Anyone else find the killing of Awlaki disturbing in precedent?

[Ginevra]

In terms of Awlaki actually being a U.S. citizen? Does this say the government can decide some citizen requires assassination, since they are bad and are an enemy?

 

I'm not the most political person in the world and I'm not any type of outspoken activist, but I find it disturbing in principle.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Isn't he an outspoken supporter of terrorism against the US? Then he's a threat to our national security. I don't find it disturbing. He's actively involved in terrorism.

[TravelingChris]

No, because I read about the process when he was originally put on the list.

[Ginevra]

No, because I read about the process when he was originally put on the list.

 

What is the process? You mean, in order to get on a public enemy or terrorist list?

[5kidsforME]

Isn't he an outspoken supporter of terrorism against the US? Then he's a threat to our national security. I don't find it disturbing. He's actively involved in terrorism.

 

:iagree: What I find disturbing, is people that find it disturbing.

[Violet Crown]

:iagree: What I find disturbing, is people that find it disturbing.

 

An American citizen was deliberately killed by the state without process of law. Maybe he was as bad as the state says he was. Was that proved in a court of law? Maybe the killing can be defended, but are we really to the point that expressing concern about the limits of state power over the lives of its citizens is "disturbing"?

[Ginevra]

:iagree: What I find disturbing, is people that find it disturbing.

 

It doesn't bother you that the government can decide that this person is bad, therefore they should be shot or bombed whenever possible? That there is no due process, that due process is circumvented by decision that this person is an enemy? Well, where does that line exist? Why try any criminal? Why not just blow their heads off and be done with it?

 

I am not a political genius by any stretch and I know there is much I don't know about how the justice system works. I'd be happy to be filled in if there is a method that makes this situation different. It just looks, at least to my unknowledgeable eyes, like if the govt. decides a person or group is an enemy, any means can be justified to eliminate them.

 

Killing Anwar al-Awlaki will not eliminate terrorism. So, why do we believe it is a solution to kill any terrorist we focus on? And why does due process not apply to a person identified as a terror leader?

[Ginevra]

An American citizen was deliberately killed by the state without process of law. Maybe he was as bad as the state says he was. Was that proved in a court of law? Maybe the killing can be defended, but are we really to the point that expressing concern about the limits of state power over the lives of its citizens is "disturbing"?

 

Thank you - yes, this is what I mean.

[OLG]

It doesn't bother you that the government can decide that this person is bad, therefore they should be shot or bombed whenever possible? That there is no due process, that due process is circumvented by decision that this person is an enemy? Well, where does that line exist? Why try any criminal? Why not just blow their heads off and be done with it?

 

I am not a political genius by any stretch and I know there is much I don't know about how the justice system works. I'd be happy to be filled in if there is a method that makes this situation different. It just looks, at least to my unknowledgeable eyes, like if the govt. decides a person or group is an enemy, any means can be justified to eliminate them.

 

Killing Anwar al-Awlaki will not eliminate terrorism. So, why do we believe it is a solution to kill any terrorist we focus on? And why does due process not apply to a person identified as a terror leader?

 

:iagree: I find it very disturbing on a few levels. Those you mention and the fact that killing in the 'war' on terrorism goes unchecked. Who gave our government free reign to do this?

[bbkaren]

If gov't can decide he's a terrorist and kill him because of that, we're all vulnerable.

 

Look already at how they're changing the description of potential terrorists...military veterans, tea party activists, even people with certain types of bumper stickers on their car.

[Starr]

Have they determined who killed him yet?

[bkpan]

In terms of Awlaki actually being a U.S. citizen? Does this say the government can decide some citizen requires assassination, since they are bad and are an enemy?

 

I'm not the most political person in the world and I'm not any type of outspoken activist, but I find it disturbing in principle.

Absolutely. It is disturbing and I find it really disturbing that people do not realize the ramifications.

 

(Of course, in full disclosure, I will confess that I find ALL forms of murder disturbing and horribly sad. ESPECIALLY when it is the state making the decision which lives to end)

 

Kim

[bbkaren]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --

Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me --

and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Martin Niemöller

[Cricket]

I do think it is disturbing that a U.S. citizen can be targeted for assassination by the U.S government. However, is it a typical assassination when we are at war with the group of people he was leading? I don't think leaders of groups actively engaged in fighting our country and killing our citizens are the same as your average criminal. I guess this is where it gets sticky when Congress hasn't officially declared war and we aren't fighting a cohesive group or country.

[Cheryl in NM]

:iagree: I find it very disturbing on a few levels. Those you mention and the fact that killing in the 'war' on terrorism goes unchecked. Who gave our government free reign to do this?

 

Congress, thereby us.

