doesn't have to be Obama, it can be anybody that comes later on. What prevents, say, assassinating any US Wikileaks members overseas now? Where is the checks and balances on this authority?

Note that this is an entirely academic discussion. I don't think anybody is going to miss this fuck, nor that any family he might have had are going to sue for violation of his 5th amendment right (although it wouldn't surprise me if it happened, lol).

Welcome to the war on terror. These concerns have been there since the beginning. I honestly don't see that big of an issue in saying a war zone would be wherever AQ operates. What's the big deal?

You also need to put the tin foil hat down. Wikileaks never flew a plane and into a building or killed a us citizen or propagandized the destruction of all things western.

[ElNono]

We did what? Had a trial for him? We invaded Iraq long before his capture. We had boots on the ground. A trial was easy. We aren't in Yemen though, just like we weren't in Pakistan when we killed Bin Laden. Drones make sense in these situations.

If the concern was Saddam and the liberation of Iraq, we could've used a drone then too. We had full control of their airspace.
And Saddam wasn't even a US citizen...

[ElNono]

Welcome to the war on terror. These concerns have been there since the beginning. I honestly don't see that big of an issue in saying a war zone would be wherever AQ operates. What's the big deal?

But it isn't a war zone. Saying it and being are two different things. I understand the kind of leverage the US has having the bigger guns. But at some point some country isn't going to take it kindly that we fly some robot and start firing missiles down.


You also need to put the tin foil hat down. Wikileaks never flew a plane and into a building or killed a us citizen or propagandized the destruction of all things western.

We invaded a country on shitty intel. We didn't know WTF to do once we were there. Don't tell me how infallible we are, or the kind of drones (not the robot kind) that can happen to be in command.

You didn't answer the question either. Where's the check and balances on all this?

[vy65]

The idea of a war zone in the way you think of is antiquated and not really useful. With the war on terror, legal concepts have to evolve and adapt to the exigencies of the real world. So, from that perspective, it is a warzone. If you're interested, you should check out Phillip Bobbit. He's a legal scholar who writes a lot on this specific issue.

What does te Iraq war have to do with anything? A US Wikipedia member is not Al-Qaeda and equivocating the two is non-sense. There is no slippery slope.

[ElNono]

The idea of a war zone in the way you think of is antiquated and not really useful. With the war on terror, legal concepts have to evolve and adapt to the exigencies of the real world. So, from that perspective, it is a warzone. If you're interested, you should check out Phillip Bobbit. He's a legal scholar who writes a lot on this specific issue.

Terror attacks are way over 200 years old. AQ isn't breaking any new ground here. What needs to be understood is that the US is operating outside the country and there are international laws and conventions that apply. I don't like Pakis at all, but they're absolutely right yelling "Sovereignty!" whenever a drone fires a few rockets within their borders. If a Paki drone fires a few rockets in Arizona to kill whoever they deem terrorists, the US would have boots in Pakiland before you can say hello.

Thanks for the Bobbit recommendation. I'll check some of his work.


What does te Iraq war have to do with anything? A US Wikipedia member is not Al-Qaeda and equivocating the two is non-sense. There is no slippery slope.

It has to do with who or how these summary decisions are made, and based on what intel. It's clear this guy got what he had coming, but who's next? Based on what intel? Who checks on this power?

It's not like we didn't had Gitmo packed with people we had to eventually let go because they had nothing to do with anything. Frankly, from the whole "enemy combatant" onwards, the whole thing is a slippery slope and ripe for abuse.

[Capt Bringdown]

I honestly don't see that big of an issue in saying a war zone would be wherever AQ operates. What's the big deal?


The 9/11 plot was mostly hatched in Germany. Is Germany now a war zone?
The UK? Spain? Indonesia? India? The US?

How does one determine how/where AQ operates without an expansive surveillance/imperial presence throughout the world? A surveillance and security presence that, as we are seeing and will continue to see, can only tend to exacerbate the problem of terrorism and extremism.

[vy65]

You're absolutely right that terrorism in some form or fashion has existed for centuries. And you're also right that terrorism has transcended national boundaries prior to the advent of Al-Qaeda. But you're absolutely wrong in asserting that Al-Qaeda brings nothing new. Technology (ranging from the Internet to the ability to detonate a dirty bomb and everything in between) makes "this" terrorism radically different than its prior iterations. Because the world we live in now is way more global than what existed 20-30 years ago, notions like nation state sovereignty (which owes it's creation to 17th century political philosophy) is just not useful.

You're hypothetical has some validity in the abstract. But it's also admins in that Pakistan isn't going to fly drones in AZ. No chance in hell. It's disingenuous to suggest that US anti-terrorism policies undermine all notions nation state sovereignty.

By the way, you should definitely check out terror and consent by Bobbit. I had him in law school and he's an incredible author and academic on these exact issues.

As for the slippery slope, there are two points.

1. You seem to have retreated from your assertion that US Wikileaks members are now at risk. That's what I was originally arguing so I'll move on.

2. Your newer point has a lot of validity. If I had the answers to them, I'd be a way richer man. But what I will say is that our notions of due process, checks and balances, and the like will have to change. That's just part of the process of legal evolution - concepts change and adapt as society evolves.

As for the case of awlaki, why wouldn't his involvement as AQ's ideological moutpiece have essentially waived his due process rights as an American? I'm far less concerned about this particular incident as I would be with a much closer call.

[vy65]

The 9/11 plot was mostly hatched in Germany. Is Germany now a war zone?
The UK? Spain? Indonesia? India? The US?

How does one determine how/where AQ operates without an expansive surveillance/imperial presence throughout the world? A surveillance and security presence that, as we are seeing and will continue to see, can only tend to exacerbate the problem of terrorism and extremism.

Sure. I don't see the problem with that assertion as long as we agree that we're not fighting Germany, Indonesia, etc...

Why does increased surveillance exascerbate militant Islam?

[Capt Bringdown]

Why does increased surveillance exascerbate militant Islam?

Surveillance seems to require boots on the ground, drones in the air and alliances with despotic regimes -all of which can and will be exploited by militant islam. Our position becomes even more untenable as democracy spreads and develops in the Arab world.


But what I will say is that our notions of due process, checks and balances, and the like will have to change. That's just part of the process of legal evolution - concepts change and adapt as society evolves.

To paraphrase Thomas More, Fear mongers and authoritarians such as yourself are so frightened that you insist we need to cut a great road through the law to pursue the Devil. And once the last law was cut down or "evolved" as you put it, and the Devil turned round on you, where will you hide? 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!

Academic apologies for the dismantling of the rule of law and the subversion of our civil liberties aren't that interesting to me.
If you're looking for a critical examination of the issues discussed on this thread, I recommend Jane Mayer's seminal book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals

[SnakeBoy]

Tough call. If it's war, it's war. I thought all the law enforcement theories about terra have been thrown out. I'll let the supremes figure that one out.

War or no, I'm against torture.

Are you for torture?

No I'm not for torture. I'm ok with the "enhanced interrogations" in the few cases it was used given the circumstances at the time. Just as I'm ok with assasinating a US citizen in this case. I don't support either as a general practice though. As you said it's war, there are lots of tough calls.

[ElNono]

You're absolutely right that terrorism in some form or fashion has existed for centuries. And you're also right that terrorism has transcended national boundaries prior to the advent of Al-Qaeda. But you're absolutely wrong in asserting that Al-Qaeda brings nothing new. Technology (ranging from the Internet to the ability to detonate a dirty bomb and everything in between) makes "this" terrorism radically different than its prior iterations. Because the world we live in now is way more global than what existed 20-30 years ago, notions like nation state sovereignty (which owes it's creation to 17th century political philosophy) is just not useful.

Nonsense. The only novelty is that they messed with the US. Groups like ETA in Spain have been terrorizing in the internet era (called a ceasefire as recently as 2010). Yet, Spain tries ETA members in a court of law, and they don't send drones launching missiles into France, where some ETA members like to hide. You don't think France would rise a stinker if they acted like that?

Spain and England were also targets of AQ, and they're not flying drones into other countries either, or entertaining the notion of "moving war zone". That's entirely an American construction.


You're hypothetical has some validity in the abstract. But it's also admins in that Pakistan isn't going to fly drones in AZ. No chance in hell. It's disingenuous to suggest that US anti-terrorism policies undermine all notions nation state sovereignty.

Of course they won't. But it has everything to do with who has the longer dick (both militarily and economically, let's not pretend here that we've not been sending billions that way year after year), and very little with respecting state sovereignty or abiding to international laws.


By the way, you should definitely check out terror and consent by Bobbit. I had him in law school and he's an incredible author and academic on these exact issues.

I will, thanks for the heads up.


As for the slippery slope, there are two points.

1. You seem to have retreated from your assertion that US Wikileaks members are now at risk. That's what I was originally arguing so I'll move on.

Perhaps it wasn't as clear or as good an example. I presented the "US Wikileaks member" as a contemporary example of somebody that the US might identify as a treat to national security and might have a hard time extraditing or reaching. The war on AQ might go on for a while, and eventually end, or not. But the precedent that was set here (IMO, anyways) is an action directed strictly from the executive (this was a CIA mission, I don't even think it needed to be under the AUMF umbrella), on a country we're not at war with against a US citizen that was a civilian in that country (he was an asshole, he deserved every missile he got, he was a sponsor/advocate/mastermind for terror, etc etc etc, still a civilian on a country we're NOT at war with. Sure, it was a shithole like Yemen, and if it was Germany/China this might not have happened, but that's besides the actual point). Under those premises, there's nothing stopping operations like this to happen in the future under no scrutiny against whoever the lords of the US at the time deem an "enemy combatant". At least that's the way I see it.


2. Your newer point has a lot of validity. If I had the answers to them, I'd be a way richer man. But what I will say is that our notions of due process, checks and balances, and the like will have to change. That's just part of the process of legal evolution - concepts change and adapt as society evolves.

