Kincaid Blackwood wrote: Many people who scoff at this would think it just if Dorner was gunned down by police. "That murdering scumbag got what he deserved." is what they'd say. No need for a trail; there's enough evidence for the court of public opinion to make it's ruling.
Yet, somehow these same people feel like the government is in the wrong for killing a US citizen in, by all accounts, a far more sophisticated and thoroughly researched fashion. I'm not sure that the distinction they make exists outside of their heads.
Do you know specific people that make these contradicting claims?
One distinction is that there are not many expectations for police departments to exercise discretion in line with the constitution, LAPD just gunned down a vehicle out of less than reasonable suspicion for christ's sake. They should exercise more discretion but they don't. Whereas the federal government has much more power and it is absolutely imperative that it justify everything properly
For a long time (1970 - 1998) the USA used to harbor British Citizens who were waging a campaign of terrorist atrocities in the UK.
How would the average US citizen have felt about the British killing them on US soil?
there are lots of examples or combinations we could go into
it seems to me that many people simply cannot imagine other scenarios, dismissing it as a poor analogy to the "right and just cause" of the USA defending its homeland
Instinct Images wrote: So do you think the US government should act differently when it comes to drone attacks against someone who might be a citizen of the US versus someone who isn't a citizen of the US?
Seems to me either way we're killing a person without any justification other than someone deciding they are worthy of being killed.
I agree with you on the "seems to me". My point is that they are constitutionally REQUIRED to act differently.
Smedley Whiplash wrote: The idea being we revoke their citizenship before we drone them.
Guess you missed the entire Libertarian Party - fastest growing political party in the USA.
As for the "act" - a process already exists to strip citizens of their citizenship. It requires due process - a court. It was used in the 70s to strip a few people of their citizenship who served as mercenaries.
Now, if the evidence is so overwhelming? Why the unwillingness to put it in front of a court?
Andialu wrote: I can't say that I feel bad for the people that I know that they have killed. But I'm increasingly seeing the point that the slippery slope arguers are making. Obama is getting way out of control with the drones.
If you're going to take up arms against the United States AND you want Constitutional protection, then you should remain inside the United States or nations the United States is friendly enough that we aren't going to put a hit out on you and thus violate their laws.
Christopher Hartman wrote: If you're going to take up arms against the United States AND you want Constitutional protection, then you should remain inside the United States or nations the United States is friendly enough that we aren't going to put a hit out on you and thus violate their laws.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the protections afforded to a US Citizen by the Constitution from the US Government don't extend outside the borders of the United States?
So Obama believes that he has the authority to kill anyone, anywhere, using evidence he doesn't need to provide to anyone. Is he still using Bush's horrible drones, or are Obama's killer drones somehow better? Obama stated that "America doesn't torture". I guess that can be true, if we simply kill people there's no torture involved.
Beyond Vanilla wrote: So Obama believes that he has the authority to kill anyone, anywhere, using evidence he doesn't need to provide to anyone. Is he still using Bush's horrible drones, or are Obama's killer drones somehow better? Obama stated that "America doesn't torture". I guess that can be true, if we simply kill people there's no torture involved.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the protections afforded to a US Citizen by the Constitution from the US Government don't extend outside the borders of the United States?
There's a distinction between dealing with a criminal and combatant in a war. While you may end up killing each, the standards for doing so are different.
Case in point: I've talked to a number of police (including a guy who taught standards for use of deadly force with the DC MPD). What happened in Abbattobad with UBL would have led to a cop's dismissal--those are not acceptable standards for use of deadly force in a criminal civilian environment. But in a combat environment, where shots have been exchanged earlier, where the rules of engagement are different, where there is a time factor (otherwise the risks to the team increase exponentially or the viability of the mission disappears) and where the assumption is that there may be suicide vests in the building and people willing to die, the actions of the DevGru operators (to shoot at moving targets, to double-tap all males they bring down) is simply good smart practice.
I certainly admit that the ground starts to get fuzzy when we are talking about individuals who aren't in uniform who never formally joined a nation's army. But clearly al-Awlaki considered himself part of an army, he received training, and he sought to direct others to kill Americans (both our soldiers and our civilians). I think most would agree it's perfectly legit to target military leaders, to attempt a coup d'etat of sorts. The first question then would be: at what point does a group become a military target (rather than a criminal enterprise)? I think Al Qaeda has passed that point though I'll admit it's not a precise one. The second question would be: do you distinguish between how you handle Americans vs. foreign nationals in that targeting if you've concluded that they're the equivalent of a military enemy (rather than just a bunch of criminals)?
afplcc wrote: There's a distinction between dealing with a criminal and combatant in a war. While you may end up killing each, the standards for doing so are different.
Case in point: I've talked to a number of police (including a guy who taught standards for use of deadly force with the DC MPD). What happened in Abbattobad with UBL would have led to a cop's dismissal--those are not acceptable standards for use of deadly force in a criminal civilian environment. But in a combat environment, where shots have been exchanged earlier, where the rules of engagement are different, where there is a time factor (otherwise the risks to the team increase exponentially or the viability of the mission disappears) and where the assumption is that there may be suicide vests in the building and people willing to die, the actions of the DevGru operators (to shoot at moving targets, to double-tap all males they bring down) is simply good smart practice.
