*lifeoftheparty* Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) .......................... Edited October 3, 2011 by Gao Meixue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aura Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 You just sit back and enjoy the fruits of secret labor and leave the how's and why's to the big boys. Are you saying that people do this now, or are you saying that people should do this? Aura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*lifeoftheparty* Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvasMom Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 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. This "citizen" was a terrorist leader. I would be more disturbed if they let him off the hook simply because of his citizenship. This is hardly a case where a citizen dared speak out against the government. He was a terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DianeW88 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I never said I felt sorry for them. I just find it a disturbing precedent. And I understand the need for National Security and keeping some things secret. I just don't like where all of this is going. It seems the government has been given a free pass to do what it want under the guise of the war on terror. To quote Ben Franklin & Jefferson “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.†― Benjamin Franklin “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.†― Benjamin Franklin "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. " -Thomas Jefferson ETA: I trust the military and their abilities to do what they do. It's the people in charge, that I have a problem with. I'm with you. Our govt overstepping its bounds is much more a threat to us than any terrorist ever dreamed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 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. No. Homeschooling has been banned by in Germany since 1871. Hitler simply reaffirmed the laws. People like to blame it on Hitler because he is a convenient "evil figure" in history. This blog has a concise history. Didn't GW Bush declare war on terrorism after 9/11? Although that was a phrase he used, neither he nor any President has the power to declare war - only Congress does. Congress has not declared war since WWII. What it has done is authorize "Military Engagements" -- in Vietnam, Lebanon, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq. 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. You're probably thinking of Executive Order 12333 - pretty much all of the "above board" countries have one - it's where we promise not to use our intelligence service assets to assassinate one another's heads of state. Only we're not that specific. All it says is: No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination. Which leads to what others have written: what is an assassination, what is being killed, and what is being a dimwit in the wrong place at the wrong time? And, if someone really wants to get technical, what exactly does one call it when an extremely liberal head of state flat out orders the assassination of the chief of a world wide terror network? And then advertises it in the press? Is that better or worse than if an extremely conservative head of state does the same thing? Is the (now dead) chief not "really" an assassination because he is stateless? [wait, he had a passport] Or because he was the head of an organization, not a state? There were lots of questions about assassinations in the 70s, which led to EO 12333. I guess there still are. The one thing I *do* know is that, as a US citizen living in a foreign nation, if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time? Tough luck for Asta. It's up to ME to keep track of when demonstrations are happening, when the danger level is up, etc. - not the government beneath which I live. Nor is it the job of the US Embassy to save my @ss. It would be nice to think so, but no. And I'm not even on a watch list. :auto: IOW - the guy got killed. Idiot. a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) I'm as outraged as anyone over the abuses of power our government regularly indulges in. But in this case (which I am only just now hearing of so forgive me if I'm wrong), it doesn't seem like they even had the option to arrest him and put him on trial. If you were in a crowded mall and pulled out a gun and started threatening to shoot people with it and refused to back down, the police would shoot you. They wouldn't wait for you to run out of bullets so they could arrest you and give you your trial. Being an American citizen doesn't entitle you to a trial no matter what. If we are sure someone is guilty of something and we know that leaving that person alive could cost other lives, what option is there but to kill them? I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty either, but if it's a choice between killing a criminal or leaving them alive to kill a bunch of innocent people, the choice is clear. Edited September 30, 2011 by Mimm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Goldwater Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 So, why do we believe it is a solution to kill any terrorist we focus on? I respectfully disagree...in fact I do believe that if we kill any terrorist we find, we'll eventually run out of them. :lol: Not to make light, your original question is a good one and a thought-provoking post. My perspective is that we need to distinguish between crimes and the subsequent police/judicial response, and acts of war and the subsequent counter-measures...they're apples & oranges...even if he was a citizen, he was an enemy combatant...now he just...was... It's part of the problem with this new kind of war...we're not really at war with a nation-state...we're at war with an ideology, one that I characterize as Islamist Supremacism...And thank God that we've developed the kind of technology that allows us to target specific individuals over entire nations. Would it have been better to carpet bomb Riyadh after 9/11/01 because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Or nuke Kandahar and Kabul because they harboured UBL at one time? The old paradigms we all grew up with are shifting, and making the old ways less and less applicable, IMHO. Some say it's a curse to live in "interesting times." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I respectfully disagree...in fact I do believe that if we kill any terrorist we find, we'll eventually run out of them. :lol: Not to make light, your original question is a good one and a thought-provoking post. My perspective is that we need to distinguish between crimes and the subsequent police/judicial response, and acts of war and the subsequent counter-measures...they're apples & oranges...even if he was a citizen, he was an enemy combatant...now he just...was... It's part of the problem with this new kind of war...we're not really at war with a nation-state...we're at war with an ideology, one that I characterize as Islamist Supremacism...And thank God that we've developed the kind of technology that allows us to target specific individuals over entire nations. Would it have been better to carpet bomb Riyadh after 9/11/01 because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Or nuke Kandahar and Kabul because they harboured UBL at one time? The old paradigms we all grew up with are shifting, and making the old ways less and less applicable, IMHO. Some say it's a curse to live in "interesting times." Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginevra Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 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. Yes; well said. :iagree: 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. I would be interested in learning more about this. 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. Look I have no sympathy for him. I'm not a pacifist in any respect. I'm not saying it's a tragedy he's dead. As a prior Military Intelligence soldier, and a student getting her degree in Intelligence Studies, I can say with confidence that you are absolutely right. And I would like to remind people that you are enjoying a free country BECAUSE of these activities. The people who want to treat our enemies like pets and take them out to tea and give them a "talking too" usually have NO. IDEA. what war is about and what goes on behind enemy lines. Stop assuming that these people are rational adults, capable of negotiating peace and able to be reformed. They are not. You just sit back and enjoy the fruits of secret labor and leave the how's and why's to the big boys. This is not what made this country great. :angry: I live in a free country because of the guarantees of The Constitution. Not because of "secret labor" where guys wearing dark clothing skulk around killing people they have identified as a threat. I said nothing about taking him out to tea and giving him a stern talking-too. My assumption is that as a U.S. citizen, he does (did) have rights that I guess don't count, since he was identified as an enemy. I do find that a disturbing precedent. I am a patriot :patriot:, with a deep regard for the military, the special ops, those with the ability to defend our country. But I don't assume that anything the govt. decides to do is automatically just a-OK, because hey, that guy is really bad! 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. Hitler was not a US citizen. Can I go out on a limb and say I don't think any of the people, including me, would find assassinating Hitler disturbing. He was a clear enemy that we declared war with. I have no problem with assassination if it's clear who and why. I do have a problem with the foggy nature of all of this. What is disturbing is the fact that Awlaki was a US citizen, that we can't really trust the government claims and that the government has been given such a huge amount of power to track anyone for just about any reason. In addition, if the Lloyds of London suit was true, then we've been supporting the Saudi's who were responsible and clearing the path around them of their enemies. Hmm... If you don't understand the ramifications of this listen to this interview on the Mills Crenshaw radio show. You'll be surprised after the first 6 minutes of the interview. Yes, exactly.:iagree: I think it's "funny" how we kiss the britches of the Saudis at every turn as if *wink-nod* they don't support terrorism. Oh, but that's right - they have all that oil! :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 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. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unicorn. Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 What difference does it make that he was a U.S. citizen? He declared war upon his country, and the people in it. He abandoned the U.S. and was killed in an act of war in another country. If Hitler had been a U.S. citizen would that have excused his atrocities? NO. Would he still have deserved to be hunted down and punished? Yes. So what difference does it make that he was a U.S. citizen? None. There is no difference. Hitler was killing people who were Jewish. Al Qaeda is killing people because they are Christian. What does it matter where the murderers are from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 So if govt decides you've declared war on the US, for one reason or another (by THEIR definition), it's perfectly okay for them to kill you? Let's say you write a manifesto stating that you hate the US, and want everyone in the US to die. You wish someone would kill the president. The govt decides you're a terrorist and simply finds you and kills you - that's okay? Due process is the God-given right of every American (despicable as they may be). Including this one. And we should be thankful for it and defend it. Because one day they may decide we're the terrorists when we decide we don't like how they overreach their boundaries and say so. Freedom of speech is there to protect UNPOPULAR speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginevra Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 So if govt decides you've declared war on the US, for one reason or another (by THEIR definition), it's perfectly okay for them to kill you? Let's say you write a manifesto stating that you hate the US, and want everyone in the