I completely disagree with this. Separation of power and checks and balances, the actual checks on power, are exactly what separates the US as the "good guys" versus the Nazis (pardon the Godwin) and "bad guys". I think we know enough from history to know that unchecked power is abused power.
I think law does evolve as society evolves, but certain pillars that our society has been built upon, which made this society as great as it is, such as due process, check and balances are simply non-negotiable. And the erosion of those pillars is exactly where the concern should be, regardless if that asshole had it coming.


As for the case of awlaki, why wouldn't his involvement as AQ's ideological moutpiece have essentially waived his due process rights as an American? I'm far less concerned about this particular incident as I would be with a much closer call.

Because the Constitution, where the 5th is stamped on, doesn't provide a clause where such actions work as a waiver. And AFAIK, he never waived his right to the 5th. I'm also relatively unconcerned with THIS specific case. What concerns me is the precedent it sets going forward, and tentatively the erosion that I pointed out above.

[boutons_deux]

"I think we know enough from history to know that unchecked power is abused power."

Many know it ("Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"), but there's no way to stop the financial sector/UCA unchecked (aka, unregulated) power. Their money and power is now/has been surpra-national, beyond the reach of any govts that they have anyway corrupted and compromised.

All these sterile threads, debates about the Constitution, law, etc, and 10s of 1000s of Human-Americans in the streets, are moot, academic.

[vy65]

Nonsense. The only novelty is that they messed with the US. Groups like ETA in Spain have been terrorizing in the internet era (called a ceasefire as recently as 2010). Yet, Spain tries ETA members in a court of law, and they don't send drones launching missiles into France, where some ETA members like to hide. You don't think France would rise a stinker if they acted like that?

Basque terrorists are not analogous to Al-Qaeda at all. For one, ETA is way more local in nature than AQ. Yes, some members might jump over the "fence" into France, but the groups operations are predominately located in Spain and directed towards the Spanish government. That can't be said of AQ who's operations range from Northern Africa to Europe to Southeast Asia.

More importantly, there is nothing that suggests that Basque terrorists have or are seeking nuclear weaponry. This greatly distinguishes AQ - who have said they would like to detonate a dirty bomb - from ETA. This isn't just rhetoric either - AQ has tapped Pakistani scientists for a program wherein they are actively seeking and potentially acquiring the materials to make a nuclear bomb.

Ultimately, why can you compare a separatist movement which seeks independence (ETA) with another, larger group who's ideology is the destruction of the West? This is a terrible analogy.


Spain and England were also targets of AQ, and they're not flying drones into other countries either, or entertaining the notion of "moving war zone". That's entirely an American construction.

But Spain and England provide support for our anti-terrorism activities both in the Middle East and Europe. There might not be a Spanish or English flag on a drone, but don't act like their hands are clean either.

I'm curious as to why you think Spain and England haven't signed onto the idea that the "warzone" with AQ isn't circumscribed to a particular geographic area.


Of course they won't. But it has everything to do with who has the longer dick (both militarily and economically, let's not pretend here that we've not been sending billions that way year after year), and very little with respecting state sovereignty or abiding to international laws.

So then this isn't going to dismantle nation-state sovereignty as we know it huh?

In this specific case, I don't see why undermining sovereignty is a bad thing.



Perhaps it wasn't as clear or as good an example. I presented the "US Wikileaks member" as a contemporary example of somebody that the US might identify as a treat to national security and might have a hard time extraditing or reaching. The war on AQ might go on for a while, and eventually end, or not. But the precedent that was set here (IMO, anyways) is an action directed strictly from the executive (this was a CIA mission, I don't even think it needed to be under the AUMF umbrella), on a country we're not at war with against a US citizen that was a civilian in that country (he was an asshole, he deserved every missile he got, he was a sponsor/advocate/mastermind for terror, etc etc etc, still a civilian on a country we're NOT at war with. Sure, it was a shithole like Yemen, and if it was Germany/China this might not have happened, but that's besides the actual point). Under those premises, there's nothing stopping operations like this to happen in the future under no scrutiny against whoever the lords of the US at the time deem an "enemy combatant". At least that's the way I see it.

But it's a shitty example and won't set the precedent that you think it will. The reason why it's shitty is because a wikileaks member poses way less of a threat to US security than the mouthpiece of AQ.

Re-reading your post I'm left wondering if you're more concerned with the threat to the due process rights of US citizens abroad or the sovereignty of other countries. As for the due process notion - the specific facts of the Awlaki case present no threats to our constitutional rights. On this point - you agree that the guy had everything he got coming.

As for the sovereignty notion - you do realize that Yemen provided logistical and intelligence support for the operation?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f5b71fca-ed11-11e0-be97-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ZeMBMBim

If Yemen not only has no problem with the operation but provides intelligence to the US, how is their sovereignty being harmed?

And if you think that there is no review of shit like this - you're wrong. The precedents set by the Guantanemo cases show that there is court-based scrutiny of presidential military operations when they infringe on the constitutional rights of US citizens. This case, however, doesn't pose the same constitutional issues that the Guantanemo cases do.


I completely disagree with this. Separation of power and checks and balances, the actual checks on power, are exactly what separates the US as the "good guys" versus the Nazis (pardon the Godwin) and "bad guys". I think we know enough from history to know that unchecked power is abused power.
I think law does evolve as society evolves, but certain pillars that our society has been built upon, which made this society as great as it is, such as due process, check and balances are simply non-negotiable. And the erosion of those pillars is exactly where the concern should be, regardless if that asshole had it coming.

I never said end separation of powers, due process, etc... What I'm saying is that those notions evolve along with technology, society, etc... That's been happening since day one.

Your fears are exaggerated. We're talking about the murder of one of the leaders of AQ - granted a US citizen - who was participating in AQ operations in the Arabian Peninsula. This wasn't a guy who could present a legal defense or who had facts/circumstances militating in his favor.

I'm reminded of this quote from Abraham Lincoln where he discusses the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. He says something like he's not willing to sacrifice the union just to prevent the transgression of one law - i.e. due process. That's a pretty good analogy here.


Because the Constitution, where the 5th is stamped on, doesn't provide a clause where such actions work as a waiver. And AFAIK, he never waived his right to the 5th. I'm also relatively unconcerned with THIS specific case. What concerns me is the precedent it sets going forward, and tentatively the erosion that I pointed out above.

See above. Also - you can waive your fifth amendment rights by, for example, taking the stand in a criminal lawsuit brought against you. Sure its not the same clause from the fifth amendment, but the point is you can waive those rights.

Just sit back and think about this case: this was a high ranking member of AQ who was coordinating and controlling AQAP operations. The guy was a mouthpiece for the whole "kill the infidel" ideology and had trained several terrorists who ended up killing innocent lives. The government of Yemen not only had no problems with the US operation - but provided intelligence for the operation. Yes, the guy was an American. But that doesn't mean that his constitutional rights attach automatically. Given these facts - I have a real difficulty in seeing the Orwellian nightmare you're suggesting.

[mingus]

If the concern was Saddam and the liberation of Iraq, we could've used a drone then too. We had full control of their airspace.
And Saddam wasn't even a US citizen...

increased drone use is one of the smart things Obama has done while in office.

[mingus]

But at some point some country isn't going to take it kindly that we fly some robot and start firing missiles down.

in a perfect world, these countries would work with the U.S. in taking the terrorists out without us having to invade their air space. the problem is either these countries don't want to work with us or they're inept in dealing with the problem, or both (i.e. Pakistan). in that case i believe we have to act alone.

[mingus]

The 9/11 plot was mostly hatched in Germany. Is Germany now a war zone?
The UK? Spain? Indonesia? India? The US?

the countries you mentioned (i don't know about Indonesia though) would work with us in trying to take out the terrorist threat. the reason we send drones into Yemen and Pakistan is because they're corrupt and cohorts of terrorism. how'd our military alliance with Pakistan work out? they harbored Bin Laden for 7 years. it's not our first choice to send drones into these countries. it's that these countries are so indept in dealing with the threat, which they are probably in bed with anway, that we have to take desperate measures.

[ElNono]

Basque terrorists are not analogous to Al-Qaeda at all. For one, ETA is way more local in nature than AQ. Yes, some members might jump over the "fence" into France, but the groups operations are predominately located in Spain and directed towards the Spanish government. That can't be said of AQ who's operations range from Northern Africa to Europe to Southeast Asia.

More importantly, there is nothing that suggests that Basque terrorists have or are seeking nuclear weaponry. This greatly distinguishes AQ - who have said they would like to detonate a dirty bomb - from ETA. This isn't just rhetoric either - AQ has tapped Pakistani scientists for a program wherein they are actively seeking and potentially acquiring the materials to make a nuclear bomb.

The comparison stems from your claim that AQ has brought anything new to the table ("internet age" or "detonating a dirty bomb"). The contention is simply baloney. AQ or ETA or any other terror group would have no qualms using whatever they can get their hands on to terrorize. That's exactly what they do. Direct comparisons between the groups might not necessarily directly apply (goals, strategy, operations), but for all intents and purposes they use the same medium, terror, to get their point across. If I had to mark any other difference between other terror groups and AQ is that a good bunch of them were actually trained by the CIA during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That's just a somewhat minor detail though, IMO.


Ultimately, why can you compare a separatist movement which seeks independence (ETA) with another, larger group who's ideology is the destruction of the West? This is a terrible analogy.

For what you pointed out as AQ bringing something 'new' to the table, it's an apt comparison. ETA was doing what you claim AQ started doing way before AQ was even a group.


But Spain and England provide support for our anti-terrorism activities both in the Middle East and Europe. There might not be a Spanish or English flag on a drone, but don't act like their hands are clean either.

