Drone Kills Top Al Qaeda Figure 885
wiredmikey writes with this excerpt from a Wall Street Journal report:
"The U.S. ushered in a new CIA-led counterterrorism program in Yemen on Friday, sending unmanned aircraft to kill an American-born cleric who occupied a top place on the U.S.'s anti-terrorist list. The death of Anwar al-Awlaki eliminates a leading figure in Yemen's branch of al Qaeda and one of its most charismatic recruiters. A Web-savvy Islamic preacher with sparkling English, Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth. He had been linked to suspects in the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree and the botched bombing of a Detroit-bound jet that Christmas."
5th Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I highlighted the relevant part.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are correct in that this would qualify as an exception, but it is still a slippery slope. What if he had been on US soil? Or in Canada or Mexico? Aren't they "allies" as well, so why would it make a difference?
Obviously he wasn't here or in a truly 'friendly' country, but the question remains, where do we draw the line? When it comes to US citizens, it is more of a problem, even though the Constitution doesn't differentiate "citizen" and "person". We just take the government killing a citiz
Re: (Score:3)
US soil doesn't make a difference on Due Process, I think. According to the media, the judge in the case said that if he wanted due process, he could hand himself in, but otherwise the courts shouldn't step in. What bothers me is that his dad had to sue to get it before a judge in the first place--it seems to me that there should be at least a magistrate or neutral arbiter involved, and that you should have the same constitutional standards you do for convicting someone of treason--or at least probable ca
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that there is no evidence he was a combatant or a spy! What combat was he involved in? What spying did he do? There is no evidence that he was a member of Al-Qaeda except innuendo. There is no evidence that he was involved in training missions. There is innuendo, the worst possible evidence, that he recruited people and that is all. Or there is this claim from US officials that they have evidence that he had an "operational role" in terrorist activities, but they leave this completely undefined.
He stopped being a citizen because he merely said he renounced his citizenship? That is not how you lose US citizenship.
In my opinion, the US executive branch, be it Obama or his underlings, murdered a US citizen.
But if you want to contradict me, you can send me some citations and I'll reconsider. Don't just send me to the Wikipedia page though where too often their citations do not match up with the claims made.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice strawman with the nazi party there.
Unless one of those so called "traitors" starts killing people or launching attacks or spilling classified information or something, they are unpopular airheads with an unwelcome opinion, but nothing more.
The only thing you mentioned that was worthy of action was intelligence mission.
Re: (Score:3)
but it is still a slippery slope.
I don't think this is "slippery" at all... this is a clear case of someone who was an enemy of the state operating from within a nation where we are already fighting militarily.
where do we draw the line?
You don't draw "a line", because it's a subjective decision. You leave it up to the Commander-In-Chief. If he's "wrong", he pays for it either politically or through the actions of Congress or the courts.
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to US citizens, it is more of a problem, even though the Constitution doesn't differentiate "citizen" and "person".
This IS the precedent for that, as al-Awlaki was a US Citizen.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Anwar al-Awlaki was not and had never been a member of the US military, which is what that clause is plainly referring to. And even the military doesn't have carte blanche to just slaughter people - they're (in theory at least) bound by treaties and rules of engagement. No matter how you slice it, this was a US president ordering (or even worse, the CIA and DoD acting without orders) a US citizen killed far from any battlefield without presenting a shred of evidence to a jury.
There would be also some question about whether this was a time of war, as no declaration of war has ever been passed by Congress against Iraq, Afghanistan, or Al Qaida. Regarding "public danger", your chance of being killed by a terrorist has never been greater than your chance of being killed by a washing machine.
Re: (Score:3)
They are also bound by the constitution. The military does not have the right to violate it, although the courts would give them a lot of leeway to bend it if they claimed they had to. (See, e.g., the Korematsu case.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By this reasoning, a US citizen who simply went overseas and, oh, joined the German army during World War II couldn't be shot either. You say "far from any battlefield", but you are not claiming that the fifth amendment doesn't apply to battlefields, you are claiming that it doesn't apply to people who are not members of the US military, which a German soldier wouldn't be.
Of course, someone who is fighting the US "far from any battlefield" is, since he is fighting, actually on the battlefield.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
World War 2 was a real war, with a declaration by Congress. The "war on terror" is not. Thus the other side are not "soldiers" and your comparison is invalid.