I certainly admit that the ground starts to get fuzzy when we are talking about individuals who aren't in uniform who never formally joined a nation's army. But clearly al-Awlaki considered himself part of an army, he received training, and he sought to direct others to kill Americans (both our soldiers and our civilians). I think most would agree it's perfectly legit to target military leaders, to attempt a coup d'etat of sorts. The first question then would be: at what point does a group become a military target (rather than a criminal enterprise)? I think Al Qaeda has passed that point though I'll admit it's not a precise one. The second question would be: do you distinguish between how you handle Americans vs. foreign nationals in that targeting if you've concluded that they're the equivalent of a military enemy (rather than just a bunch of criminals)?
Ed
Ed, you should know better. You are repeating hearsay. Not one bit of actual evidence has been presented to a court that al-Awlaki considered himself part of an army, received any training or directed anyone to kill Americans. We only have the word of the very administration that ordered him killed. NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE of anything that doesn't fall under the protections of the First Amendment. If such evidence really exists, why not present it to a court and get his citizenship stripped?
In fact, the Geneva and Hague conventions very specifically define combatants. And al-Awlaki doesn't fit the definition, and his son certainly didn't.
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution:
"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."
The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
There is no way anyone can honestly claim that the rights protected by the 5th and 6th Amendments were afforded to Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan.
Are you willing to be labeled a terrorist and killed? Because that is exactly what was done.
For a long time (1970 - 1998) the USA used to harbor British Citizens who were waging a campaign of terrorist atrocities in the UK.
How would the average US citizen have felt about the British killing them on US soil?
The United States is the only superpower left (for the time being). It does as it pleases and enforces its own rules and laws all over the world. The sovereignty of other nations is no more than a technicality for the superior power - "might makes right", as they say.
It has been that way since the dawn of civilization and holding the US to a higher standard than other hegemonial powers in history is an exercise in futility. They will do what they want, whenever and wherever they want until they will rack up so many enemies and overstretch their empire so badly that it will collapse. Such is the natural evolution of all great powers.
in your mind, does confirmed terrorist mean being:
A. charged as a terrorist
B. convicted as a terrorist
C. none of the above
because currently the government is and was using C. in Yemen, and habeas corpus hasn't even been suspended this time
the fact that they were Americans was just icing on the cake
terrorism is, and does have a much different meaning...so the REAL answer is "D" If you are a known and proven terrorist (meaning video and DNA evidence showing your involvement in terrorism) then the sentence is death however necessary, wherever necessary.
FlirtynFun Photography wrote: terrorism is, and does have a much different meaning...
Really?
Well, here's a note for you.
The UN has one definition of terrorism, DOD has another one, DOS has another one, the CIA has another one, the Brits use a different one yet, the Germans another one, the French another one - and that's without even getting into the definitions used in Central America and Asia.
So, what definition of terrorism are you referring to?
The UN has one definition of terrorism, DOD has another one, DOS has another one, the CIA has another one, the Brits use a different one yet, the Germans another one, the French another one - and that's without even getting into the definitions used in Central America and Asia.
So, what definition of terrorism are you referring to?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Your founding fathers, for instance.
It all depends on one's perspective. Historically, men in the finest suits have killed far, far more people than "terrorists" - both at home and abroad. The weaponry available to terrorists is rather limited, whereas suits have the full arsenal of an industrialized military at their disposal.
This is by no means a simple or easy issue. Even though I disagree with Al and some others on here, I think there are a lot of serious questions to be asked about...
....US targeted assassination
....the killing of US citizens
....the drone program
....uniformed military vs. individuals not from any specific nation state that we're at war with.
These are reasonable questions to ask regardless of your political affiliation, whether you support Obama or oppose him.
Those points acknowledged...
1. It's critical to distinguish between terrorists, criminals, and enemy combatants. A terrorist may want to blow up a bank. Or kidnap someone. At some point, a terrorist may cross over into being an enemy combatant. But the two are not always the same. And that's why it's a mistake to assume that military tribunals are the answer for all individuals, or that all individuals should be held indefinitely or that the same rights and rules apply to all individuals. The standards and rules of engagement in combat are different in a "war" then they are when dealing with someone in a criminal matter or when with civilians.
2. It's a mistake to somehow imply that it's a contradiction to support the drone program but oppose EIT. I view the EIT program as torture. It's not the same as someone putting a drill through your thigh, but it's torture. I'm not wild about state sponsored assassination. But I think there is a valid case to be made for them. But torture is not only often ineffective (people always talk, it's just that they'll say anything to get the pain to stop. They'll admit to killing JFK, robbing the crown jewels, being Jesus Christ, you name it). And to me, the line with torture is much messier and a more slippery slope than it is with assassination during war.
3. al-Awlaki is more than just a US citizen. He's a guy who:
--was jailed three times in Yemen. Among the charges were: participating in kidnapping for ransom (to raise money for Al-Qaeda), plotting to kidnap a US military attache, and plotting with another Yemeni in the murder of a French national.
--he's been identified as a recruiter of a number of Al-Qaeda members who later were enemy combatants.
--he issued a death threat against a Seattle cartoonist
--he has been directly involved with the individuals who participated in the 2005 London suicide bombings, the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, the 2007 Ft. Dix plot, the 2009 Little Rock recruiting station shootings, and the 2010 Times Square attempted bombing.
--he had direct contact and provide direction and inspiration to Maj. Nidal Hassan (the Ft. Hood shooter)
--he had direct contact with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear" bomber).