US to die. You wish someone would kill the president. The govt decides you're a terrorist and simply finds you and kills you - that's okay? Due process is the God-given right of every American (despicable as they may be). Including this one. And we should be thankful for it and defend it. Because one day they may decide we're the terrorists when we decide we don't like how they overreach their boundaries and say so. Freedom of speech is there to protect UNPOPULAR speech. Yes, that. What difference does it make that he was a U.S. citizen? He declared war upon his country, and the people in it. He abandoned the U.S. and was killed in an act of war in another country. If Hitler had been a U.S. citizen would that have excused his atrocities? NO. Would he still have deserved to be hunted down and punished? Yes. So what difference does it make that he was a U.S. citizen? None. There is no difference. Hitler was killing people who were Jewish. Al Qaeda is killing people because they are Christian. What does it matter where the murderers are from? Did he renounce his citizenship? As far as I know, he did not. That means he retains the rights of a citizen. It should not be possible for a citizen to be determined to be a target for extermination on the grounds that the state says they have evidence that they are a threat. Also, "hunting down and punishing" someone is NOT the same thing as KILLING them outright. If Hitler had been a US citizen, it in no way would excuse the atrocities he orchestrated, but it would entitle him to due process. Would we not be confident that Hitler (or Awlaki) would be punished to the full extent of the law? If the evidence is so plain, why could he not be brought to trial? Again - I'm not knowledgeable about law and politics or even everything that is going on in Yemen. There may be legal channels for this; I would not know. What I said disturbs me is the fact that citizenship apparently is no guarantee that you are entitled to the rights of citizenship. Apparently, the government can decide that if they are "sure" someone is really bad, it is completely acceptable to intentionally hunt down and KILL - NOT "punish" - eliminate someone based on the information they have. Yes! THAT is disturbing to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ria Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 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. This was a man determined to bring destruction to his "fellow" citizens, and he was actively working for this result. He acted on this, and was implicated in several plots. If he could have caused mass casualties, he would have. I have no problems whatsoever with his death. He brought it upon himself. I'm glad he's gone to...well...another place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) ...If he could have caused mass casualties, he would have... You know this how? FTR, I'm glad he's dead too. I disagree with the method. It also appears that folks are having trouble separating the PERSON from the PRECEDENT. With this precedent set, one day this same reasoning may be used against us, God forbid. Edited October 1, 2011 by bbkaren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ria Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 You know this how? FTR, I'm glad he's dead too. I disagree with the method. One day it may be used against us, God forbid. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-official-al-awlaki-tried-to-use-wmds-to-attack-westerners/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Just pointing out that nobody knows (or ever will, now) what WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. This isn't Minority Report; we don't kill people based upon what they "intend to do". Okay, stepping away. Thanks and goodnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 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? . No! That was a political statement. Obama is the new commander-in-chief. He can do whatever he decides within the limits of his power. Even if it were an "official" statement, the person in charge has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Your original question is a good one and a thought-provoking post. My perspective is that we need to distinguish between crimes and the subsequent police/judicial response, and acts of war and the subsequent counter-measures...they're apples & oranges...even if he was a citizen, he was an enemy combatant...now he just...was... It's part of the problem with this new kind of war...we're not really at war with a nation-state... The old paradigms we all grew up with are shifting, and making the old ways less and less applicable, IMHO. Some say it's a curse to live in "interesting times." I agree Quill's question is a good one that does need to be discussed as well as with the quote above that we are in a paradigm-shift which requires that we ask those good questions from a new context. I do think it's a huge jump in such a new context to go immediately from: "This American citizen in these particular set of circumstances was targeted" to "They can come after any of us next and he should have had a jury trial first." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I am going to have a nice gin and tonic and make a toast to him roasting in Hell. He was a self declared traitor who was waging war on this nation and attempting to murder his fellow countrymen. The only shame is that it took so long to get him. Seeing the report that he is dead made my day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I do find it disturbing. I'm hoping that understanding all the ins and outs will be a comfort, but I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Link to article that addresses this question in part: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/africa/yemen-radical-cleric/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Last year, Al-Awlaki's father filed a lawsuit against Obama, then-CIA chief Panetta and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to prevent the U.S. government from trying to target his son for assassination. A district court judge threw out the case in December, leaving open the question of