Terrorist activity, like it or not, is *criminal* activity and not under the rules of war, regardless of how the press refers to it.
Re: (Score:3)
The Cold War is convenient phrase to describe the political climate, not an actual â warâ. It is on the same level as the â warsâ on poverty, drugs and violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This is not true and would lead to ridiculous situations considering that someone could be forcibly conscripted into a foreign military.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
You're chance of being killed by a terrorist is low, but the chance of a US citizen being killed is over 300 million times higher. Or are you saying that elected officials should only be concerned about you and not all citizens?
I'm strongly against the death penalty. I think it's barbaric and has at least one overwhelming reason not to do it - you can't reverse mistakes. However, in the case of people who are spending their entire lives working out ways to kill their fellow citizens in wholesale quantities using military grade weapons if available or airplanes if not, I'm willing to make an exception.
I would argue that this cleric would have been more than happy to renounce his citizenship, except he knew full well that visiting an embassy to sign the required paperwork would not end well for him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"A war is between two governments and involves armies."
Do words mean anything to you or do you just "make shit up" ?
Asymmetric unconventional warfare by non-state actors is old news (for example the old worldwide Communist revolutionary movement) and is much more than "crime".
Attacking external combatants who happen to hold an own-side passport is well within the accepted law of war.
No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him. His c
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
During World War I and II, individuals in some cases joined the armies of those nations fighting against the US. That made them legitimate targets for military action. The most significant precedent however, is the US Civil War.
It would be hard to argue that a leader in a group that the US has effectively declared war on (including resolutions of Congress that authorize military force) is not a legitimate military target.
Re: (Score:3)
The most significant precedent however, is the US Civil War.
A civil war is one in which two (or more) groups fight for control of the same government. The southern states did not want to control the entire union, therefore it should be called the war for southern independence, not the civil war.
Re: (Score:3)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+war [reference.com]
civil war
noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
Not accurate. The States that seceded attepted to setup a federal government, which included a constitution. They may not have tried to rule the ENTIRE US, but that does not mean it was not a civil war.
In Sudan for instance, the South recently gained independance from the north. They ever tried to control the north. But it was still called a civili war.
The only people who dont cal
during vietnam (Score:3, Insightful)
we went around to villages executing civilians because they were "aiding the enemy". how did we know? we just knew. stop asking questions hippie.
of course, when a radical leftist president starts executing right wing militia people without due process, rush limbaugh will shit a brick. .
Re: (Score:3)
You know going after Awlaki wasn't some random act like Calley turning his troops loose on Son My.
One doesn't waste extremely expensive mission resources plinking J. Random Jihadist.
A YEMENITE judge BTW ordered he be captured "dead or alive", so local due process was indeed followed.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, can you declare a war with al-Qaeda?
Not that I particularly object to this guy's death, but the legalities are potentially troubling.
Re: (Score:3)
If a US born person happened to serve with the Barbary Pirates, you think that would have made them not a legitimate target for the military reprisal?
Authorized military action isn't only a congressional resolution that explicitly calls it war.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
If you killed Hitler, all you would have gotten was a martyr to the Nazi cause, and a better commander in chief at the head of their military. Would you have assassinated Hitler if it meant the Nazis won on D-Day? If they never invaded Russia and lost their forces to the general winter or, God forbid, they remained allies through the end of the war? Imagine an axis that stretched uninterrupted from Vichy France all the way to Japan.
Why is it that people always forget that actions have consequences? France and England CREATED Hitler through their brutal oppression of Germany. The US CREATED al-Qaeda via decades of interference in Mideast politics, especially propping up Saudi dictators. Continued interference will do nothing but make it worse and worse, until some figure appears in the Middle East and unites the whole Arab world, and we find that we are facing a nuclear armed Arab superpower with a hundred years of hate staring at us across the Atlantic as our economy falls apart and our military become unsustainable.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? If you could time travel, you would have assassinated Hitler?
Nope.
If i could time travel, i'd make it my mission to go back and beat the shit out of fucked up people in history.
Hitler? I'd probably go back and beat him up as a kid, sheesh, he might deserve a few visits during his timeline.
Ronald Reagen? I'd hit him so hard he'd go senile.
Let's see, who else deserves a historical beatdown. there we go, new reality series!!!!