--the US and British IC have concluded that al-Awlaki was the planner behind the HP printer cartridge plot to smuggle bombs into cartridges on jets.
--there is no doubt that he's a senior leader with Al-Qaeda and we're at war with Al-Qaeda.
Originally he was regarded as a highly effective recruiter and PR tool. But in 2010, pretty strong proof emerged that he'd moved into formally planning operations aimed at killing Americans (both civilians and military) in addition to his recruiting and PR aims.
4. This was not the first attempt to "get" al-Awlaki. There are at least two other incidents made public where he was targeted (either by US assets or other governments acting at US urging) but he was missed. The US Govt. has provided plenty of warning that al-Awlaki was wanted by the USG and was even being targeted.
I don't tolerate government directed assassination efforts lightly. There are too many cases where they have been used simply to eliminate political enemies (Argentina in the "Dirty War" is a superb example).
My argument is this: at some point it is clear that an individual is at war with the US. And even if they are a US citizen, they have effectively moved from being a criminal or even a terrorist to someone who is a "combatant" actively engaged in warfare (either directly or as a planner/leader). And at that point, it's legal and appropriate to try to kill that individual.
This is by no means a simple or easy issue. Even though I disagree with Al and some others on here, I think there are a lot of serious questions to be asked about...
....US targeted assassination
....the killing of US citizens
....the drone program
....uniformed military vs. individuals not from any specific nation state that we're at war with.
These are reasonable questions to ask regardless of your political affiliation, whether you support Obama or oppose him.
Those points acknowledged...
1. It's critical to distinguish between terrorists, criminals, and enemy combatants. A terrorist may want to blow up a bank. Or kidnap someone. At some point, a terrorist may cross over into being an enemy combatant. But the two are not always the same. And that's why it's a mistake to assume that military tribunals are the answer for all individuals, or that all individuals should be held indefinitely or that the same rights and rules apply to all individuals. The standards and rules of engagement in combat are different in a "war" then they are when dealing with someone in a criminal matter or when with civilians.
2. It's a mistake to somehow imply that it's a contradiction to support the drone program but oppose EIT. I view the EIT program as torture. It's not the same as someone putting a drill through your thigh, but it's torture. I'm not wild about state sponsored assassination. But I think there is a valid case to be made for them. But torture is not only often ineffective (people always talk, it's just that they'll say anything to get the pain to stop. They'll admit to killing JFK, robbing the crown jewels, being Jesus Christ, you name it). And to me, the line with torture is much messier and a more slippery slope than it is with assassination during war.
3. al-Awlaki is more than just a US citizen. He's a guy who:
--was jailed three times in Yemen. Among the charges were: participating in kidnapping for ransom (to raise money for Al-Qaeda), plotting to kidnap a US military attache, and plotting with another Yemeni in the murder of a French national.
--he's been identified as a recruiter of a number of Al-Qaeda members who later were enemy combatants.
--he issued a death threat against a Seattle cartoonist
--he has been directly involved with the individuals who participated in the 2005 London suicide bombings, the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, the 2007 Ft. Dix plot, the 2009 Little Rock recruiting station shootings, and the 2010 Times Square attempted bombing.
--he had direct contact and provide direction and inspiration to Maj. Nidal Hassan (the Ft. Hood shooter)
--he had direct contact with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear" bomber).
--the US and British IC have concluded that al-Awlaki was the planner behind the HP printer cartridge plot to smuggle bombs into cartridges on jets.
--there is no doubt that he's a senior leader with Al-Qaeda and we're at war with Al-Qaeda.
Originally he was regarded as a highly effective recruiter and PR tool. But in 2010, pretty strong proof emerged that he'd moved into formally planning operations aimed at killing Americans (both civilians and military) in addition to his recruiting and PR aims.
4. This was not the first attempt to "get" al-Awlaki. There are at least two other incidents made public where he was targeted (either by US assets or other governments acting at US urging) but he was missed. The US Govt. has provided plenty of warning that al-Awlaki was wanted by the USG and was even being targeted.
I don't tolerate government directed assassination efforts lightly. There are too many cases where they have been used simply to eliminate political enemies (Argentina in the "Dirty War" is a superb example).
My argument is this: at some point it is clear that an individual is at war with the US. And even if they are a US citizen, they have effectively moved from being a criminal or even a terrorist to someone who is a "combatant" actively engaged in warfare (either directly or as a planner/leader). And at that point, it's legal and appropriate to try to kill that individual.
Ed
you mean like Treason? the term that the constitution clearly states requires a trail and conviction before execution
oh you mean someone that is actively engaging in war with us, like in a battlefield! in a warzone with a country we have formally declared war with like Yemen!
oh you mean that with stateless enemy combatants the ENTIRE WORLD is a battlefield and therefore any treasonesque person is actively engaging in war so "it's legal and appropriate to try to kill that individual"
Andialu wrote: I highly doubt it. But I wouldn't be too shocked if they were.
I would have been shocked if they tried to use one to take him out.
for one, it would have turned Dorner into a martyr and secondly it would unite separate factions of both the far right, libertarians as well as progressives and liberals.
Folks are already getting edgy about drones and their limits, the shooting of 2 broads delivering newspapers drives home the point of needing to limit police powers as well as having legitimate review boards with teeth.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Your founding fathers, for instance.