whether the government has the right to kill Americans abroad without a trial. The American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that the killing was part of an American counterterrorism program that "violates both U.S. and international law. "This is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process," said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. But Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, said al-Awlaki was on a "special list" of individuals attempting to attack the United States that is approved by the National Security Council and the president. Targeting those individuals is legal and legitimate, said Ruppersberger, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who was in Yemen two months ago. He called Khan's death collateral damage: "He just happened to be in the vehicle." Early this year, a Yemeni court sentenced al-Awlaki in absentia to 10 years in prison on charges of inciting to kill foreigners. This article in the Washington Post is more thorough in analysis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html The Justice Department has refused to disclose the exact legal analysis it used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how it considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process. Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in national security law, said the government likely reviewed Aulaqi’s constitutional rights, but concluded that he was an imminent threat and was deliberately hiding in a place where neither the United States nor Yemen could realistically capture him. Edited October 1, 2011 by Laurie4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 As a prior Military Intelligence soldier, and a student getting her degree in Intelligence Studies, I can say with confidence that you are absolutely right. And I would like to remind people that you are enjoying a free country BECAUSE of these activities. The people who want to treat our enemies like pets and take them out to tea and give them a "talking too" usually have NO. IDEA. what war is about and what goes on behind enemy lines. Stop assuming that these people are rational adults, capable of negotiating peace and able to be reformed. They are not. You just sit back and enjoy the fruits of secret labor and leave the how's and why's to the big boys. :hurray: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 It also appears that folks are having trouble separating the PERSON from the PRECEDENT. With this precedent set, one day this same reasoning may be used against us, God forbid. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curlylocks Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) 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. As a prior Military Intelligence soldier, and a student getting her degree in Intelligence Studies, I can say with confidence that you are absolutely right. And I would like to remind people that you are enjoying a free country BECAUSE of these activities. The people who want to treat our enemies like pets and take them out to tea and give them a "talking too" usually have NO. IDEA. what war is about and what goes on behind enemy lines. Stop assuming that these people are rational adults, capable of negotiating peace and able to be reformed. They are not. You just sit back and enjoy the fruits of secret labor and leave the how's and why's to the big boys. The thing is. It will always be foggy AND IT SHOULD BE. We will NEVER know the whole story behind this. We can't. It's not possible. Whatever you see on TV is just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't matter how many books you read, or scholarly journals, or how many documentaries you watch, or how many soldiers you talk too. IT DOES NOT MATTER. The common American can NOT know the whole story. Information concerning National Security is secret for a reason. If you know the information, then you will know how that information is collected and analyzed. If YOU know, then the enemy knows too. If HE knows then he can change his operations/communications/methods and we are screwed. These things are incredibly involved and complicated, if you know part of the "real" story then it is easy to know the rest and that could be damaging to National Security AND will result in the death of innocent American soldiers and/or citizens. So Americans are going around with only what they hear/see/read in the media and making assumptions and essentially playing "Monday Morning Quarterback" when there is no possible way that they can have all the facts. All information put out there has been carefully edited to make sure that the important stuff doesn't leak. We were only under NSA for 2 years and for the REST of our lives, we have to submit any publications/writing that we put out (concerning what we did in the military) to them to look over before it's published. So does every other person with such affiliations. So every book you have ever read, or will read, about the CIA/NSA/Secret Activities has been reviewed to make sure that nothing leaks out. Same thing with journals, documentaries, the newspaper and the news. We will never have the whole story, we will never know all the facts, we cannot make proper judgments on whether or not something was handled right or wrong. So please stop feeling sorry for all of these evil people. Military Intelligence is very good at what it does and so is our military, usually they get it right, sometimes, they may get it wrong.... but that's life. Again, if you are doing what you're supposed to do and not mingling with terrorists, you don't have to worry too much. :iagree: That they should. If you want to be involved in the intricate matters of the how's and why's, or want to change/enhance the process, join the military..... otherwise, let them do their job. :iagree: I am going to have a nice gin and tonic and make a toast to him roasting in Hell. He was a self declared traitor who was waging war on this nation and attempting to murder his fellow countrymen. The only shame is that it took so long to get him. Seeing the report that he is dead made my day. :iagree: We should be thanking and supporting our service people every day for defending us. :patriot: ETA: No, I'm not disturbed. Edited October 1, 2011 by curlylocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeannpal Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 The penalty for treason throughout our history has been death. During the American Revolutionary War, if Benedict Arnold had been captured, i'm quite sure he would have been tried, found guilty and sentenced to death for treason. How is Al-Awlaki any different? He was killed as part of a war against America because he was actively fighting against the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 This "citizen" was a terrorist leader. I would be more disturbed if they let him off the hook simply because of his citizenship. This is hardly a case where a citizen dared speak out against the government. He was a terrorist. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisbeth Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I am not in the least disturbed. I think most people don't know what goes on behind the scenes to keep us safe. I personally HOPE there are a bunch of Jack Bauer types out there keeping things in check. War is not simple crime, as someone said earlier. We can't afford to be innocent and doe-eyed. There are people out there who don't think like us, with our sensibilities and focus on fair play - people who want us - including our children - dead, by any means necessary. I personally have NO INTEREST in treating them with kid gloves. I don't want my killer immune cells to negotiate with germs that want to kill my body...and I don't want terrorists negotiated with/coddled either. Jury trial! So he could be given a jail cell with amenities on our tax dollars for years to come? Yeah, no thanks. Losing no sleep here! Interesting debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Due process is the God-given right of every American (despicable as they may be). Including this one. . Umm, NO. God did not give humans any rights. You might want to re-check your Bible. Yes, that. Did he renounce his citizenship? As far as I know, he did not. That means he retains the rights of a citizen. It should not be possible for a citizen to be determined to be a target for extermination on the grounds that the state says they have evidence that they are a threat. If this were the case what is to stop immigrants gaining citizens just so they can fly planes into our buildings and kill thousands of their fellow citizens? Citizenship should not grant you immunity to traitorous behavior. Taking up arms against your country and planning attacks on your country is traitor, the penalty is death. One who dies as a result of waging war was killed on the battlefield. No! That was a political statement. Obama is the new commander-in-chief. He can do whatever he decides within the limits of his power. Even if it were an "official" statement, the person in charge has changed. I wasn't sure if it was anything official. BUT, if it had been official Obama would be bound by it. Every president can't just erase the laws of the previous president to start over. That would be ridiculous and our government would be even more inefficient than it is now.:tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seraphina Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I worry about the precedent. And I worry about living in a country where people celebrate death. That makes us just as bad as the terrorists that we claim to be superior to. As I tell my children, "be the bigger person," yes it's hard but I want them to have their principles and I don't want anyone to take that from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texascamps Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I do NOT find it disturbing. Firstly, he was guilty of plotting to do harm against the United States and to kill citizens of the US. His actual citizenship is simply a technicality and he used it to his benefit as I see it. I think that he basically renounced his citizenship when he established himself in a new country and began plotting to take the US down. He was not living in the US and never intended to come back. If he were living here as a citizen and simply trying to "change" the US through speech or whatever, that would be different. There are some laws against treason, sedition, etc. that allow him to be given the death penalty. I expect "they" felt lives were in danger if they didn't take him out. Yemen wasn't going to send him back. I sure hope they clarify laws so that when citizen terrorists do move off to other countries, conspire to kill Americans and hope to overthrow the gov't then its clearly within the law to stop them, even if it means death. I think they can write to the laws to restrict this power to only those that are an imminent threat to citizens of the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sputterduck Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I'm confused. Aren't people killed in war? He was a regional commander in Al-Qaeda, no? Since when are people in war given a jury trial? If an American joined the Germans during WWII and fought against us, would they have reason to think that American soldiers would not shoot them? In the Civil War, were we not killing Americans? Did they get jury trials? Oh yeah, 620,000 died in that war. All Americans. That's a lot of missed jury trials! I, personally, don't like it when people die in war. I hate war. Really. I just don't understand the idea that jury trials and war deaths have something to do with each other. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeslieAnneLevine Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 No, I don't think it sets any kind of dangerous precedent. The precedent worry sounds like hysteria. FTR, I am against the death penalty, but this is not the same thing. It's not even a matter of killing anyone who plots against the U.S. The underwear bomber isn't dead and he isn't even a U.S. citizen. Under different circumstances this Awlaki might have been apprehended rather than killed. I don't celebrate his, or any, death, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Umm, NO. God did not give humans any rights... :001_huh: Uh, okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retired Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 No. Homeschooling has been banned by in Germany since 1871. Hitler simply reaffirmed the laws. People like to blame it on Hitler because he is a convenient "evil figure" in history. This blog has a concise history. Although that was a phrase he used, neither he nor any President has the power to declare war - only Congress does. Congress has not declared war since WWII. What it has done is authorize "Military Engagements" -- in Vietnam, Lebanon, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq. You're probably thinking of Executive Order 12333 - pretty much all of the "above board" countries have one - it's where we promise not to use our intelligence service assets to assassinate one another's heads of state. Only we're not that specific. All it says is: Which leads to what others have written: what is an assassination, what is being killed, and what is being a dimwit in the wrong place at the wrong time? And, if someone really wants to get technical, what exactly does one call it when an extremely liberal head of state flat out orders the assassination of the chief of a world wide terror network? And then advertises it in the press? Is that better or worse than if an extremely conservative head of state does the same thing? Is the (now dead) chief not "really" an assassination because he is stateless? [wait, he had a passport] Or because he was the head of an organization, not a state? There were lots of questions about assassinations in the 70s, which led to EO 12333. I guess there still are. The one thing I *do* know is that, as a US citizen living in a foreign nation, if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time? Tough luck for Asta. It's up to ME to keep track of when demonstrations are happening, when the danger level is up, etc. - not the government beneath which I live. Nor is it the job of the US Embassy to save my @ss. It would be nice to think so, but no. And I'm not even on a watch list. :auto: IOW - the guy got killed. Idiot. a I love this he was a us citizen in a foreign land and gee he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time:lol: Traitor to his nation that would of killed me or any of you - yeah glad he is gone Love it Asta! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 There is an interesting scene at the end of the movie "Three Days of the Condor" where the CIA station chief is speaking to "Condor" (Robert Redford) about the realities of how governments (particularly the US government) work: Chief: “It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?†Condor: “Ask them?†Chief: “Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!†That was filmed in 1975. Sure, we're not talking about that exact topic, but the extrapolation holds. a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 :001_huh: Uh, okay. He didn't give us ANY rights. He promised salvation to those who believe his son died for our sins. That's not a right and WE have to believe to received it. The fact that our constitution states otherwise doesn't change that. The constitution is man's word, not God's word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginevra Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 Link to article that addresses this question in part: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/africa/yemen-radical-cleric/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Last year, Al-Awlaki's father filed a lawsuit against Obama, then-CIA chief Panetta and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to prevent the U.S. government from trying to target his son for assassination. A district court judge threw out the case in December, leaving open the question of whether the government has the right to kill Americans abroad without a trial. The American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that the killing was part of an American counterterrorism program that "violates both U.S. and international law. "This is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process," said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. But Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, said al-Awlaki was on a "special list" of individuals attempting to attack the United States that is approved by the National Security Council and the president. Targeting those individuals is legal and legitimate, said Ruppersberger, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who was in Yemen two months ago. He called Khan's death collateral damage: "He just happened to be in the vehicle." Early this year, a Yemeni court sentenced al-Awlaki in absentia to 10 years in prison on charges of inciting to kill foreigners. This article in the Washington Post is more thorough in analysis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html The Justice Department has refused to disclose the exact legal analysis it used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how it considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process. Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in national security law, said the government likely reviewed Aulaqi’s constitutional rights, but concluded that he was an imminent threat and was deliberately hiding in a place where neither the United States nor Yemen could realistically capture him. This is very useful information. I'm happy to know that there are organizations giving consideration to whether this is a violation of a Constitutional right. I'm happy to know not everybody is having a martini, glad that another bad guy is dead, procedures be dam*ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeslieAnneLevine Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 This is very useful information. I'm happy to know that there are organizations giving consideration to whether this is a violation of a Constitutional right. I'm happy to know not everybody is having a martini, glad that another bad guy is dead, procedures be dam*ed. I agree with questioning and examining these things, but they need to remain in context. This was a terrorist leader in Yemen, not a