Spain completely removed their troops from Afghanistan after Zapatero was elected IIRC (and after the Madrid bombing). You need to show me what kind of support Englad provided or provides in US attacks in Pakistani soil. AFAIK, the brits provided troops for Afghanistan and Iraq (actual invasions), and that's where the buck stopped for them. If you have info showing otherwise, I'd like to see it.


I'm curious as to why you think Spain and England haven't signed onto the idea that the "warzone" with AQ isn't circumscribed to a particular geographic area.

My impressions is that every country, except the US and their own "doctrines", attempt to follow international law, and the UN charter. You know, the charter that states that a unprovoked attack on a sovereign state is a war crime and should be punished accordingly. Do I think this is an issue for the US right now? No. But you eventually reap what you sow. If you shit on being a good citizen, don't expect other countries not to shit on you too.


So then this isn't going to dismantle nation-state sovereignty as we know it huh?

It won't as long as the US has the longest dick. Germany once thought they had the longest dick too. You know what happened then. When you start walking down that road, there's no coming back.


In this specific case, I don't see why undermining sovereignty is a bad thing.

I don't think sovereignty was undermined in this particular case, seeing Yemen was hunting for this guy too. The thing is, sovereignty or the lack of respect of it, happens on analogous missions such as the ones in Pakistan.


But it's a shitty example and won't set the precedent that you think it will. The reason why it's shitty is because a wikileaks member poses way less of a threat to US security than the mouthpiece of AQ.

That's what you think. You don't know what the administration thinks. It only takes a Yoo or a Bybee clown to claim this action as precedent for blanket authorization. I'm sorry, I don't trust politicos not abusing what's unchecked.


Re-reading your post I'm left wondering if you're more concerned with the threat to the due process rights of US citizens abroad or the sovereignty of other countries. As for the due process notion - the specific facts of the Awlaki case present no threats to our constitutional rights. On this point - you agree that the guy had everything he got coming.

I'm concerned with the rule of law, and the shortcuts to go around it. As I stated earlier, from "enemy combatant" onwards, everything looks like a parallel system of justice that's not the civilian nor the military and IMO, presents a huge slippery slope. This action breaks new ground but it's a continuation of the same theme.


As for the sovereignty notion - you do realize that Yemen provided logistical and intelligence support for the operation?

I do. However, the fact we're flying the same drones in Pakistani airspace and shooting the same missiles, tells me that sovereignty isn't seemingly a concern in these operations.


And if you think that there is no review of shit like this - you're wrong. The precedents set by the Guantanemo cases show that there is court-based scrutiny of presidential military operations when they infringe on the constitutional rights of US citizens. This case, however, doesn't pose the same constitutional issues that the Guantanemo cases do.

Not true. It took a lawsuit to reach the SCOTUS to restore Habeas Corpus to the GITMO detainees. You saw the garbage memos on torture, that, once public (checked) finally allowed torture to be outlawed (again).
I don't underestimate the ability of politicians in power to bend the rules to make them fit whatever it is that they want to do.


I never said end separation of powers, due process, etc... What I'm saying is that those notions evolve along with technology, society, etc... That's been happening since day one.

What due process was here? What power checked the power used? It's nice and all to say "things change" but what you're really saying is "it's ok to overlook these fundamentals when we see fit". And I don't agree with that at all.


Your fears are exaggerated. We're talking about the murder of one of the leaders of AQ - granted a US citizen - who was participating in AQ operations in the Arabian Peninsula. This wasn't a guy who could present a legal defense or who had facts/circumstances militating in his favor.

The particulars of this case certainly do not worry me as long as it was exceptional. But was this an exception or the new rule? Maybe I exaggerate, time will tell. Politicos on a power trip do make me nervous. Especially when there's nothing/nobody to checking on their powers.


I'm reminded of this quote from Abraham Lincoln where he discusses the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. He says something like he's not willing to sacrifice the union just to prevent the transgression of one law - i.e. due process. That's a pretty good analogy here.

You know as well as I do that Lincoln also was dealing with a rebellion, that he declared martial law, and that the Constitution allows the suspension in those cases. This is nothing like that. Hamdi established that US citizens have the ability to contest their classification as "enemy combatants" before an impartial judge and thus access to habeas corpus, and that the executive simply has no power to hold citizens indefinitely without basic due process protections.


See above. Also - you can waive your fifth amendment rights by, for example, taking the stand in a criminal lawsuit brought against you. Sure its not the same clause from the fifth amendment, but the point is you can waive those rights.

I never said you can't. I said AFAIK, he never did.


Just sit back and think about this case: this was a high ranking member of AQ who was coordinating and controlling AQAP operations. The guy was a mouthpiece for the whole "kill the infidel" ideology and had trained several terrorists who ended up killing innocent lives. The government of Yemen not only had no problems with the US operation - but provided intelligence for the operation. Yes, the guy was an American. But that doesn't mean that his constitutional rights attach automatically. Given these facts - I have a real difficulty in seeing the Orwellian nightmare you're suggesting.

Again, unconcerned about this case in solitary. Concerned with the bigger picture. If this ends up being an exception, then there's nothing to worry about. If it's the new normal, then I think it warrants worrying about.

[ElNono]

in a perfect world, these countries would work with the U.S. in taking the terrorists out without us having to invade their air space. the problem is either these countries don't want to work with us or they're inept in dealing with the problem, or both (i.e. Pakistan). in that case i believe we have to act alone.

There's consequences for acting alone, especially when mistakes are made, and other countries' rights are violated. Remember that when China or whoever else decides to 'go it alone'.

[mingus]

There's consequences for acting alone, especially when mistakes are made, and other countries' rights are violated. Remember that when China or whoever else decides to 'go it alone'.

The day we have our people over in China flying planes into their buildings, they'd be completely justified in sending drones over here if we're hiding/protecting those who carried it out.

[ElNono]

The day we have our people over in China flying planes into their buildings, they'd be completely justified in sending drones over here if we're hiding/protecting those who carried it out.

The US certainly had (has?) Uyghur in GITMO, who are considered terrorists by the Chinese, and wouldn't hand them over to the Chinese. So you think China has every right to send drones over to GITMO and start blowing stuff up?. Okay.

[mingus]

The US certainly had (has?) Uyghur in GITMO, who are considered terrorists by the Chinese, and wouldn't hand them over to the Chinese. So you think China has every right to send drones over to GITMO and start blowing stuff up?. Okay.

I don't know who Uygher is...

Bottom line for me is if a country is going to obstruct us from finding terrorists within its borders, I hope our govt. takes them out. Letting a man whose made plans to kill hundreds of Americans live is negligent.

[ElNono]

I don't know who Uygher is...

Uyghur people
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_people)


Bottom line for me is if a country is going to obstruct us from finding terrorists within its borders, I hope our govt. takes them out. Letting a man whose made plans to kill hundreds of Americans live is negligent.

My concern isn't particularly with this guy or action. If you were to tell me these operations will be circumscribed to AQ members, then outside of any concerns over sovereignty (which as stated was no concern in this particular case, but has been in, say, Pakistan), I wouldn't have much problem with it.

The thing is, nobody, not you, vy, me or pretty much anybody else can tell you what the criteria is for these missions. And where does the buck stop.
And that's the concern. I don't lose sleep over it, but I think it's a legitimate concern.

[vy65]

Not to completely ignore what you wrote ElNono, but here's a question: should international peacekeepers not intervene in a country where genocide is being committed in order to respect that country's sovereignty?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol That question again.

In any event, I'm not happy with this killing, at all. Being a US citizen means a lot. Or at least it used to. When our citizenship is so easily tossed away it is a really bad time in our history.

[ElNono]

Not to completely ignore what you wrote ElNono, but here's a question: should international peacekeepers not intervene in a country where genocide is being committed in order to respect that country's sovereignty?

vy, it's ok. It got a little long and winded.

About your question, that's what the UN was put into to place for, wasn't it?
A forum where countries can discuss, vote and eventually, if needed, authorize punitive actions (military or otherwise) against whichever country. See Lybia for a contemporary example (resolution 1973).

From the US side, if Congress declares war on Pakistan under the premise that they're protecting terrorists, then you have a formal declaration. I always stated part of the problem is of form (Paki is a country we're NOT at war with).

[mingus]

Uyghur people
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_people)



My concern isn't particularly with this guy or action. If you were to tell me these operations will be circumscribed to AQ members, then outside of any concerns over sovereignty (which as stated was no concern in this particular case, but has been in, say, Pakistan), I wouldn't have much problem with it.

The thing is, nobody, not you, vy, me or pretty much anybody else can tell you what the criteria is for these missions. And where does the buck stop.
And that's the concern. I don't lose sleep over it, but I think it's a legitimate concern.

where does the buck stop? we're in a war. using drones is an act of war. it's justifiable if it aligns with American values and it makes logistical sense. the criteria is conditional.

[ElNono]

where does the buck stop? we're in a war.

We are? Where's Congress declaration of war on Yemen? Pakistan?

and lol @ "American values". What's the definition of what falls within "American values", who decides that, and who checks on that?

[Winehole23]

What's the definition of what falls within "American values", who decides that, and who checks on that?It's completely invidious. Whoever is pointing his finger decides; checking is what the rest of us are for.

[mingus]

We are? Where's Congress declaration of war on Yemen? Pakistan?

and lol @ "American values". What's the definition of what falls within "American values", who decides that, and who checks on that?

when you make your country a safe haven for terrorists you've pretty much asked for some type of military action from the U.S. the ball was in Yemen's and Pakistan's court. they could've cooperated with us, but they didn't. they obstructed us. i would consider that an act of war on their part. we just responded. and they won't admit to it being an act of war either. they're dancing around it just like Iran is. but it's clear who our enemies are.

and by American values i generally mean in this instance "are they trying to kill us?" protecting our people from terrorists, from any kind of violent threat, is an American value, or at least i thought it was until i got into this debate.

so let me get this straight: if we had to do things you're way--if ElNono were president-- both Bin Laden and this guy would still be living and plotting against our people?