It all depends on one's perspective. Historically, men in the finest suits have killed far, far more people than "terrorists" - both at home and abroad. The weaponry available to terrorists is rather limited, whereas suits have the full arsenal of an industrialized military at their disposal.
One of the great bullshit quotes of history, since it isn't true and never has been. Yes, the term "terrorist" has been used for political purposes to label people who weren't in an effort to control or eliminate them.
Even the British Empire actually tried the American founding fathers (in absentia, but they did actually do the trial). Where was that of al-Awaki and Khan?
afplcc wrote: My argument is this: at some point it is clear that an individual is at war with the US. And even if they are a US citizen, they have effectively moved from being a criminal or even a terrorist to someone who is a "combatant" actively engaged in warfare (either directly or as a planner/leader). And at that point, it's legal and appropriate to try to kill that individual.
Ed
And a procedure exists for due process to be used in that case and their citizenship stripped.
What the government is doing and what you are advocating is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Full stop. The Executive Branch doesn't get to decide when the limits of the US Constitution don't apply.
Al, I understand your point about due process and so on. In a war, I think those constitutional rights disappear.
This is a very untraditional war. We're (for the most part) not declaring war on countries. The enemy isn't a state (unless Al Qaeda manages to effectively take over/play a leadership role similar to what they did with the Taliban in Afghanistan).
We've been very fortunate as a country. Since the Civil War, we truly haven't had large numbers of Americans who've decided to fight our nation and our own troops. But other countries haven't been so fortunate. Frankly Al, I'd worry much more about the idea of stripping citizenship--that's a pretty easy thing to do and to most people (especially if they were inflamed) would probably seem to not have a lot of consequences. But according to your book, once the citizenship is gone, then the big issues in this instance disappear. And I don't think that's the case. That al-Awlaki was an American matters to me. But it concerns me when we use a drone (or a special ops team) to target anyone. And to me the crucial factor isn't that it's an American vs. a Chechen or Azeri or Pashtun. It's that in a war, the rules are different.
Ravendrive, I didn't say anything about treason. I think it's unreasonable to argue that in a war, you could only fire on people you've tried in a court and concluded they've committed treason.
I'm saying that I think there reaches a point where someone aligns with elements who seek to war against this country. And not just aligns with hostile elements but actually engages in warfare. That individual has moved from being a citizen who's a possible criminal (with a host of rights....for instance, we'd have to get a search warrant to listen to conversations) to active warfare. Don't just think about the act of assassination. If he's a citizen with full rights, then don't we need a court order to listen in on his conversations? Or examine his bank accounts? Or steal his cyphers and break his codes? I have a hard time saying "he's a citizen with full rights, we can't target him as if he's an enemy" but then say "but it's okay to listen in on his conversations, try to steal his documents, monitor what buildings he's in, track his weaponry, seize his bank accounts."
Al, you're absolutely correct in that he's never been tried in the US. But for you to then claim that nothing has ever been produced in court or that it's all "hearsay" is inaccurate. British courts have seen sufficient proof to conclude he's a threat. Three times courts in Yemen have found him guilty of a host of charges including plotting the murder of a French national, attempting to kidnap a US military attache, and actually kidnapping a Yemeni. US courts have repeatedly found him linked and involved a host of terrorist and combatant activities against the United States. For you to argue this is "hearsay" is to ignore both the physical evidence already in existence, the testimony or confessions of a host of individuals (like the underwear bomber, and a host of other terrorists or combatants who have testified to al-Awlaki's direction), and al-Awlaki's own public statements.
Besides Al, in a war, almost all actions of deadly force aren't based b/c of proof that has been established in court. As I pointed out, if the DevGru operators in Abbattobad had been cops and UBL had been located in a house in Queens, they'd have been suspended for illegal use of deadly force...that would not have been considered a righteous shooting. He was unarmed, there was no demonstrated intent to harm the arresting officers, they gave no warning who they were (UBL could have considered them to be intruders). But in a war...special ops units and Omega teams use those same rules of engagement (heck, hostage rescue units do the same) as the DevGru operators in Abbattobad and that's considered appropriate and not murder or unjustified use of deadly force.
In a war, the rules are different. And for al-Awlaki, at the point he became involved in operations (for instance, the HP printer cartridge bomb plot, then the work with Maj. Hasan), he moved from a PR/religious individual to someone taking tangible action in a war that was aimed at killing US civilians and military. Not philosophically but taking planned, direct action and instructing others how plan and execute operations intended to kill our people.
Al Lock Photography wrote: And a procedure exists for due process to be used in that case and their citizenship stripped.
What the government is doing and what you are advocating is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Full stop. The US Government doesn't get to decide when the limits of the US Constitution don't apply.
Jesus Christ on a donkey. Government, every party, has been wiping it's ass with the constitution for more years than I've been alive.
"Full Stop"...
Do they have a community college where you live? Night classes are better than nothing.
afplcc wrote: Al, you're absolutely correct in that he's never been tried in the US. But for you to then claim that nothing has ever been produced in court or that it's all "hearsay" is inaccurate. British courts have seen sufficient proof to conclude he's a threat. Three times courts in Yemen have found him guilty of a host of charges including plotting the murder of a French national, attempting to kidnap a US military attache, and actually kidnapping a Yemeni. US courts have repeatedly found him linked and involved a host of terrorist and combatant activities against the United States. For you to argue this is "hearsay" is to ignore both the physical evidence already in existence, the testimony or confessions of a host of individuals (like the underwear bomber, and a host of other terrorists or combatants who have testified to al-Awlaki's direction), and al-Awlaki's own public statements.