tea-party member or Wall Street protester, etc. To make that leap is nonsensical. What I don't like is people of influence trying to whip others into a frenzy for their own gain. I have a hard time buying that those on the radio/tv who are loudly declaring that this killing represents a threat to Americans' liberty really, truly believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 He didn't give us ANY rights. He promised salvation to those who believe his son died for our sins. That's not a right and WE have to believe to received it. The fact that our constitution states otherwise doesn't change that. The constitution is man's word, not God's word. FYI: The reference to having rights "endowed by their creator" comes from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution doesn't have quite the same language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginevra Posted October 1, 2011 Author Share Posted October 1, 2011 I agree with questioning and examining these things, but they need to remain in context. This was a terrorist leader in Yemen, not a tea-party member or Wall Street protester, etc. To make that leap is nonsensical. What I don't like is people of influence trying to whip others into a frenzy for their own gain. I have a hard time buying that those on the radio/tv who are loudly declaring that this killing represents a threat to Americans' liberty really, truly believe that. Well, not that it matters, but I did draw this concern on my own, without hearing any "spin" about it from any news organization. I saw on the morning news that he had been killed and knew that he was a US citizen. I drew the concerns about due process from my own brain. I immediately turned to dh and said, "How can that be? Can the government decide someone is a threat and target them simply because they agree he's a threat?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Not only do I find the lack of due process disturbing, the fact that most people don't seem to care sickens me. I have just about given up hope in Americans...I don't know what to do anymore. To execute a US citizen, without due process, outside a declared warzone, is a terrible precedent. I don't like the idea of one person being judge, jury, and executioner. If you want to throw out the Constitution, at least have the guts to say so. A CITIZEN SHALL NOT BE DENIED DUE PROCESS, even an alleged terrorist. I envision a day where Christians are considered enemies of the government, and we will be hunted down and killed without due process. Do you not see how the Constitution protects us? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. P.S. Don't even start to pull some "sit back and let the big boys do what they have to do" kind of BS with me. Edited October 1, 2011 by tntgoodwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) nm Edited October 2, 2011 by Osmosis Mom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntgoodwin Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Could someone point me to where Awlaki has become a terrorist? I have not followed the news and was stunned to hear a couple of years ago that he now was a terrorist. As far as I understand it (and I barely follow the news, so bear with me as you get all excited), then he spoke out about the US gov. but I have not heard anything beyond that. I know that millions of Muslims listen to his wonderful non-political audio sessions that are historically interesting and spiritually moving. I am just curious if he was being used as a scapegoat because he was anti-US -which is not the same as wanting to kill US citizens or eradicate the country. Someone please show me some links where Awlaki talks, not where he is being accused of having said this or that. I can't search on my own computer (might bring me to sites that would not look good for me in case somebody ceases my laptop, ifkwim). It doesn't matter what he did or said, it only matters what our all-knowing, benevolent government claims he did or said. Of course, he was denied a trial, since it was believed that they wouldn't be able to convict due to a lack of evidence. That's okay, though, he has been tried in the court of public opinion, and by the Federal government. Nothing to worry about citizen, move along. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Could someone point me to where Awlaki has become a terrorist? I have not followed the news and was stunned to hear a couple of years ago that he now was a terrorist. As far as I understand it (and I barely follow the news, so bear with me as you get all excited), then he spoke out about the US gov. but I have not heard anything beyond that. I know that millions of Muslims listen to his wonderful non-political audio sessions that are historically interesting and spiritually moving. I am just curious if he was being used as a scapegoat because he was anti-US -which is not the same as wanting to kill US citizens or eradicate the country. Someone please show me some links where Awlaki talks, not where he is being accused of having said this or that. I can't search on my own computer (might bring me to sites that would not look good for me in case somebody ceases my laptop, ifkwim). No, actually, I don't know what you mean. Are you stating or implying or indicating that you fear your personal property might be seized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seraphina Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Someone please show me some links where Awlaki talks, not where he is being accused of having said this or that. I can't search on my own computer (might bring me to sites that would not look good for me in case somebody ceases my laptop, ifkwim). Slightly off topic but I am so sorry that you have to be afraid. That should speak volumes to all and it does to me. The fact is our freedom is becoming less and less, and when citizens are afraid to google something because it is about a supposed muslim terrorist and they are afraid because they themselves are muslim we should be very afraid. I am so sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) nm Edited October 2, 2011 by Osmosis Mom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.