[ElNono]

It's completely invidious. Whoever is pointing his finger decides; checking is what the rest of us are for.

Agreed. You would hope that at least some of it abides with established law. My preference anyways.

[ElNono]

when you make your country a safe haven for terrorists you've pretty much asked for some type of military action from the U.S. the ball was in Yemen's and Pakistan's court. they could've cooperated with us, but they didn't. they obstructed us. i would consider that an act of war on their part. we just responded. and they won't admit to it being an act of war either. they're dancing around it just like Iran is. but it's clear who our enemies are.

and by American values i generally mean in this instance "are they trying to kill us?" protecting our people from terrorists, from any kind of violent threat, is an American value, or at least i thought it was until i got into this debate.

so let me get this straight: if we had to do things you're way--if ElNono were president-- both Bin Laden and this guy would still be living and plotting against our people?

Well, in the Yemen's case, they did cooperate with us.

But you haven't flipped your point around. What happens when the US is non-cooperative with what other countries consider terrorists. The US certainly provides political asylum to a number of people that would fit that criteria.

Do you feel the other country is justified in attacking the US? If not, why not?

If the response is "American values", then is it a war on terror, or a war on spreading "American values"? What happens when a sovereign country does not want or agrees with "American values"?

I haven't really entertained the "Nono president" angle, because I'm not American born, so I could never hold office. I do think that your view that eliminating these people will suddenly stop the plotting is fairly naive. The problem includes our relation with Israel and it's much, much more complex than that. A quick thought over the hypotetical would be that under Nono's America, we either not be involved in any wars and doing much more work in intelligence and locking down the border (defensive stance) or, should Congress approve declaring war on them, we would stop fucking around with Pakistan, secure their nuclear arsenal, and wipe their tribal region (offensive stance). Be it drones or boots or both. I do think we're headed that way eventually.

[vy65]

vy, it's ok. It got a little long and winded.

About your question, that's what the UN was put into to place for, wasn't it?
A forum where countries can discuss, vote and eventually, if needed, authorize punitive actions (military or otherwise) against whichever country. See Lybia for a contemporary example (resolution 1973).

From the US side, if Congress declares war on Pakistan under the premise that they're protecting terrorists, then you have a formal declaration. I always stated part of the problem is of form (Paki is a country we're NOT at war with).

So your issue isn't with sovereignty per se - it's with unilateral decisions to violate that sovereignty. Right?

[ElNono]

So your issue isn't with sovereignty per se - it's with unilateral decisions to violate that sovereignty. Right?

In a nutshell, correct.

[DMC]

The guy was wanted for treason, a crime punishable by death.

[ElNono]

The guy was wanted for treason, a crime punishable by death.

Sure. Determining what the punishment should be is up to the judicial (courts) though.

[Yonivore]

Sure. Determining what the punishment should be is up to the judicial (courts) though.
Not in acts of war.

[ElNono]

Not in acts of war.

Congress never declared war, so we're not at war.

[LnGrrrR]

The guy was wanted for treason, a crime punishable by death.

I believe there needs to be two eyewitnesses to hold someone accountable for treason. That said, I'm not sure how stringent the determination for "eyewitness" is. (ie. say Awlaki puts out a video saying he supports AQ, etc etc, do people who have watched that video count as eyewitnesses, or would they have had to been there with him?)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I believe there needs to be two eyewitnesses to hold someone accountable for treason. That said, I'm not sure how stringent the determination for "eyewitness" is. (ie. say Awlaki puts out a video saying he supports AQ, etc etc, do people who have watched that video count as eyewitnesses, or would they have had to been there with him?)

There is plenty of incriminating evidence out there. He was encouraging people with the support of AQ to attack American targets. At the same time there is the entire issue of us not having him in custody. If only we could count on Yemeni extradition.

The guy needed to die my issue is that they did not even play lip service to the 5th and 6th amendment.

Rule of law in this country is a joke.

[Yonivore]

There is plenty of incriminating evidence out there. He was encouraging people with the support of AQ to attack American targets. At the same time there is the entire issue of us not having him in custody. If only we could count on Yemeni extradition.

The guy needed to die my issue is that they did not even play lip service to the 5th and 6th amendment.

Rule of law in this country is a joke.
It happened in Yemen.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It happened in Yemen.

That was the point. Yemeni extradition basically means that we would count on the Yemeni to obtain him to extradite back to us. That was not going to happen.

[Yonivore]

That was the point. Yemeni extradition basically means that we would count on the Yemeni to obtain him to extradite back to us. That was not going to happen.
My point being the "rule of law in the United States" was not a factor here. I view that terrorist just like any other, an enemy combatant that needs to be eliminated.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My point being the "rule of law in the United States" was not a factor here. I view that terrorist just like any other, an enemy combatant that needs to be eliminated.

So who gets to arbitrarily conclude that hes a traitor and execute him? God help those who leave the country apparently.

[Yonivore]

So who gets to arbitrarily conclude that hes a traitor and execute him? God help those who leave the country apparently.
Yeah. Especially those that become terrorists.

[DMC]

I believe OBL was in another country as well.

They need to know we will come after them, that they cannot hide.

I have no sympathy for these motherfuckers.

[DMC]

There is plenty of incriminating evidence out there. He was encouraging people with the support of AQ to attack American targets. At the same time there is the entire issue of us not having him in custody. If only we could count on Yemeni extradition.

The guy needed to die my issue is that they did not even play lip service to the 5th and 6th amendment.

Rule of law in this country is a joke.

Move to Yemen. Much better there obviously.

[Wild Cobra]

The guy was wanted for treason, a crime punishable by death.
In my opinion...

A person still must be tried before a sentence is carried out. However, such declarations he has made, and our approved war on terror by congress, makes him eligible as a military target.

If he was not classed as a military target, then it would be completely against our own laws to assassinate him.

[ElNono]

I have no sympathy for these motherfuckers.

Nobody does. That's beside the point.

[Winehole23]

There is plenty of incriminating evidence out there.Like what?

[Winehole23]

(crickets)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

(crickets)

Look when I posted and compare that to when you posted. My life does not revolve around answering your questions.

The email correspondence with the Ft Hood guy where he gave a basis from the Quran for the attack when he was asking if it was against Islam in and of itself should be enough. Unfortunately they have taken down his website so you cannot see the youtubes where he cites passages from the Quran to justify attacks on America but they are out there as well.

He was the Josef Goebbel's of AQ but the difference was that Goebbel's was not an American citizen. It is a very muddled issue and i can understand why they took the action that they did I just find it reprehensible that they did not even play lip service to the 5th and 6th amendments.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My point being the "rule of law in the United States" was not a factor here. I view that terrorist just like any other, an enemy combatant that needs to be eliminated.

The decision to execute him was made by the US government. Who enforces rule of law? I'll give you a hint: its not the lawbreakers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Move to Yemen. Much better there obviously.

You're a fucking idiot. This is a stock answer for you and your like. Come and try and make me leave.

Article V was put info a reason and democracy does not mean sucking the status quos dick.

[Yonivore]

The decision to execute him was made by the US government. Who enforces rule of law? I'll give you a hint: its not the lawbreakers.
It wasn't an execution; it was a combat operation that eliminated a terrorist threat.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It wasn't an execution; it was a combat operation that eliminated a terrorist threat.

This is just semantics. Fact is that we ordered a drone to fire on a US citizen. That it was done via the US Army to a particular end is immaterial.

[Yonivore]

This is just semantics. Fact is that we ordered a drone to fire on a US citizen. That it was done via the US Army to a particular end is immaterial.
I don't think it's immaterial, at all.

If you were fighting in the trenches of WWI and a Lieutenant from your side of the trenches defected to the other side and started shooting back, would you arrest him or put a bullet in him?

I know what I'd do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think it's immaterial, at all.

If you were fighting in the trenches of WWI and a Lieutenant from your side of the trenches defected to the other side and started shooting back, would you arrest him or put a bullet in him?

I know what I'd do.

Bad analogy try again.

The analogy would be if you were a WW2 commander and you knew that a nonconvicted US citizen was consorting with the German's and was in a particular situation.

You are presenting an immediate threat to your person. Of course you defend yourself.

I am not even arguing that we should not have gone after him. I am just saying that before the attack was authorized they should have at least extended the right to have him defend himself with a public declaration and then hold a trial for him in absentia.

They are rare but I think in this case it would be justified.

[Yonivore]

Bad analogy try again.

The analogy would be if you were a WW2 commander and you knew that a nonconvicted US citizen was consorting with the German's and was in a particular situation.
If it was the most immediate way to stop him from "consorting with the German's," I'd kill him.


You are presenting an immediate threat to your person. Of course you defend yourself.

I am not even arguing that we should not have gone after him. I am just saying that before the attack was authorized they should have at least extended the right to have him defend himself with a public declaration and then hold a trial for him in absentia.

They are rare but I think in this case it would be justified.
People like you are the reason we've become the laughingstock of the world.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban will use any trick in the book to kill Americans...you would have us read them their rights on the battlefield.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban decapitate their prisoners and play the videos over the internet...you would whine about them not getting a Koran or being deprived a sign that tells them the way to Mecca.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban would detonate a nuclear weapon in Yankee Stadium, given the chance -- and this scrotum was all about giving them that chance...and you want to, what? Play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules?

I say fuck him; if he wants to play terrorist so bad, let him eat a hellfire missile or two.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it was the most immediate way to stop him from "consorting with the German's," I'd kill him.


People like you are the reason we've become the laughingstock of the world.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban will use any trick in the book to kill Americans...you would have us read them their rights on the battlefield.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban decapitate their prisoners and play the videos over the internet...you would whine about them not getting a Koran or being deprived a sign that tells them the way to Mecca.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban would detonate a nuclear weapon in Yankee Stadium, given the chance -- and this scrotum was all about giving them that chance...and you want to, what? Play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules?