Besides Al, in a war, almost all actions of deadly force aren't based b/c of proof that has been established in court. As I pointed out, if the DevGru operators in Abbattobad had been cops and UBL had been located in a house in Queens, they'd have been suspended for illegal use of deadly force...that would not have been considered a righteous shooting. He was unarmed, there was no demonstrated intent to harm the arresting officers, they gave no warning who they were (UBL could have considered them to be intruders). But in a war...special ops units and Omega teams use those same rules of engagement (heck, hostage rescue units do the same) as the DevGru operators in Abbattobad and that's considered appropriate and not murder or unjustified use of deadly force.
In a war, the rules are different. And for al-Awlaki, at the point he became involved in operations (for instance, the HP printer cartridge bomb plot, then the work with Maj. Hasan), he moved from a PR/religious individual to someone taking tangible action in a war that was aimed at killing US civilians and military. Not philosophically but taking planned, direct action and instructing others how plan and execute operations intended to kill our people.
Ed
You keep claiming that Al-Awaki was an enemy combatant (can't claim the rules of war if you can't prove that) and then you claim courts found him such when they did no such thing.
What proof did the British courts see? Present it. Oh, wait, you can't. Because it's sealed under the Official Secrets Act. Sorry, since when does the actions of a foreign court give the US the right to kill a US citizen?
Ok, Yemen courts convicted him of criminal acts. Does that mean the US now has the right to kill all the convicted felons from jails around the world?
And NO US court has ruled on any evidence regarding Al-Awaki. NONE. Not one. Stop spouting the administration line and do some research that doesn't rely on claims by the Executive Branch (the people who ordered him killed). Where are these court proceedings? Since they would have to be in the last ten years, you should be able to link to the court records. Good luck.
afplcc wrote: Ravendrive, I didn't say anything about treason. I think it's unreasonable to argue that in a war, you could only fire on people you've tried in a court and concluded they've committed treason.
I'm saying that I think there reaches a point where someone aligns with elements who seek to war against this country. And not just aligns with hostile elements but actually engages in warfare. That individual has moved from being a citizen who's a possible criminal (with a host of rights....for instance, we'd have to get a search warrant to listen to conversations) to active warfare. Don't just think about the act of assassination. If he's a citizen with full rights, then don't we need a court order to listen in on his conversations? Or examine his bank accounts? Or steal his cyphers and break his codes? I have a hard time saying "he's a citizen with full rights, we can't target him as if he's an enemy" but then say "but it's okay to listen in on his conversations, try to steal his documents, monitor what buildings he's in, track his weaponry, seize his bank accounts."
Al, you're absolutely correct in that he's never been tried in the US. But for you to then claim that nothing has ever been produced in court or that it's all "hearsay" is inaccurate. British courts have seen sufficient proof to conclude he's a threat. Three times courts in Yemen have found him guilty of a host of charges including plotting the murder of a French national, attempting to kidnap a US military attache, and actually kidnapping a Yemeni. US courts have repeatedly found him linked and involved a host of terrorist and combatant activities against the United States. For you to argue this is "hearsay" is to ignore both the physical evidence already in existence, the testimony or confessions of a host of individuals (like the underwear bomber, and a host of other terrorists or combatants who have testified to al-Awlaki's direction), and al-Awlaki's own public statements.
Besides Al, in a war, almost all actions of deadly force aren't based b/c of proof that has been established in court. As I pointed out, if the DevGru operators in Abbattobad had been cops and UBL had been located in a house in Queens, they'd have been suspended for illegal use of deadly force...that would not have been considered a righteous shooting. He was unarmed, there was no demonstrated intent to harm the arresting officers, they gave no warning who they were (UBL could have considered them to be intruders). But in a war...special ops units and Omega teams use those same rules of engagement (heck, hostage rescue units do the same) as the DevGru operators in Abbattobad and that's considered appropriate and not murder or unjustified use of deadly force.
In a war, the rules are different. And for al-Awlaki, at the point he became involved in operations (for instance, the HP printer cartridge bomb plot, then the work with Maj. Hasan), he moved from a PR/religious individual to someone taking tangible action in a war that was aimed at killing US civilians and military. Not philosophically but taking planned, direct action and instructing others how plan and execute operations intended to kill our people.
Ed
I think we can make our individual stances more clear: I don't disagree with you in principle, I am uncomfortable with the ill-defined procedures outside the realm of the constitution and the immediate consequence of continued reliance on the rule of law in the united states.
If you look at freedom indexes of various other free nations, they are rated by having courts that issue consistent rulings, less subjective policies, less cronyism, and freedom from corruption. Nearly two dozen score better than the US, and it makes me feel naive to try to rationalize the policies of secret memos as being in line with the rule of law bound by the constitution of this country.
The executive, the legislative branch will have to do a better job writing laws in line with the constitution, that don't need to be hid from the public and the judicial
Al Lock Photography wrote: You keep claiming that Al-Awaki was an enemy combatant (can't claim the rules of war if you can't prove that) and then you claim courts found him such when they did no such thing.
What proof did the British courts see? Present it. Oh, wait, you can't. Because it's sealed under the Official Secrets Act. Sorry, since when does the actions of a foreign court give the US the right to kill a US citizen?