 

If gov't can decide he's a terrorist and kill him because of that, we're all vulnerable.

Look already at how they're changing the description of potential terrorists...military veterans, tea party activists, even people with certain types of bumper stickers on their car.

 

Where can I find this information from a reliable, official source?

 

I do think it is disturbing that a U.S. citizen can be targeted for assassination by the U.S government. However, is it a typical assassination when we are at war with the group of people he was leading? I don't think leaders of groups actively engaged in fighting our country and killing our citizens are the same as your average criminal. I guess this is where it gets sticky when Congress hasn't officially declared war and we aren't fighting a cohesive group or country.

 

Didn't GW Bush declare war on terrorism after 9/11?

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to get my facts straight. I haven't been paying attention and this thread surprises me.

[Violet Crown]

What is a 'typical assassination,' for that matter? When I was a child, I was told that our country didn't engage in such things as assassinations. Nor, for that matter, were we the kind of country that engaged in torture. Or fought preemptive wars. Or held people indefinitely without charge. And these things applied to citizens and non-citizens.

 

Now we have all sorts of reasons why it's necessary that we do all these things.

[celticmom]

If gov't can decide he's a terrorist and kill him because of that, we're all vulnerable.

 

Look already at how they're changing the description of potential terrorists...military veterans, tea party activists, even people with certain types of bumper stickers on their car.

 

:iagree:

[Cheryl in NM]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44728678/?ocid=ansmsnbc11

 

I just read this article and there are some convincing facts that link him to terrorism against the US. Britain even named him as a terrorist threat.

[Violet Crown]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44728678/?ocid=ansmsnbc11

 

I just read this article and there are some convincing facts that link him to terrorism against the US. Britain even named him as a terrorist threat.

Were the facts convincing to the jury?

[celticmom]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --

Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me --

and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Martin Niemöller

 

My understanding is also that the laws that are being used to ban homeschooling in Germany now date to the Nazi era. Not a pleasant thought at all.

[bbkaren]

...Where can I find this information from a reliable, official source?...

 

Here's one I found right off the bat (specifically referring to bumper stickers, etc.):

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/missouri_police_given_chilling.html

 

others:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=95619

 

Official homeland security report:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Edited September 30, 2011 by bbkaren

[Cheryl in NM]

Were the facts convincing to the jury?

 

They are to me and I would be included in a jury of his peers. What about you? These terrorist group are trained to get into our social groups and gain acceptance so that it is easier to betray us and kills us en masse. It's a totally different type of warfare from what we are used to. It's scary and I have no idea how to conter act it.

[scrapbookbuzz]

What is a 'typical assassination,' for that matter? When I was a child, I was told that our country didn't engage in such things as assassinations. Nor, for that matter, were we the kind of country that engaged in torture. Or fought preemptive wars. Or held people indefinitely without charge. And these things applied to citizens and non-citizens.

 

Now we have all sorts of reasons why it's necessary that we do all these things.

 

This type of teaching occurred so as to not rile or panic the public. However, when you consider the various covert operation agencies the US has, what exactly do you think they do? They defend our country by whatever means are necessary.

 

I'm not saying I do or don't agree with it. Just think people should be aware of what proactive defense really is/means.

[Cheryl in NM]

Here's one I found right off the bat (specifically referring to bumper stickers, etc.):

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/missouri_police_given_chilling.html

 

another:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/

 

I asked for official, reliable sources. This blog might be reliable, but how is it official?

 

Using unofficial sources is a great way to cause mass hysteria. I'm not accusing or blaming you. Our media has made this an acceptable way to pass information, but it's really not. I'd like "just the facts" so I can, then, determine how I feel without being emotionally manipulated or told how to feel.

[Violet Crown]

This type of teaching occurred so as to not rile or panic the public. However, when you consider the various covert operation agencies the US has, what exactly do you think they do? They defend our country by whatever means are necessary.

 

I'm not saying I do or don't agree with it. Just think people should be aware of what proactive defense really is/means.

I'm not naive enough to think that we necessarily lived up to the ideals of the rule of law and of just warfare. I just think it's interesting that we no longer pretend to.

[Violet Crown]

They are to me and I would be included in a jury of his peers. What about you? These terrorist group are trained to get into our social groups and gain acceptance so that it is easier to betray us and kills us en masse. It's a totally different type of warfare from what we are used to. It's scary and I have no idea how to conter act it.

What about me? Good question. I think, if I were included in a jury of his peers, I would want to hear what would be said in his defense. More importantly, I would want to know that he was given due process of law, as is guaranteed in our Constitution.

 

I think I would want these things even more if the state had announced that I ought to be killed, and that other citizens agreed that it was so on the basis of what was publicly announced by the state and the media.