I say fuck him; if he wants to play terrorist so bad, let him eat a hellfire missile or two.

You fail to understand what makes this country great: that we care about rights and the rule of law.

You characterizations of me are baseless and quite frankly dumb. I could care less about them being able to get the Koran or not. I am about as antireligious as you can get. I find using spiritual guesswork as a basis for policymaking to be disgusting.

I also never said to read him his rights but rather make it very obvious and official in outline that he has relinquished his rights because of his traitorous actions and fleeing the country.

[Wild Cobra]

It was in Yemen.

We had their intelligence and permission.

It wasn't anything like sending 112 cruise missiles into Libya.

Nuff Said.

[Winehole23]

The email correspondence with the Ft Hood guy where he gave a basis from the Quran for the attack when he was asking if it was against Islam in and of itself should be enough. Unfortunately they have taken down his website so you cannot see the youtubes where he cites passages from the Quran to justify attacks on America but they are out there as well.Weak. You said there was lots of evidence out there. Guess you were talking out of your hat.

[Winehole23]

You can't put Americans on death lists and kill them sans due process because of their nutball beliefs. Or now maybe you can. Lame.

[LnGrrrR]

People like you are the reason we've become the laughingstock of the world.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban will use any trick in the book to kill Americans...you would have us read them their rights on the battlefield.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban decapitate their prisoners and play the videos over the internet...you would whine about them not getting a Koran or being deprived a sign that tells them the way to Mecca.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban would detonate a nuclear weapon in Yankee Stadium, given the chance -- and this scrotum was all about giving them that chance...and you want to, what? Play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules?

I say fuck him; if he wants to play terrorist so bad, let him eat a hellfire missile or two.

So how far down the ladders should we go? For instance, if AQ uses actual torture on their prisoners, what form of slightly-better torture should we use?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Weak. You said there was lots of evidence out there. Guess you were talking out of your hat.

At the very least it was conspiracy. He was asked for and gave permission for a terrorist act to the Ft Hood guy. Thats not weak. Sorry but its just not. Charles manson would not be reprehensible otherwise.

Dude was a religious nutball encouraging people to kill amercans where at least in one incident there is a direct link to an act.

i agree with you about due process but its pretty clear what he was culpable of.

That said he should have had the right to defend himself in trial or at least offered the chance for it before the hit was put out on him.

[Winehole23]

At the very least it was conspiracy. He was asked for and gave permission for a terrorist act to the Ft Hood guy. Is that even a crime?

[Yonivore]

Is that even a crime?
The administration claims he made the leap from advocating terrorism to actively participating.

Either way, I'm okay with his ass being killed.

[Winehole23]

Odd that you would swallow the Obama Administration's uncorroborated claims, but suit yourself.

[Yonivore]

Odd that you would swallow the Obama Administration's uncorroborated claims, but suit yourself.
It's just that I don't care. I'm glad the fucker is dead. If Obama needs to claim he was actively involved in terrorism, I'm not going to argue.

[Winehole23]

If Obama needs to claim he was actively involved in terrorism, I'm not going to argue.Obviously not. There's no further need for any evidence or due process after power tells you it's ok to kill Americans without any evidence or due process.

[Yonivore]

Obviously not. There's no further need for any evidence or due process after power tells you it's ok to kill Americans without any evidence or due process.
Alwaki put himself out in video encouraging terrorism. He published the terrorist's magazine for fuck's sake. The massacre at Fort Hood is directly tied to his relationship with the terrorist that committed the act.

Enough for me.

[Winehole23]

Alwaki put himself out in video encouraging terrorism. He published the terrorist's magazine for fuck's sake. Expression is constitutionally guaranteed. Even expression that is hateful and twisted.

The massacre at Fort Hood is directly tied to his relationship with the terrorist that committed the act.Then charge him for conspiracy and give him a fair trial like the guy who did it.

[Yonivore]

Expression is constitutionally guaranteed. Even expression that is hateful and twisted.
Self defense is constitutionally guaranteed, as well.


Then charge him for conspiracy and give him a fair trial like the guy who did it.
You'd have a point if he hadn't been driving down a road in Yemen engaging in terrorist activities.

[Winehole23]

Our government has shown no evidence whatsoever that Awlaki was engaged in terrorism. If such evidence exists, it would justify a criminal trial, not an assassination.

[Yonivore]

Our government has shown no evidence whatsoever that Awlaki was engaged in terrorism. If such evidence exists, it would justify a criminal trial, not an assassination.
I think they classified him as an enemy combatant, not a criminal. There's your difference. You're welcome.

Awlaki, himself, provided all the evidence needed to consider him a terrorist and an enemy of the United States.

[Winehole23]

I think they classified him as an enemy combatant, not a criminal. There's your difference. You're welcome.Bullshit. You have no idea what they did, because what they did isn't subject to any disclosure or oversight. Indeed the legal basis for the killing of Awlaki is a state secret.

[Yonivore]

You have no idea what they did, because what they did isn't subject to disclosure or oversight --indeed the legal basis for the killing of Awlaki is a state secret -- but you sure lapped up the Obama's propaganda about it.
No, I lapped up nothing. I thought Awlaki was a scrote deserving to die long before Obama put him on any list.

Frankly, I don't care what justification Obama used, as long as the bastard is dead. If he had any balls, he'd take Khalid Sheik Mohammed out of his cell, take him out in front of the rest of those scumbags in Gitmo, and put a bullet in his head.

[admiralsnackbar]

SCOTUS hasn't really ruled on it, albeit has hinted towards extraterritoriality of that amendment. Actual reading material, starting on page 1940:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v103/n4/1929/LR103n4Lichter.pdf

Definitely still a gray area, IMO.

May as well shut down travelers services at US embassies around the world, then, I suppose. No point in wasting State Department dollars on Americans divested of citizenship rights abroad.

[Yonivore]

May as well shut down travelers services at US embassies around the world, then, I suppose. No point in wasting State Department dollars on Americans divested of citizenship rights abroad.
Just the terrorists.

[LnGrrrR]

Frankly, I don't care what justification Obama used, as long as the bastard is dead. If he had any balls, he'd take Khalid Sheik Mohammed out of his cell, take him out in front of the rest of those scumbags in Gitmo, and put a bullet in his head.

I'm pretty sure that would exacerbate the situation, and greatly increase terrorist recruitment by martyring him.

[admiralsnackbar]

Just the terrorists.
It's a pretty blurry line between terrorist and blogger for people who don't automatically equate Muslim with Evil.

Should Rush Limbaugh be denied privileges of citizenship abroad? He wants our country to fail. Or what about the dozens of fringe-ier AM DJs like the New World Order tool-box up in Austin? Why do some citizens get to hide behind the 1st amendment and others not? Al-Awlaki wrote stuff that incited violence towards Americans, but nothing worse than shit Neo-Nazis publish with no consequences, and certainly not death w/out due-process. Even the Rosenbergs got a trial.

[Yonivore]

It's a pretty blurry line between terrorist and blogger for people who don't automatically equate Muslim with Evil.
There was no blur around al Awlaki.


Should Rush Limbaugh be denied privileges of citizenship abroad? He wants our country to fail.
Actually, this has become as big a mischaracterization as "Bush lied." I agree with Rush in that I want Barack Obama to fail to implement his economy killing, job killing policies. That's a bit different than saying you want the country to fail. Particularly when you believe it is Obama's policies that are causing the country harm.

Would you say that people who wanted Bush to fail to implement his policies -- and there are a bunch of them in this forum -- wanted the country to fail? I wouldn't. I would simply say they're wrong.


Or what about the dozens of fringe-ier AM DJs like the New World Order tool-box up in Austin? Why do some citizens get to hide behind the 1st amendment and others not? Al-Awlaki wrote stuff that incited violence towards Americans, but nothing worse than shit Neo-Nazis publish with no consequences, and certainly not death w/out due-process. Even the Rosenbergs got a trial.
Again, you're talking about the difference between an enemy combatant and a criminal.

[Yonivore]

I'm pretty sure that would exacerbate the situation, and greatly increase terrorist recruitment by martyring him.
Yeah, they've slowed down their recruitment efforts.

They'll glom onto any perceived injustice to Muslims as a reason to hate America. Fuck 'em.

[admiralsnackbar]

There was no blur around al Awlaki.


Actually, this has become as big a mischaracterization as "Bush lied." I agree with Rush in that I want Barack Obama to fail to implement his economy killing, job killing policies. That's a bit different than saying you want the country to fail. Particularly when you believe it is Obama's policies that are causing the country harm.

Would you say that people who wanted Bush to fail to implement his policies -- and there are a bunch of them in this forum -- wanted the country to fail? I wouldn't. I would simply say they're wrong.


Again, you're talking about the difference between an enemy combatant and a criminal.
I always forget the legal mind I'm reckoning with. Such subtlety. Such rigor.

[ElNono]

I always forget the legal mind I'm reckoning with. Such subtlety. Such rigor.

yoni won't be able to tell you who or what decides what an "enemy combatant" is, but he'll only start caring when somebody from the red team gets flagged as such.

[ElNono]

Bullshit. You have no idea what they did, because what they did isn't subject to any disclosure or oversight. Indeed the legal basis for the killing of Awlaki is a state secret.

Basically. Couldn't even sue or request a FOIA without facing a "states secrets" trump card.

[mingus]

isn't this what the War on Terror was all about? if you put his killing under that umbrella, he's a combatant since he's a terorrist

[ElNono]

isn't this what the War on Terror was all about? if you put his killing under that umbrella, he's a combatant since he's a terorrist

All about creating an arbitrary system of justice that's neither the military or civilian? Sure, that was some of that.