Ok, Yemen courts convicted him of criminal acts. Does that mean the US now has the right to kill all the convicted felons from jails around the world?
And NO US court has ruled on any evidence regarding Al-Awaki. NONE. Not one. Stop spouting the administration line and do some research that doesn't rely on claims by the Executive Branch (the people who ordered him killed). Where are these court proceedings? Since they would have to be in the last ten years, you should be able to link to the court records. Good luck.
Al, you're engaging in a circular point. I'm arguing that in a war, we don't expect our soldiers to depend upon a court hearing or rules of evidence that would stand up in court (how do we know the intent of the opposing soldier--did he really intend to kill you when you fired first on him?).
You're saying al-Awlaki wasn't tried in a court or we don't have evidence that would stand up in a court of law. That's b/c you're operating from an assumption that implies/says we could go to court and effectively say "this guy is a criminal and we should kill him before he can commit these acts." I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think the state is justified killing under a couple of instances:
--self defense (someone is seeking to kill an individual and an officer shoots to stop that act)
--execution (as convicted in a court of law with a sentence laid down and appeals allowed)
--warfare
We're not justified targeting al-Awlaki b/c he was convicted 3 times by Yemeni courts. We were justified targeting and killing al-Awlaki b/c he was an enemy leader engaged in a series of plots to kill Americans during an on-going war. And there is no doubt that he was engaging in these actions. A range of other terrorists and combatants have testified (some under oath) to these. A wide range of evidence (including emails, phone conversations, documents and even al-Awlaki's public statements) have demonstrated this. And in a war, it's not expected that you prove in court that the individual enemy should die before you go out and target them.
You're talking about whether a court has demonstrated he's "guilty." I'm saying it's a war, he's an enemy leader who has been confirmed to have planned and executed operations that have intended to or resulted in deaths of Americans.
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
I personally do have concerns about private tribunals and national "security" chiefs making decisions about who to blow up.
the definition of terrorist of course isn't hard when we talk about people who participated in blowing up the WTC or other intentional efforts at mass casualties.
But in our not too distant past we have had GOP administrations and public officials (Hoover for instance) who if they had access to attack drones on US or foreign soil would in my mind have taken out a number of people whose threats they actually posed to US security, many of us might find not sufficient to warrant action.
Remember, that when at the height of the Civil Rights struggle in the 1950's and 1960's many civil rights activists were considered akin to domestic terrorists.
How would a stronger more pervasive Occupy or anti-globalist movement be defined by a corporatist AG?
There has to be due consideration to protecting US citizens from terrorists as well as protecting US citizens from governmental (and private/corporate) overreach as well.
Al, you're engaging in a circular point. I'm arguing that in a war, we don't expect our soldiers to depend upon a court hearing or rules of evidence that would stand up in court (how do we know the intent of the opposing soldier--did he really intend to kill you when you fired first on him?).
You're saying al-Awlaki wasn't tried in a court or we don't have evidence that would stand up in a court of law. That's b/c you're operating from an assumption that implies/says we could go to court and effectively say "this guy is a criminal and we should kill him before he can commit these acts." I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think the state is justified killing under a couple of instances:
--self defense (someone is seeking to kill an individual and an officer shoots to stop that act)
--execution (as convicted in a court of law with a sentence laid down and appeals allowed)
--warfare
We're not justified targeting al-Awlaki b/c he was convicted 3 times by Yemeni courts. We were justified targeting and killing al-Awlaki b/c he was an enemy leader engaged in a series of plots to kill Americans during an on-going war. And there is no doubt that he was engaging in these actions. A range of other terrorists and combatants have testified (some under oath) to these. A wide range of evidence (including emails, phone conversations, documents and even al-Awlaki's public statements) have demonstrated this. And in a war, it's not expected that you prove in court that the individual enemy should die before you go out and target them.
You're talking about whether a court has demonstrated he's "guilty." I'm saying it's a war, he's an enemy leader who has been confirmed to have planned and executed operations that have intended to or resulted in deaths of Americans.
Ed
US Soldiers are EXPECTED AND REQUIRED to abide by the rules of land warfare, the UCMJ and the US Constitution (which they swear an oath to). Sorry, but it doesn't matter what you want, those are the expectations and requirements. We court-martial Soldiers who fail to fill those expectations.
As for Al-Awlaki, all you are doing is spouting the party line. You can't produce one bit of evidence that doesn't fall under the right of free speech. NOT ONE.
If you could, you would have by now. But you can't. You are the one engaged in circular logic. You are defending the illegal actions of the Executive with their own unsubstantiated claims. No actual evidence, just claims that the evidence exists. No due process.
You claim all this evidence exists. PRODUCE IT! And of course, you can't. Because the only source for the claim that this evidence exists is the very people who ordered the killing without bothering to follow due process and present this evidence to a court. If this evidence all exists? WHY NOT present it to a court and get al-Awlaki's citizenship stripped? But they didn't. And we only have their word that the evidence exists at all.
So, if the Executive branch decides to label you or me a terrorist, you're ok with that.
afplcc wrote: Al, you're engaging in a circular point. I'm arguing that in a war, we don't expect our soldiers to depend upon a court hearing or rules of evidence that would stand up in court (how do we know the intent of the opposing soldier--did he really intend to kill you when you fired first on him?).