 

Another poster is arguing that our government deliberately misinforms the public, for good and necessary reasons (if I am reading her post correctly; I'm open to being corrected here). Am I supposed to believe simultaneously that our government and the media can be depended on to tell us if a citizen is eligible to be killed without process of law, and that I'm a dope to believe what the government and media tell me? I don't think I'm capable of that level of cognitive dissonance.

[bbkaren]

I asked for official, reliable sources. This blog might be reliable, but how is it official?

 

Using unofficial sources is a great way to cause mass hysteria. I'm not accusing or blaming you. Our media has made this an acceptable way to pass information, but it's really not. I'd like "just the facts" so I can, then, determine how I feel without being emotionally manipulated or told how to feel.

 

Cheryl, please look at my post again; I added more.

Thanks--

 

p.s. I don't disagree that this is a bad guy. And yes, a jury probably would have convicted him. But the fact is, unless we want to be treated the same way, we HAVE to follow the constitution with everyone.

Edited September 30, 2011 by bbkaren

[Cheryl in NM]

Here's one I found right off the bat (specifically referring to bumper stickers, etc.):

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/missouri_police_given_chilling.html

 

others:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=95619

 

Official homeland security report:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

 

Thanks for adding the homeland security report. That's what I consider an official, reliable source. Well, official anyway. :tongue_smilie:

[ChristineW]

It doesn't bother me. The process was open and transparent. We didn't seek to kill this guy in private; we didn't poison him with radiation and then deny involvement, His dad went to court to get the "kill order" removed and lost.

 

He wasn't within the criminal jurisdiction of the United States and Yemen wasn't going to extradite him. In the meantime, he had ordered two attacks on American soil (or at least was involved in the attacks) and was actively recruiting more terrorists. What if the US passed up the opportunity to kill him and one of his recruits bombed the Mall of America at Christmas time???

 

We didn't sneak into Yemen, but coordinated with their intelligence forces., This wasn't a typical assassination, but a legitimate military strike.

 

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but this doesn't bother me. I prefer targeted strikes to collateral damage. We got an enemy military leader and no civilians got hurt. It's a win in my book.

[eloquacious]

...

Edited September 30, 2011 by eloquacious

[Cheryl in NM]

What about me? Good question. I think, if I were included in a jury of his peers, I would want to hear what would be said in his defense. More importantly, I would want to know that he was given due process of law, as is guaranteed in our Constitution.

 

I think I would want these things even more if the state had announced that I ought to be killed, and that other citizens agreed that it was so on the basis of what was publicly announced by the state and the media.

 

Another poster is arguing that our government deliberately misinforms the public, for good and necessary reasons (if I am reading her post correctly; I'm open to being corrected here). Am I supposed to believe simultaneously that our government and the media can be depended on to tell us if a citizen is eligible to be killed without process of law, and that I'm a dope to believe what the government and media tell me? I don't think I'm capable of that level of cognitive dissonance.

 

 

Again, questioning because I'm not sure, hasn't our government always executed traitors without a trial? A US citizen planning attacks to kill other US citizens en masse and belonging to an organization whose stated purpose is to bring down the US is traitorous.

[Cheryl in NM]

Cheryl, please look at my post again; I added more.

Thanks--

 

p.s. I don't disagree that this is a bad guy. And yes, a jury probably would have convicted him. But the fact is, unless we want to be treated the same way, we HAVE to follow the constitution with everyone.

 

Thanks! :)

[Cheryl in NM]

Also, didn't GW Bush promised to hunt these terrorists down? Wasn't that an official declaration that Obama must be held to now, as well unless he changes the declaration or declares the law on terror over?

 

There was so much media interpretation at the time of 9/11 I'm not really sure what was official.

[Mrs Mungo]

How does one go about trying a Yemeni citizen living in Yemen for terrorism against the United States?

[HollyinNNV]

In answer to your question, no, I do not find it disturbing.

[TravelingChris]

He did have due process. It just wasn't a jury trial with him as a defendant. That was because he declared war on his country and refused to submit to a trial in this country. His father went to the Supreme Court with the case and was denied.

[Stacy in NJ]

They were just plain ole killed.

 

It wasn't an assassination; it was a killing of an enemy combatant. He declared himself an enemy combatant, not the US government.

 

ETA: Answering your question: No, I'm not disturbed. One less enemy trying to kill our soldiers in Afghanistan and innocent civilians in the USA and Britain is a very good thing.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[ravinlunachick]

What is a 'typical assassination,' for that matter? When I was a child, I was told that our country didn't engage in such things as assassinations. Nor, for that matter, were we the kind of country that engaged in torture. Or fought preemptive wars. Or held people indefinitely without charge. And these things applied to citizens and non-citizens.