That said, the SCOTUS ruled that US citizens have the ability to challenge their status as an "enemy combatant" in front of an impartial judge. Now THAT is what America is all about.

[mingus]

isn't he pretty clearly sided with the enemy? you think he had any room to argue? it's him in the video. and it wasn't only us either. Yemen's gov. ordered him to be captured dead or alive for plotting against foreigners.

[ElNono]

isn't he pretty clearly sided with the enemy? you think he had any room to argue? it's him in the video. and it wasn't only us either. Yemen's gov. ordered him to be captured dead or alive for plotting against foreigners.

We live under the rule of law. A guilty verdict in this country is handed by a court. Be it a civilian or military court. You can make 20000 videos and say whatever crazy thing you do and you'll still have to face a judge. If you actually act on your threats, you'll still be afforded a fair trial for your charges on conspiracy or whatever they'll charge you with.

Nobody is saying this guy wasn't an asshole and deserved to die. But since the inception of 'enemy combatant', something decided in an office somewhere, without any oversight, we've been effectively dismantling our Constitutional justice system and replacing portions of it with an administrative rubber stamp with no oversight.

Ultimately, what FL said earlier should've been the proper way to act: try him in absentia, where he would have a chance to exercise his rights if he choose to (unlikely), get the death sentence, then it's fair game. No secrets needed. Everything within the law.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, they've slowed down their recruitment efforts.

They'll glom onto any perceived injustice to Muslims as a reason to hate America. Fuck 'em.

The crazy ones will. But don't you think there are moderates who might be swayed if America made a martyr of a terrorist instead of putting him on trial?

[Winehole23]

Basically. Couldn't even sue or request a FOIA without facing a "states secrets" trump card.We're not allowed to know the legal reasoning. Maybe someday we will...but I tend to doubt it.

We've turned a corner. The emergency powers and official secrecy arrogated by Bush and tolerated -- even cheered on --by a craven, infantile American public, have not only acquired the respectable patina of custom under Obama, he has extended them. He has put a sword in the hand of arbitrary power to wield against the lives of his countrymen, and stifles any honest review of that power with an ever growing blanket of secrecy.

[Winehole23]

he's a combatant since he's a terorristOur government says Awlaki is a terrorist. It also said all the guys at Gitmo were terrorists, but let over 2/3 of them go. Somehow, it couldn't bring suitable charges in commissions that allowed secret evidence, evidence obtained under physical duress, and almost no cross examination by the defense.

Do you believe everything our government says?

[Yonivore]

Our government says Awlaki is a terrorist. It also said all the guys at Gitmo were terrorists, but let over 2/3 of them go. Somehow, it couldn't bring suitable charges in commissions that allowed secret evidence, evidence obtained under physical duress, and almost no cross examination by the defense.

Do you believe everything our government says?
No but, I believe Awlaki was a terrorist.

[Yonivore]

The crazy ones will. But don't you think there are moderates who might be swayed if America made a martyr of a terrorist instead of putting him on trial?
I guess we'll see how that works out in the Awlaki case, eh?

[Winehole23]

No but, I believe Awlaki was a terrorist.I wasn't asking you. You've already made yourself clear.

[vy65]

It's a pretty blurry line between terrorist and blogger for people who don't automatically equate Muslim with Evil.

lol what a fucking moron

[vy65]

We've turned a corner. The emergency powers and official secrecy arrogated by Bush and tolerated -- even cheered on --by a craven, infantile American public, have not only acquired the respectable patina of custom under Obama, he has extended them. He has put a sword in the hand of arbitrary power to wield against the lives of his countrymen, and stifles any honest review of that power with an ever growing blanket of secrecy.

Just out of curiosity, what makes this era different (re: emergency powers) than say 150 years ago? Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, had military tribunals, etc... yet we think of him as the man who saved the union. What's the difference between then and now?

[Winehole23]

Insurrection is the difference. This isn't one, nor is it equivalent to one. The homeland is peaceful and access to the courts unimpeded -- the extra justice track isn't needed.

Unlike the civil war and the suspension of habeas, sadly, the emergency powers invoked by Bush and Obama are unlikely ever to be rescinded.

[vy65]

Insurrection is the difference.

Why?

[Winehole23]

Explained above.

[Winehole23]

I was referring to this (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=71&invol=2), tiger.

[Winehole23]

Shit we're doing now didn't fly 150 years ago.

[vy65]

To be fair, it's not like there are foreign armies at our shores. But I wouldn't necessarily characterize the homeland as peaceful. We've suffered attacks and threats of attack. More importantly, the constitution speaks in terms of "invasion" and it's certainly reasonable to claim that AQ has invaded (read, operates) the US.

I guess my question is, why hasn't the precondition of Art. 1 Sec. 9 been met?

[vy65]

Shit we're doing now didn't fly 150 years ago.

Meh. Lincoln openly disregarded the Supreme Court in Merryman.

[vy65]

I was referring to this (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=71&invol=2), tiger.

Dunno why a holding issued after the end of hostilities is applicable here?

[vy65]

Shit we're doing now didn't fly 150 years ago.

lol I didn't even know this:

In response, the Court ordered federal marshal Bonifant to bring the general and Merryman to court. Taney could have organized an armed posse of deputy marshalls to arrest the general, but that might have resulted in bloodshed and was avoided.

As an alternative approach, Taney wrote a blistering opinion — today considered one of the greatest opinions of the Supreme Court — and had a copy delivered to President Lincoln. The opinion condemned the action of the president and reviewed the leading authorities on English as well as American constitutional law.

An undoubtedly enraged Lincoln took it upon himself to execute an order to arrest the chief justice for having the gall to give orders to the president and to condemn his acts against the Constitution. And remember: Taney was simply doing his duty, as under the Constitution the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues, not the president, not the Congress, not anyone else.

According to the writings of U.S. Marshal Ward Hill Lamon, questions arose about serving the arrest order on the chief justice, and where he should be imprisoned. Lamon recalls that Lincoln gave the arrest warrant to him with instructions to “use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he receive further orders.”

Lincoln was saved the condemnation of history, possibly impeachment and removal from office as well, by a reluctant federal marshal who wisely refrained from arresting the chief justice of the United States. But notwithstanding the failure to arrest the chief justice, this episode marked the end of constitutional government in the United States, as a British periodical, Macmillan Magazine, observed in 1862:

There is no Parliamentary (congressional) authority whatever for what has been done. It has been done simply on Mr. Lincoln’s fiat. At his simple bidding, acting by no authority but his own pleasure, in plain defiance of the provisions of the Constitution, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended, the press muzzled, and judges prevented by armed men from enforcing on the citizens’ behalf the laws to which they and the President alike have sworn.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1100e.asp

[Winehole23]

I guess my question is, why hasn't the precondition of Art. 1 Sec. 9 been met?Begging the question. It seems to me it would be on you to show that the burden has been met, particularly as you're the one who wishes to characterize a handful of discrete terrorist crimes (on the US homeland) as a sustained "rebellion and invasion," against most accepted usage and common sense.

[vy65]

To be fair - it's rebellion OR invasion - not conjunctive.

You're right - the burden would be on the president or anyone who would try to invoke the clause. I'll say that the courts have been receptive to the argument in the past 10 years and wouldn't agree with your characterization of a "handful of discrete terrorist crimes."

[Winehole23]

Dunno why a holding issued after the end of hostilities is applicable here?We can't have a separate justice track for citizens absent rebellion or invasion.

[Winehole23]

wouldn't agree with your characterization of a "handful of discrete terrorist crimes."How would you characterize it?

[vy65]

We can't have a separate justice track for citizens absent rebellion or invasion.

Huh? What's that got to do with a case that was issued after the writ was reinstated?

[vy65]

How would you characterize it?

As an invasion.

[Winehole23]

:lmao

[vy65]

Regardless, my point is that we haven't "turned a corner." Last I checked, Obama wasn't trying to have Roberts arrested.

[Yonivore]

Huh? What's that got to do with a case that was issued after the writ was reinstated?
Be careful, he's going to keep talking you in circles until you throw up your hands and he declares himself the winner of the argument.

Have you ever read the book, "If You Give a Moose a Muffin."

[Winehole23]

@vy65: You could be right. Only time will tell whether any future presidents will be tempted to abuse the regal, unreviewable power now claimed.

[vy65]

@vy65: You could be right. Only time will tell whether any future presidents will be tempted to abuse the regal, unreviewable power now claimed.

Do you feel personally threatened by our Orwellian dystopic state?

[Winehole23]

Personally, no. Is that germane somehow?

[vy65]

Was just curious.

[Winehole23]

Uh huh. Hope your curiosity is satisfied.

[Winehole23]

lol I didn't even know this:

In response, the Court ordered federal marshal Bonifant to bring the general and Merryman to court. Taney could have organized an armed posse of deputy marshalls to arrest the general, but that might have resulted in bloodshed and was avoided.

As an alternative approach, Taney wrote a blistering opinion — today considered one of the greatest opinions of the Supreme Court — and had a copy delivered to President Lincoln. The opinion condemned the action of the president and reviewed the leading authorities on English as well as American constitutional law.

An undoubtedly enraged Lincoln took it upon himself to execute an order to arrest the chief justice for having the gall to give orders to the president and to condemn his acts against the Constitution. And remember: Taney was simply doing his duty, as under the Constitution the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues, not the president, not the Congress, not anyone else.

According to the writings of U.S. Marshal Ward Hill Lamon, questions arose about serving the arrest order on the chief justice, and where he should be imprisoned. Lamon recalls that Lincoln gave the arrest warrant to him with instructions to “use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he receive further orders.”