You're saying al-Awlaki wasn't tried in a court or we don't have evidence that would stand up in a court of law. That's b/c you're operating from an assumption that implies/says we could go to court and effectively say "this guy is a criminal and we should kill him before he can commit these acts." I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think the state is justified killing under a couple of instances:
--self defense (someone is seeking to kill an individual and an officer shoots to stop that act)
--execution (as convicted in a court of law with a sentence laid down and appeals allowed)
--warfare
We're not justified targeting al-Awlaki b/c he was convicted 3 times by Yemeni courts. We were justified targeting and killing al-Awlaki b/c he was an enemy leader engaged in a series of plots to kill Americans during an on-going war. And there is no doubt that he was engaging in these actions. A range of other terrorists and combatants have testified (some under oath) to these. A wide range of evidence (including emails, phone conversations, documents and even al-Awlaki's public statements) have demonstrated this. And in a war, it's not expected that you prove in court that the individual enemy should die before you go out and target them.
You're talking about whether a court has demonstrated he's "guilty." I'm saying it's a war, he's an enemy leader who has been confirmed to have planned and executed operations that have intended to or resulted in deaths of Americans.
Ed
under the same "disposition matrix" al-alwaki's 16 year old american son was also killed in a drone strike, in yemen, two weeks later
this is not supportable with the existing framework of this country.
I get that US soldiers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. But the point I've been making is that the rules of use of deadly force in a war are not the same of those for use of deadly force against a criminal in a non-war situation. I'm no lawyer but I believe that the members of DevGru acted lawfully and consistently in Abbatobad when UBL was killed. But be very clear: if UBL had been merely a criminal (let's say...a mafia don or drug lord who had ordered the killings of hundreds of people), then the DevGru members (if they'd been policemen) would have been suspended from active duty for unlawful use of deadly force, they would be liable for civil suits by family members for illegal killings and quite possibly they could be prosecuted for illegal killings. How could this be so? B/c the standards for use of deadly force are very difference in law enforcement settings than in wars. We do not demand that soldiers demonstrate probable cause before targeting or killing an enemy, we don't require a search warrant before they listen to enemy signals or search an empty bunker or hooch. If John Walker Lindh had been killed by US troops (rather than captured) in Afghanistan, I would not have considered that a gross violation of the constitution...our troops were at war and the rules for deadly force are different.
I said your argument is circular b/c you insist there is no evidence that al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant, I say there is, then you say that it's not evidence b/c it's not in a court of law, it's only hear-say. No Al, that's not true. First, by your standard, the ONLY proof is something that is in a court of law. So by your standard, the only "proof" consists of what comes out in criminal trials. That's an unreasonable standard. Second, there are hosts of legal documents (both in the US and in other countries) on al-Awlaki. There has already been discovery by the defense in the Hasan case and there are court records of hundreds of emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has admitted to meeting with al-Awlaki and indicated that al-Awlaki provided direction, planning and support with his plot. Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty and in court documents indicated that al-Awlaki played a key role in his decision to commit this act and facilitated his connection with Pakistani taliban bomb makers when he visited Pakistan. British Airways employee Rajib Karim is now in jail in the UK and in court that al-Awlaki contacted him to ask if he could get a package on a plan and then proceeded to plan with Karim how to smuggle a bomb on to a British Airways jet. The Yemeni courts sentenced al-Awlaki to 10 years in jail for the murder of a French National. Two bombs were planted in HP printer cartridges destined for the US. Not only did US intelligence demonstrate that al-Awlaki was involved (you apparently don't consider this evidence) but al-Awlaki made a video which was disseminated around the world in which he claimed credit for planning this operation and bringing it to implementation.
Now Al, none of what I've just cited is about free speech. None of it is based on intelligence or military data (except for the US data linking al-Awlaki to the HP cartridges). All of it consists of information in either British, US, and Yemeni courts, testimony or plea bargains under oath, copies of emails and stuff that is considered "evidence" in US courts should it be submitted.
al-Awlaki has gone from a motivator/recruiter to someone who is a planner and implementer of operations that have resulted and/or intended to result in the deaths of US military and civilians as well as other foreign nationals. And what's more, al-Awlaki has admitted this publicly, he's claimed credit for some of these operations.
It's interesting you'd claim that I'm spouting the "party line." I had no problem with earlier efforts by other Presidents involving executive action. For instance, I think the killing of Pablo Escobar Gaviria was justified...and the rationale for his targeting was far weaker than was al-Awlaki's.
Ravendrive, as for the death of his son, there was no intention to target the son. Sometimes collateral deaths occur.
I get that US soldiers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. But the point I've been making is that the rules of use of deadly force in a war are not the same of those for use of deadly force against a criminal in a non-war situation. I'm no lawyer but I believe that the members of DevGru acted lawfully and consistently in Abbatobad when UBL was killed. But be very clear: if UBL had been merely a criminal (let's say...a mafia don or drug lord who had ordered the killings of hundreds of people), then the DevGru members (if they'd been policemen) would have been suspended from active duty for unlawful use of deadly force, they would be liable for civil suits by family members for illegal killings and quite possibly they could be prosecuted for illegal killings. How could this be so? B/c the standards for use of deadly force are very difference in law enforcement settings than in wars. We do not demand that soldiers demonstrate probable cause before targeting or killing an enemy, we don't require a search warrant before they listen to enemy signals or search an empty bunker or hooch. If John Walker Lindh had been killed by US troops (rather than captured) in Afghanistan, I would not have considered that a gross violation of the constitution...our troops were at war and the rules for deadly force are different.