"Historical Beatdown!!! The only show where you can pick a MMA athlete to go back in time and beat the crap out of some famous person!!!!
Didn
Re: (Score:2)
US wars - hahaha! Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now - the World - hahaha!
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
that highlighted section is meant to refer to the UCMJ for active duty military personnel during a time of war or public danger.
It does not, in any way, say that when a war is going on, you can suspend the 5th amendment. It only means that in a time of war, active duty military personnel are not granted due process by the constitution.
Regular citizens are granted full protection of due process in all times.
don't even attempt to think that this wasn't a violation of the constitution.
I'll abridge to the pertinent bits for you: {No person, except in cases in the forces or militia in actual service in time of war, shall be deprived of life without due process of law}
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Came here to say this. It's amazing what our government decides it can get away with. Once we allow it to have the power to do this for someone who was most certainly guilty, we have given it the power to do this with anyone else it decides is guilty enough. It's very dangerous territory that we need to retreat from. End American imperialism. It's time we got rid of Obushma.
Re: (Score:3)
And replace Obushma with who? Down with the Republicans! Down with the Democrats!
Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"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"
He's in the land forces. He's just in service in the land forces of an enemy.
That sort of thing happens when you commit treason and declare war against the country you're supposedly a citizen in...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. We're not at war with Yemen
2. Who decides that someone deserves to die? Who is this 'government' you refer to?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying that governments are the only international actors that matter?
IOs matter very much in our present international system. Anwar al-Awlaki was a member of an international non-state military force, that has declared war against the United States. He is no different than any other enemy soldier.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
"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"
He's in the land forces. He's just in service in the land forces of an enemy.
That sort of thing happens when you commit treason and declare war against the country you're supposedly a citizen in...
They say he did that BUT if you read his speeches it doesn't quite jibe with the claims so this is fierce propaganda. Also, the declaration of war must be against a soverign nation and not an idealistic and nebulous term such as terrorism. By definition that can mean anyone who doesn't like the US. Al Queda isn't a soverign nation and there is no evidence he was actually a member. Rooting for those who fight arguably illegal US operations abroad isn't treason. If it is then we are in deep caca. If, in fact, he is guilty of the alleged crimes why was there no grand jury indictment or warrant out for his arrest? Now it is moot because he is dead. The "secret" list has 12 names on it of US citizens targeted for assassination and none have been vetted through any legal process
Re:5th Amendment - indite him? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know of no proof that the played a role in AlQueda. I'm talking proof, not propaganda. If there was proof, he could have been charged, but he was never charged...
It's the politically motivated assassination of a USA citizen by the USA government with no justifiable legal reason or attempt at process.
What the hell else could it be? And it troubles me on so many levels. And the basic fact is that the few speeches I've heard on youtube were normal and righteous positions I generally agreed with.
Ops.. did I just make myself a target .. get it.. GET IT! .. Stupid cock-suckers.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
The part that weirds me out is how some well-known terrorist leader gets taken down and we're all of a sudden concerned about who we're killing over there? What about all the innocent people we're killing all the time? Nobody seems to care much about that.
Re: (Score:2)
But that would have probably required a fourth war to occupy Yemen.
Yemen is a US ally. If they had asked, they probably would have received...
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
The president of Yemen is a US ally. The country itself just re-formed after being split and then reunited in a civil war. It's not like say Canada where the US embassy can make a request to extradite a criminal in say Calgary and the Prime Minister or Justice Minister calls the chief of police in Calgary to just go arrest the guy. Hence the statement US forces "occupy" because the president of Yemen isn't in control of the whole country.
Re: (Score:3)
The president of Yemen is a US ally.
Is it the same president that slaughters his own people?
Nice allies you have. I guess it's ok if he does it, since he's your "ally", right?
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
the guy was calling for the destruction of the US Constitution and the implementation of Sharia law
He was practicing his 1st amendment rights.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Constitutionally when a cop sees a person threatening the life of another the officers is not permitted too use deadly force to stop the act?
They are allowed. But what is not allowed is following the perp home and while they are sitting there watching TV, pointing your gun through the window and assassinating them.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how long before they start doing this on American soil? How long before they dispense with use of drones and authorize police in the streets to execute "terrorists" at will?
Re: (Score:3)
We're at war with Yemen?
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4)
Yeah so? So does every serial killer or drunk driver. That doesn't change the fact that they get a trial.