Lincoln was saved the condemnation of history, possibly impeachment and removal from office as well, by a reluctant federal marshal who wisely refrained from arresting the chief justice of the United States. But notwithstanding the failure to arrest the chief justice, this episode marked the end of constitutional government in the United States, as a British periodical, Macmillan Magazine, observed in 1862:

There is no Parliamentary (congressional) authority whatever for what has been done. It has been done simply on Mr. Lincoln’s fiat. At his simple bidding, acting by no authority but his own pleasure, in plain defiance of the provisions of the Constitution, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended, the press muzzled, and judges prevented by armed men from enforcing on the citizens’ behalf the laws to which they and the President alike have sworn.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1100e.aspI didn't know about that either. Still, putting the words "invasion or rebellion" on a procrustean bed doesn't get us to a situation comparable or even plausibly analogous to the Civil War.

[vy65]

I agree. But thinking that we've turned the page to some horrific new era in the history of civil rights abuses is ignorant and uninformed.

[Yonivore]

I didn't know about that either. Still, putting the words "invasion or rebellion" on a procrustean bed doesn't get us to a situation comparable or even plausibly analogous to the Civil War.
Put Awlaki in a convoy driving down the Mason-Dixon line and you have a point.

Not much of one because, if he's driving down the Mason-Dixon line on his way to commit a terrorist act, I say he still dies.

[mingus]

We live under the rule of law. A guilty verdict in this country is handed by a court. Be it a civilian or military court. You can make 20000 videos and say whatever crazy thing you do and you'll still have to face a judge. If you actually act on your threats, you'll still be afforded a fair trial for your charges on conspiracy or whatever they'll charge you with.

Nobody is saying this guy wasn't an asshole and deserved to die. But since the inception of 'enemy combatant', something decided in an office somewhere, without any oversight, we've been effectively dismantling our Constitutional justice system and replacing portions of it with an administrative rubber stamp with no oversight.

Ultimately, what FL said earlier should've been the proper way to act: try him in absentia, where he would have a chance to exercise his rights if he choose to (unlikely), get the death sentence, then it's fair game. No secrets needed. Everything within the law.

There's a clear distinction to me between an enemy combatant and an American. You can't have it both ways. You can't be out to destroy us and be one of us at the same time. If he wanted to have his rights read to him, he shouldn't have switched sides.

[Winehole23]

I agree. But thinking that we've turned the page to some horrific new era in the history of civil rights abuses is ignorant and uninformed. Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. We sure did set the table, though. Torture, indefinite detention and assassination of Americans on the president's say so can no longer be ruled out. That's a fairly drastic change from ten years ago.

[vy65]

Plus ça change . . .

[Yonivore]

Maybe we have, maybe we haven't. We sure did set the table, though. Torture, indefinite detention and assassination of Americans on the president's say so can no longer be ruled out. That's a fairly drastic change from ten years ago.
Actually, it's not; those things have been done since our founding. What happened 10 years ago is an administration tried to do the right thing and legitimize them by drawing up legal guidelines for the use of enhanced interrogation techniques without committing torture and authorize indefinite detention of dangerous combatants that could neither be tried nor released (in the past -- as recent as the Vietnam war, such detainees would have been summarily executed in the field).

On the matter of assassinating American citizens abroad, I think it's a rather new phenomenon to have Americans openly consorting with an enemy actively engaged in trying to kill Americans. Killing them is the most expedient means to interrupting their benefits to the enemy.

[LnGrrrR]

Vy, I'm surprised you didn't know that history about Lincoln. It's easily the biggest stain on his Presidency.

[Winehole23]

Plus ça change . . ...the more things stay the same?

I can see what you mean, and in the platitudinous sense can even agree. But if what you mean is that 1st and 4th Amendment protections haven't been significantly undermined in the last ten years, you're full of it.

[vy65]

I knew about the suspension of HC - we went over that in school - I must've tuned out the stuff about Taney.

[vy65]

..the more things stay the same?

I can see what you mean, and in the platitudinous sense can even agree. But if what you mean is that 1st and 4th Amendment protections haven't been significantly undermined in the last ten years, you're full of it.

I wouldn't speak in generalities like the entire 1st/4th amendments have been eroded. There have been some erosions, sure. But the court has also strengthened some of these amendment's protections. But I don't wanna get into a debate about this stuff.

From a legal history perspective - this is kind of an ebb/flow phenomena. Historically progressive eras (legal eras) are followed by conservative eras. The Burger Court followed the Warren Court.

[LnGrrrR]

I knew about the suspension of HC - we went over that in school - I must've tuned out the stuff about Taney.

Thats the biggest problem with the Supreme Court... It has no teeth to encore rulings that go contra to the Presidents wishes. Hell, Andrew Jackson pretty much spit on the SCOTUS decision re: Native Americans.

I'm sure Lincoln recognized that.

[Winehole23]

There have been some erosions, sure.That's what I said. Thanks for stressing my point.

[vy65]

I wouldn't speak in generalities like the entire 1st/4th amendments have been eroded. There have been some erosions, sure. But the court has also strengthened some of these amendment's protections.

I wasn't stressing anything.

[Winehole23]

ok

[ElNono]

There's a clear distinction to me between an enemy combatant and an American. You can't have it both ways. You can't be out to destroy us and be one of us at the same time. If he wanted to have his rights read to him, he shouldn't have switched sides.

So you're saying you trust the government to declare who is an 'enemy combatant', even after they've admittedly screwed up the classification about 66% of the time, without any kind of oversight? I disagree.

You know, this guy was probably guilty as hell, there's no debating that. But if you don't keep the form and oversight, you end up with a system ripe for abuse. And that's what's being pointed out. Unilateral secretive unchecked death penalties are symptomatic of banana republics, ruthless dictators and a complete disregard of a lot of constitutional pillars this country was built upon (some of which we already discussed, such as due process, checks and balances, separation of powers, etc).

[ElNono]

Actually, it's not; those things have been done since our founding.

Not really. And if you're going to argue that, you're expected to at least go into the kind of details vy went during the Lincoln presidency (which IMO does not equate to an 'invasion' as he believes).

[Winehole23]

lol what a fucking moronIf AS disagrees with you, he must be.

[Winehole23]

You know, this guy was probably guilty as hell, there's no debating that. Why not?

[Yonivore]

Why not?
Because it's useless to debate a certainty?

[ElNono]

Why not?

In the current climate, I have little doubt that a court would've found him guilty of treason, and that the verdict would've been death. Just my opinion though. I do think that court decision should've happened before his death though.

But you're right in that it's debatable.

[Winehole23]

...

[vy65]

If AS disagrees with you, he must be.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HWhYup01zdk/TH11__mN8yI/AAAAAAAAArA/uzihSB8uw1Y/s1600/muppet+show.jpg

[Winehole23]

There's no opera box in this forum. If pointing out the juvenile way you insult other posters over mere differences of opinion makes me somehow akin to Stadler and Waldorf, I'll accept the comparison gladly.

[Yonivore]

There's no opera box in this forum. If pointing out the juvenile way you insult other posters over mere differences of opinion makes me somehow akin to Stadler and Waldorf, I'll accept the comparison gladly.
You calling someone juvenile is laughable.

[Winehole23]

Eh, laugh it up.

[Yonivore]

Eh, laugh it up.
Oh, I did.

[Yonivore]

Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&hp)


It then considered possible obstacles and rejected each in turn.

Among them was an executive order that bans assassinations. That order, the lawyers found, blocked unlawful killings of political leaders outside of war, but not the killing of a lawful target in an armed conflict.

A federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, the lawyers wrote, did not apply either, because it is not “murder” to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war.

But that raised another pressing question: would it comply with the laws of war if the drone operator who fired the missile was a Central Intelligence Agency official, who, unlike a soldier, wore no uniform? The memorandum concluded that such a case would not be a war crime, although the operator might be in theoretical jeopardy of being prosecuted in a Yemeni court for violating Yemen’s domestic laws against murder, a highly unlikely possibility.

Then there was the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that a “person” cannot be seized by the government unreasonably, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that the government may not deprive a person of life “without due process of law.”

The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.
Sounds to me like they did due diligence and carefully considered the legal questions.

Who would you have had them check with, instead?

[ElNono]

I was about to post the same link. Looks to me like another Yoo-Bybee.

I would have had that checked with the courts. But I'm sure that test will come in time if this power is abused, just like Hamdi did.

[Winehole23]

Sounds to me like they did due diligence and carefully considered the legal questions.


The office may have given oral approval for an attack on Mr. Awlaki before completing its detailed memorandum.

[Yonivore]

Because they knew what the memorandum was going to conclude and, instead of stalling possible imminent action over the formality of actually getting the words down on paper right, they verbally told the President it was cool to take out al Awlaki?

[Winehole23]

You just said the killing was arguably unconstitutional in another thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5433242&postcount=1). Here you reflexively defend it.

Change your tune much, Yoni?

[Yonivore]

You just said the killing was arguably unconstitutional in another thread (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5433242&postcount=1). Here you reflexively defend it.

Change your tune much, Yoni?
I admit to there being constitutional questions over the killing but, just as in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, I believe the administration did due diligence, made their case, and proceeded accordingly.

I also agree with the the outcomes of both administration findings.

Let those that believe either act was unconstitutional make their case in court and quit undermining the strategy both administrations are employing to eliminate very real dangers to the United States.

Saying it was arguably extra-constitutional and defending it aren't mutually exclusive positions.

[Winehole23]

Let those that believe either act was unconstitutional make their case in court and quit undermining the strategy both administrations are employing to eliminate very real dangers to the United States.Why? If it's arguably unconstitutional, it reasonably behooves those who think so to try to convince others in any setting at all.

Saying it was arguably extra-constitutional and defending it aren't mutually exclusive positions.No, but they are not automatically harmonious positions either. Your anti-Obama bias arguably accounts for the difference in emphasis.

[Yonivore]

Why? If it's arguably unconstitutional, it reasonably behooves those who think so to try to convince others in any setting at all.
And, that's been done. I agree with the administration's position they were within the law to kill al Awlaki. I believe, just as I believed in the case of the Bush administration's justification for enhanced interrogation techniques, they seriously considered the constitutional questions surrounding the actions and made their arguments that demonstrate why they believed it would be within the law.