 

Now we have all sorts of reasons why it's necessary that we do all these things.

 

ITA. As a child of the 80s, I was sickened when I saw our soldiers on the news, transporting prisoners with those black hoods on their heads. It seems more and more, we Americans are imitating "the bad guys."

[Mrs Mungo]

He did have due process. It just wasn't a jury trial with him as a defendant. That was because he declared war on his country and refused to submit to a trial in this country. His father went to the Supreme Court with the case and was denied.

 

:iagree:

 

For the record, a *lot* of criminals are tried by bench trial. Not every offense requires a jury trial under our legal system.

[Mrs Mungo]

ITA. As a child of the 80s, I was sickened when I saw our soldiers on the news, transporting prisoners with those black hoods on their heads. It seems more and more, we Americans are imitating "the bad guys."

 

Why is transporting them with hoods a bad thing? They can't see where they are being taken, they cannot see their captors in order to put a price on their head, they cannot tell what unit they are from, they can't see the technology inside of our vehicles or aircraft. It doesn't physically hurt them in any way. I see several good reasons for it and no physical reasons that it's bad.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Cheryl, please look at my post again; I added more.

Thanks--

 

p.s. I don't disagree that this is a bad guy. And yes, a jury probably would have convicted him. But the fact is, unless we want to be treated the same way, we HAVE to follow the constitution with everyone.

 

 

While our system is, I believe, the best in the world, it isn't infallible.

 

Do I find this particular case disturbing? No. But the principle, and the precedent it sets is disturbing.

[littlebug42]

It doesn't bother me. The process was open and transparent. We didn't seek to kill this guy in private; we didn't poison him with radiation and then deny involvement, His dad went to court to get the "kill order" removed and lost.

 

He wasn't within the criminal jurisdiction of the United States and Yemen wasn't going to extradite him. In the meantime, he had ordered two attacks on American soil (or at least was involved in the attacks) and was actively recruiting more terrorists. What if the US passed up the opportunity to kill him and one of his recruits bombed the Mall of America at Christmas time???

 

We didn't sneak into Yemen, but coordinated with their intelligence forces., This wasn't a typical assassination, but a legitimate military strike.

 

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but this doesn't bother me. I prefer targeted strikes to collateral damage. We got an enemy military leader and no civilians got hurt. It's a win in my book.

 

:iagree:

[gardenmom5]

:iagree: What I find disturbing, is people that find it disturbing.

:iagree:

[Shellydon]

Not at all. Good for the USA.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

..............

Edited October 3, 2011 by Gao Meixue

[Cheryl in NM]

I have no sympathy for him or any other terrorist, or any other person who isn't a terrorist but still HANGS OUT with terrorists.....

 

1. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

 

2. Play with fire and you're gonna get burned

 

3. Lie with dogs and you'll get fleas

 

4. If you don't wanna get shot, get out from in front of my gun

 

 

All of the above apply in these situations. Good riddance.

 

Thank you. It's extreme, but 9/11 was an extreme instance. It's going to take decades to clean up.

[LizzyBee]

What is a 'typical assassination,' for that matter? When I was a child, I was told that our country didn't engage in such things as assassinations. Nor, for that matter, were we the kind of country that engaged in torture. Or fought preemptive wars. Or held people indefinitely without charge. And these things applied to citizens and non-citizens.

 

Now we have all sorts of reasons why it's necessary that we do all these things.

 

I remember reading some books by retired CIA agents when I was in my 20's in which assassinations and attempted assassinations were described. I think we've been engaging in these types of activities for a long time, but it's not something that the government advertises.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

..................

Edited October 3, 2011 by Gao Meixue

[ravinlunachick]

Why is transporting them with hoods a bad thing? They can't see where they are being taken, they cannot see their captors in order to put a price on their head, they cannot tell what unit they are from, they can't see the technology inside of our vehicles or aircraft. It doesn't physically hurt them in any way. I see several good reasons for it and no physical reasons that it's bad.

 

I understand the need for blindfolds. It's just that the black hood evoked images of Americans taken hostage in the 80s, for me. However, I tried to google to find an example of such an image, and failed completely. :001_huh: Go figure. Perhaps I am more a product of the MOVIES of the 80s, lol.

 

My mistake. Carry on. I'll just slink back into my corner. :tongue_smilie:

[Unicorn.]

No it's not disturbing. He was killed in an act of war. The war on terrorism unfortunately doesn't have nice little boundaries to make it easy to define the areas where fighting occurs. Would you have found it disturbing if Hitler had been killed in the same manner? War is war. He chose to fight against his country, and he paid the price. What I find disturbing is that so many young Americans are losing their lives because these terrorists chose to play God and decided Americans needed to die and started this war in the first place.