Besides, now that the president has carte blanche to kill anyone he wants without any proof or evidence, guess who's the real danger to Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you a total retard or just too doped up on your "America Fuck Yeah" bong? The assertion that countless civilians have been killed is obvious beyond the need for citation. But how about a look at what some of our "heros" have done recently (I know abu ghraib is probably too far back for your memory).
How about this group of Hero Soldiers in Afghanistan who murdered innocents for fun, took photos, and kept body parts as trophies: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/ [rollingstone.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You missed "shall be held to answer" (Score:3)
You missed the beginning of the sentence, which is that "no person shall be held to answer for" - that means brought in to a court process. You can't have a court case for capital or infamous crimes simply on the accusation of a prosecutor or police, unlike for petty crimes. Obama's gang didn't have a court case here, they declared him to be guilty and assassinated him.
If we were talking about whether the prisoners in Gitmo had to be indicted by a grand jury before being given a fair trial, your quote wou
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
You should have known when the Democrats at their convention in Boston herded demonstrators off the street, and restricted them to a "free speech zone" surrounded by barbed wire, that the free speech wouldn't be the Obama Administration's greatest accomplishment.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Which seems from the context to be meant to allow the armed forces to hold a court martial in times of war or rebellion without needing to convene a grand jury, not to allow an assassination. (Assassination, even if not unconstitutional, is explicitly illegal by act of Congress.)
The bit you seemed to only glance over:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Please reread that carefully (Emphasis mine):
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
That is talking about people who are in the armed forces, and serving during a time of war. In that case those people (US service members) have the grand jury requirement waived. Also note that it is only about the grand jury requirement, not due process.
Also note this clause:
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
That one is pretty unambiguous, and has no qualifiers. There is no legal reason for the government to deprive someone of life without due process.
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're so confident the courts etc will "sign off" on this then why doesn't the Gov just make a good show of the "due process"?
If you're a US citizen this should trouble you. As for the rest of the world, I daresay most of us already distrust the US Gov. US citizens may also distrust the US Gov, but if the Gov at least pretended to regard that "piece of paper" and etc highly, they'd at least have to work harder to screw you all.
You keep letting them get away with ignoring the "piece of paper" and "due process", you'd be in trouble.
Having your day in kangaroo court is still better than being assassinated/executed at any convenient time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Two points:
Bullshit and Bullshit.
As to the first piece of bullshit, show me where in the Constitution it says, "When accused by police, you are presumed guilty and will be executed."
As to the second, Al-awlaki was a moderate cleric invited to speak all over WA DC after the 9-11 attack. What turned him from moderate to radical, is the unrelenting slaughter of innocent people. Even _I_ think the US is evil for doing that and I'm just an average white guy atheist whose very immune to any arguments relating to crusades or jihad.
Your comment demonstrates exactly why this is so dangerous. Unsupported allegations now are considered proof in your mind. The constitution requires more than that and for good reason, but if this is what is to pass as evidence in America, it's fricken over. We've passed into the dictatorship stage.
Re: (Score:3)
So you are saying that if you decide to kill innocents it is ok as long as the reason was someone else was killing innocents? Which means this terrorist should not have been offended by the USA's many wars as they were caused by the killing of innocents, and thus since he had no good reason to want to kill innocents he was in fact fair game.
The above paragraph is sophistry, but no worse than the parents. No matter how offended you are by some action it does not justify the wanton murder of innocents whic
Re:5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
So we now have a perpetual "war on terror" and "war on drugs" and war on American citizens of all kinds, so we have an unending loophole to ignore human rights all over the world.
Keep on saying "it can't happen here." Tyranny can gain control anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:5th Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither was the war on poverty.
Nor the war on drugs.
Nor the war on terrorism.
Metaphors, all - unless you insist on changing the definition of war.
Forever war. (Score:3)
we are actively deployed and fighting battles where our soldiers and enemy combatants kill each other.
If that is the definition of war then the United States has never not been at war.
Indian's. Mexico. Canada. Spain. The Caribbean. Utah. pirates in what is now Libya. Korea 50's to today. Indo-China from the 50's to 75. South America. Caribbean again. Middle East. Somalia.
It would be a rare year in modern history where US forces did not fire a shot in anger.