Without a court deciding the question, we would just continue to quibble back and forth without any concrete support for either position. But, if you want to slay another horse to beat, be my guest.

Yoo & Bybee was never legally countered in court and the military's UCMJ or Obama decisions to not employ those techniques, notwithstanding, demonstrate a conclusion by an administration that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed were neither unconstitutional nor torture.


No, but they are not automatically harmonious positions either. Your anti-Obama bias arguably accounts for the difference in emphasis.
Can't speak for others but, in my case, they're perfectly consistent positions.

I'll take it one step further.

It would please me to no end if the rabid left would drag Obama through the coals on this issue. That would be fun to witness. That doesn't mean I don't agree with the administration's determination on this issue.

Anyway, I suspect this administration is going to have its hands full dealing with "gun walking" and "Solyndra."

[Winehole23]

What you suspect doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this forum. The next time one of them is right might be the very first time.

[Yonivore]

What you suspect doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this forum. The next time one of them is right might be the very first time.
Okay; suit yourself but, I'm satisfied what I suspect is of equal value, in this medium, as what you suspect. We're both building a small hill of beans.

[Winehole23]

Without a court deciding the question, we would just continue to quibble back and forth without any concrete support for either position. But, if you want to slay another horse to beat, be my guest.But you just said that risks undermining a strategy that has kept us safe, and that no griping should take place outside of court. Clarify?

[Yonivore]

But you just said that risks undermining a strategy that has kept us safe, and that no griping should take place outside of court. Clarify?
It doesn't answer the questions.

We've gone back and forth in the forum for years and never solved one problem. Your posts are as inconsequential as mine.

[Winehole23]

It doesn't answer the questions.One minute forum critics are undermining national security, the next they are inconsequential. Please pick a lane.

[Winehole23]

Also, lol at the idea that discussion forums can or should try to settle things definitively.

[Yonivore]

Also, lol at the idea that discussion forums can or should try to settle things definitively.
:lol at what you say in here having any more import, legitimacy, or credibility than what I say.

[Yonivore]

One minute forum critics are undermining national security, the next they are inconsequential. Please pick a lane.
You honestly believe my criticism is of the posters in this forum? :lmao No, Winehole, you just parrot the ideas that are being espoused by real dangerous people, out there in the real world.

[Winehole23]

:lol at what you say in here having any more import, legitimacy, or credibility than what I sayI never said so. Each poster decides for himself whom to believe.

[Winehole23]

You honestly believe my criticism is of the posters in this forum? As stated it was a global judgment:


Let those that believe either act was unconstitutional make their case in court and quit undermining the strategy both administrations are employing to eliminate very real dangers to the United States.

[Yonivore]

I never said so. Each poster decides for himself whom to believe.
You try to tell others what to decide about my posts, so; that's not exactly a true statement. You and the rest of the trolls, in this forum, constantly snipe at the motives, intelligence, and various personality traits of the posters with which you disagree.

That's all well and good and, far be it from me to suggest you do otherwise. But, when posters devolve into a forum presence in which that's all they do, I put them on ignore.

The only reason you're not is because some of our exchanges occasionally begin as a true back an forth on ideas and positions. More and more, however, you devolve into insults.

Time will tell if I get tired of the pedantic back and forth in which you tend to engage to distract from the original topic; but, it's not looking good.

On this topic, I've stated my agreement with the Obama administration's position based on what I believe is his administration's reasoned and reasonable consideration of the challenge al Awlaki's circumstance. You disagree. Fine.

What's left to discuss? Apparently nothing when you start impugning the character of some anonymous poster on an insignificant nowhere internet forum.

[Yonivore]

As stated it was a global judgment:


This forum is a very minute, insignificant part of the universe of public opinion; and, I dare say, has absolutely no influence in current geopolitical discourse.

[Winehole23]

You try to tell others what to decide about my posts, so; that's not exactly a true statement.I express my opinion. That isn't telling anyone what to decide.

You and the rest of the trolls, in this forum, constantly snipe at the motives, intelligence, and various personality traits of the posters with which you disagree.Whereas you are above such petty sniping.

More and more, however, you devolve into insults.I insulted you somehow? Some examples would be nice.

What's left to discuss? Apparently nothing when you start impugning the character of some anonymous poster on an insignificant nowhere internet forum.Whose character did I impugn?

[Winehole23]

This forum is a very minute, insignificant part of the universe of public opinion; and, I dare say, has absolutely no influence in current geopolitical discourse.Agreed.

[Yonivore]

:lmao Keep masturbating over our individual roles in here, if you like. Suffice it say, I believe there are people identically situated as you that believe like me and I believe there are people identically situated as me that believe like you. Our personal circumstances, personalities, and situation have little bearing on what is argued in here.

So, back to the topic of the thread...

Where are the wanted posters with David Barron's and Walter Lederman's names on them.

Remember these?


http://www.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Screen-shot-2010-01-25-at-4.12.59-PM-200x227.jpg

Where's Code Pink? Did Cindy Sheehan die or something? The anti-war movement has been pretty silent over the past couple of years.

You say I'm inconsistent in supporting this administration decision? I say the left is inconsistent by condemning the identical action - taken by a Republican administration - while remaining largely silent when it's done by a Democrat.

I see that as vindication off John Yoo. How do you see it?

Who is being blindly partisan? I guess Obama gets a pass because, after all, he closed Gitmo, right?

[Winehole23]

Parroting the "dangerous" Sir Wm. Blackstone:


Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. … To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. …

[Winehole23]

Who is being blindly partisan? I guess Obama gets a pass because, after all, he closed Gitmo, right?What pass? You seem to have forgotten that I am the one criticizing Obama's policies in this thread, and you are the one defending them.

[Winehole23]

You better amp up the incoherence. Your grasp of the obvious is beginning to slip.

[Yonivore]

FDR Nominee and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson:


The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Presidents have, at various times in history, acted in ways that were extra-constitutional because they honestly and sincerely believed they were acting in the best interests of the American People and, to varying degrees of success, those actions have been challenged.

In court.

Personally, I'm satisfied that both Obama and Bush took great pains to arrive at the legal opinions, (granted, their legal counsels), to commit an act they knew would be controversial.

Let's get these questions into the courts and quit bellyaching, already.

[Yonivore]

You better amp up the incoherence. Your grasp of the obvious is beginning to slip.
You see, this is the kind of insult that doesn't really advance the conversation.

[Yonivore]

What pass? You seem to have forgotten that I am the one criticizing Obama's policies in this thread, and you are the one defending them.
You seem to have forgotten, I'm not talking about you but, the greater liberal masses outside this forum. The ones that were condemning Bush and Yoo for the very same thing over which they now remain silent.

[Winehole23]

You feel insulted?

[Winehole23]

You seem to have forgotten, I'm not talking about you but, the greater liberal masses outside this forum. The ones that were condemning Bush and Yoo for the very same thing over which they now remain silent.I'm not taking up a shield for them. My criticism has been consistent. Whoever bends with the political winds deserves the flames.

[Yonivore]

I'm not taking up a shield for them. My criticism has been consistent. Whoever bends with the political winds deserves the flames.
Okay, fine. Then I'm not talking to you, am I?

[Yonivore]

You feel insulted?
It was an insult, regardless of whether or not it offended.

[Winehole23]

I'll disregard the comment about masturbation then, since you weren't talking to me.

[Winehole23]

It was an insult, regardless of whether or not it offended.Well, it wasn't intended as one. Your posts are often incoherent and your grasp of the obvious is notably weak, particularly when your passion reaches a high pitch.

[Yonivore]

I'll disregard the comment about masturbation then, since you weren't talking to me.
Okay, it wasn't a personal characterization anyway but, a description of what I perceived you were turning this thread into. You seem pretty intent on making this about you and me.

Disregard it if you like.

Can we get back to the topic now?

[Yonivore]

Well, it wasn't intended as one. Your posts are often incoherent and your grasp of the obvious is notably weak, particularly when your passion reaches a high pitch.
That's your characterization and points directly to my earlier statement that you want to tell others what to believe about my posts.

[Winehole23]

Can we get back to the topic now?Sure. You have something more to say? A minute ago you suggested this conversation was useless/fruitless, and that you were done with it.

Change your tune much?

[Winehole23]

That's your characterization and points directly to my earlier statement that you want to tell others what to believe about my posts.I comment. People can believe whatever they want.

[Winehole23]

I thought you wanted to go back on topic. Change your tune much?

[Yonivore]

What's incoherent in the two positions I've forwarded in this thread?

1) I agree with the Obama administration's killing of al Awlaki and believe they did due diligence in justifying the action, and;

2) I see inconsistency in the liberal left's failure to condemn this action with the same fervor with which they condemn a nearly identical action by the previous administration.

[Yonivore]

I thought you wanted to go back on topic. Change your tune much?
Just as with this post, I was politely responding to your post. Now, do you want to return to the topic? I've reopened the door in my last post.

[Winehole23]

I never said those two positions were inconsistent. They aren't.

[Winehole23]

You can pretend those are the only two remarks you've made in the thread, but I doubt anyone who reads through will be fooled.

[Yonivore]

You can pretend those are the only two remarks you've made in the thread, but I doubt anyone who reads through will be fooled.
Those are the only two germane to the thread conversation.

Do you just like to argue?

What was incoherent?

[Yonivore]

I never said those two positions were inconsistent. They aren't.
Then, what's your beef with me?

[Winehole23]

Comma splices and unnecessary semicolons mainly.

[Winehole23]

If you will tell me what comments you found unclear, I'll be happy to clarify them if I can.

[Yonivore]

Comma splices and unnecessary semicolons mainly.
Seriously? With all the grammatical crimes this forum commits, that's your beef?

Well, alrighty then.