I said your argument is circular b/c you insist there is no evidence that al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant, I say there is, then you say that it's not evidence b/c it's not in a court of law, it's only hear-say. No Al, that's not true. First, by your standard, the ONLY proof is something that is in a court of law. So by your standard, the only "proof" consists of what comes out in criminal trials. That's an unreasonable standard. Second, there are hosts of legal documents (both in the US and in other countries) on al-Awlaki. There has already been discovery by the defense in the Hasan case and there are court records of hundreds of emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has admitted to meeting with al-Awlaki and indicated that al-Awlaki provided direction, planning and support with his plot. Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty and in court documents indicated that al-Awlaki played a key role in his decision to commit this act and facilitated his connection with Pakistani taliban bomb makers when he visited Pakistan. British Airways employee Rajib Karim is now in jail in the UK and in court that al-Awlaki contacted him to ask if he could get a package on a plan and then proceeded to plan with Karim how to smuggle a bomb on to a British Airways jet. The Yemeni courts sentenced al-Awlaki to 10 years in jail for the murder of a French National. Two bombs were planted in HP printer cartridges destined for the US. Not only did US intelligence demonstrate that al-Awlaki was involved (you apparently don't consider this evidence) but al-Awlaki made a video which was disseminated around the world in which he claimed credit for planning this operation and bringing it to implementation.
Now Al, none of what I've just cited is about free speech. None of it is based on intelligence or military data (except for the US data linking al-Awlaki to the HP cartridges). All of it consists of information in either British, US, and Yemeni courts, testimony or plea bargains under oath, copies of emails and stuff that is considered "evidence" in US courts should it be submitted.
al-Awlaki has gone from a motivator/recruiter to someone who is a planner and implementer of operations that have resulted and/or intended to result in the deaths of US military and civilians as well as other foreign nationals. And what's more, al-Awlaki has admitted this publicly, he's claimed credit for some of these operations.
It's interesting you'd claim that I'm spouting the "party line." I had no problem with earlier efforts by other Presidents involving executive action. For instance, I think the killing of Pablo Escobar Gaviria was justified...and the rationale for his targeting was far weaker than was al-Awlaki's.
Ravendrive, as for the death of his son, there was no intention to target the son. Sometimes collateral deaths occur.
Ed
so what states are we/are we not at war with. I get that its a stateless war, but would we have struck him in India? maybe a remote part of India? what about Indonesia, what about the Philipines or if he was in Belgium, or .... Tijuana
so far, the logic is not sound or consistent enough to rationalize an exception
I get that US soldiers are sworn to uphold the Constitution. But the point I've been making is that the rules of use of deadly force in a war are not the same of those for use of deadly force against a criminal in a non-war situation.
al-Awalki, his son and Khan were not Soldiers. They weren't enemy combatants as defined by the Geneva and Hague conventions.
You claim there is evidence. But you have yet to provide one shred of evidence. Just claims and heresay. NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.
IF it exists? Present it. We're all waiting.
Your whole argument falls apart because it relies on claims that are fundamentally untrue.
afplcc wrote: First, by your standard, the ONLY proof is something that is in a court of law. So by your standard, the only "proof" consists of what comes out in criminal trials. That's an unreasonable standard. Second, there are hosts of legal documents (both in the US and in other countries) on al-Awlaki. There has already been discovery by the defense in the Hasan case and there are court records of hundreds of emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has admitted to meeting with al-Awlaki and indicated that al-Awlaki provided direction, planning and support with his plot. Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty and in court documents indicated that al-Awlaki played a key role in his decision to commit this act and facilitated his connection with Pakistani taliban bomb makers when he visited Pakistan. British Airways employee Rajib Karim is now in jail in the UK and in court that al-Awlaki contacted him to ask if he could get a package on a plan and then proceeded to plan with Karim how to smuggle a bomb on to a British Airways jet. The Yemeni courts sentenced al-Awlaki to 10 years in jail for the murder of a French National. Two bombs were planted in HP printer cartridges destined for the US. Not only did US intelligence demonstrate that al-Awlaki was involved (you apparently don't consider this evidence) but al-Awlaki made a video which was disseminated around the world in which he claimed credit for planning this operation and bringing it to implementation.
Where's the video, Ed? Link to it.
Oh, and that "unreasonable standard"? IS THE STANDARD REQUIRED BY THE US CONSTITUTION!
al-Awlaki has gone from a motivator/recruiter to someone who is a planner and implementer of operations that have resulted and/or intended to result in the deaths of US military and civilians as well as other foreign nationals. And what's more, al-Awlaki has admitted this publicly, he's claimed credit for some of these operations.
And none of that qualifies him as an enemy combatant.
It's interesting you'd claim that I'm spouting the "party line." I had no problem with earlier efforts by other Presidents involving executive action. For instance, I think the killing of Pablo Escobar Gaviria was justified...and the rationale for his targeting was far weaker than was al-Awlaki's.
Pablo Escobar wasn't an American citizen.
Ravendrive, as for the death of his son, there was no intention to target the son. Sometimes collateral deaths occur.
Ed
So, there was no intent to kill him... he was just killed by a targeted drone strike two weeks after his father was killed.
You know, Ed, you have a huge blindspot when it comes to this.
| 
| 
| edu