Just read the title (Score:2)
I didn't think drones had stingers. Did he choke on it or something?
guns don't kill people. (Score:2)
Drones don't kill people - people kill people
Re: (Score:3)
No, people with drones kill people without drones and drones with people kill people.
Because drones that kill people require people with drones that kill people. You cannot kill people with drones without drones and without people with drones operating drones to kill people.
Can I have a drone? I'll name it Buster, I already got the dronehouse in my yard.
One of 'us' (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fascinating how many people are worried that the U.S. government assassinated a U.S. citizen, rather than worrying that the U.S. government is assassinating people.
And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war and that there is a very strong case that this guy was involved with the enemy in that war.
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war...
No. There isn't. The US hasn't declared war in a very long time, in fact. I believe, if I remember correctly, that it's classified as a "military action". The US has not, however, declared war.
Well, except the war on drugs and the war on terrorism but I don't think that's what you meant when you said "legally declared war".
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if he was head of the peace movement, I'd be angry and outraged.
As things are, I think our government's strategy now is to kill off anyone who declares themselves a leader of a terrorist group with clear intention to cause trouble for USofA---before long, nobody would want to be a leader (if they're systematically killed off months/weeks after assuming the role).
Morale of the story: if you don't want to be a (drone) target, don't declare America as your target.
Re:One of 'us' (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are making an awful big assumption when you say that nobody will want to organize resistance against a nation that claims to have power over the life and death of any person they deem to be a sufficient threat.
Re:One of 'us' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One of 'us' (Score:5, Insightful)
He was an american citizen, and therefore due all the rights a citizen deserves, which include being arrested, tried, and convicted for treason.
He was not a "troop" - he was a civilian.
You are wrong, and a typical example of how the terrorists WON on 9/11.
Seven of Nine disapproves (Score:4, Insightful)
Inefficient. Drones should assimilate, not kill.
Re:Seven of Nine disapproves (Score:5, Funny)
Name the only candidate that would stop this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Name the only candidate that would stop this.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Laughable. Just because he'd stand up to the Fed doesn't mean he's going to stand up to the banks on their usurious interest rates. Just because he'd reign in the military-industrial-congressional-contractor-surveillance complex doesn't mean he'd do jack to stop Tyson from forming a monopoly on chicken meat while axing their already meager safety budget.
Who wants some salmonella with their KFC, paid for with your CitiBOAMorgan VISA card
Re: (Score:3)
I almost completely disagree with Ron Paul on his political views, but I'd still support him over most other American politicians, for one simple reason: in vast majority of cases, regardless of his personal position, he's for letting the states decide. Given that I reside in a thoroughly "blue" state, Ron Paul being elected would likely lead to more left-leaning policies being implemented on the local level (drug liberalization, socialized healthcare etc) without feds intervening to prevent them. Which is
watch out for those links (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch out for those links to suspects, they'll get you and everyone in your immediate vicinity killed without warning by a missile fired from a robotic aircraft controlled by foreigners hundreds of miles away. There is no point in building a case against someone, capturing them, and having a public trial where the evidence is subject to intense scrutiny and the outcome is determined by disinterested peers. That kind of thing is messy and time consuming, and there is no telling what the outcome might be. After all, 20-25% of the victims in this instance were linked to someone who is suspected of carrying out some horrible crime.
Drone Kills Top Al Qaeda Figure (Score:2)
Other Countries Can Do This Too, You Know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose Iran decides that someone in this country is an "enemy of the state", and launches drones from their "warships" off the coast of the US? Or they get "government approval" from someone in Mexico, and do the same? Heck, they won't even have to launch from that close.
North Korea has already been caught using poisoned needles to take out people they consider to be "enemies".
Just to be clear, I have no objection to taking this asshole out once and for all?
But I won't be standing atop the Mountain of Purity, wearing white robes and singing hosannas, either. Dirty pool goes both ways, folks.
Bieber, you're next! (Score:5, Funny)
>Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth.
Ron Paul (Score:4, Informative)
That's why you vote for Ron Paul [youtube.com].
Realize that just a little while ago, FBI argued that there is significant terrorist threat within USA [fbi.gov] coming from various militias (remember Oklahoma?)
So it's not a stretch to say that if POTUS gets to keep the power to kill American citizens without a trial, eventually it will be used to kill American citizens in USA without a trial, who have suspected 'ties' to 'terrorism', and when government gets to decide who is a terrorist, who is a suspected terrorist and who has ties to them, the lines become increasingly blurry as to who can be killed next and where.
Realize that pretty much ANYBODY can eventually be tied to something that has to do with terrorism somehow, after all the 6 degrees of separation separate you from Kevin Bacon as much as they separate you from anybody, including various terrorists. (Now, it's not scientific, but there a point there. Something you said somewhere on the Internet at any point can be linked to something else, even if it is only similar, but not exactly the same, but who gives a shit about nuance, right?) In any case, this is completely illegal, immoral and anti-Constitutional.
I am making this comment right now, and it can be turned against me - it can be declared that this is equivalent to terrorist-sympathizing, because I don't want POTUS to kill Americans on a whim. Is that enough to launch a drone strike after me?
If you don't see me commenting here for over 2 weeks in a row, then that's it (and foes can cheer.)
A simple question to those who object... (Score:3)
Where the fuck were you during the last president?
Let's put this shit in perspective:
1 dead American-born cleric
100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians
I think we have had bigger issues than one asshat's due process rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Why the fuck do you think this is binary?
Not About Awlaki (Score:3)
This is not about Awlaki. In my opinion, Awlaki is a piece of shit who deserved to die and his death makes the world a better place. A better place for us, for Yemen, for the Middle East, for Islam, and perhaps most of all; a better place for the impressionable kids whose minds he has been twisting. This has nothing to do with whether Awlaki getting capped was a good thing.
This is about us. It is about the principles that we choose to live by, even when it means we can't kill some piece of shit who clearly deserves it.
You are not allowed to punch people who talk on their cell phones in the movie theater. That is clearly bullshit, because people who talk on their cell phones in movie theaters totally deserve to get punched in the face. The reason we do not do it has nothing to do with what that asshole deserves. He deserves to get punched in the face. The reason we do not is because we, The United States and its Citizens, live by principles. Our unwavering dedication to our principles is the bedrock of our moral superiority. The bedrock of our principles is what lets us sleep at night when we must send our children to risk their lives and to kill.
We don't whine, wheedle, and try to figure out angles around our principles. We puff out our chests, point at The Constitution, and with a gleam in our eye declare, "We are just, and we do not sacrifice our principles to our passions. We are better than you." When that bedrock turns to sand, we become the enemy. If we give up our principles, all we have left to fight for are our money and power.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In War there is no requirement to try every enemy soldier before opening fire.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This involves no war, and he was not a soldier. If you can define a war as "action against any organization ideologically opposed to the administration" and a soldier as "accused member of said organization" then you can kill pretty much anyone you like.
Re:War /= civil process. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:War /= civil process. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, let's all re-think our notion of murder, such that any killing by the state is justified because they say it is. Can't wait for this shit to be applied on US soil, then to every beat cop in the name of "safety".
Note that in 2006, approximately 200 people in the US were killed by police. In the same year, zero people were killed by terrorists.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:War /= civil process. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Big Lie propaganda. There is no war. Moreover, the victim in this case was not a combatant.
Re:War /= civil process. (Score:5, Insightful)
No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him.
Actually, a lot of people do seriously argue that point. The one thing that is not in dispute is that al-Awlaki advocated violence against the US government, but that has been ruled protected speech [wikipedia.org] - if it hadn't been, people like William Piece (author of the Turner Diaries) would be up on charges. What has never been proven in a court of law, and is disputed by many folks who actually know what they're talking about in Yemen, is that Awlaki had anything to do with planning and executing any actual terrorist attacks.
Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.
Sure there was:
1. Present evidence to a judge sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for arresting him.
2. Work with the Yemeni authorities, who are allies of the US, to attempt to capture him and bring him to the US for trial. If he attempts to resist arrest, by all means shoot back.
3. Indict and try him, and if he is guilty, lock him up forever or execute him.
Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.
Awlaki posted hostile videos on Youtube. The US and Yemeni governments fired cruise missiles that killed not only Awlaki but several others nearby. Tell me exactly what 'proportional' means to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Undoing my mods to say this- the very first thing Wikipedia says about Brandenburg vs. Ohio is that "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action." Advocating violence in the abstract is a long long way from being involved in the day-to-day planning of suicide attacks as Awlaki was. Why are you ignoring this? If you were trying to make some kind of objective argument about justice, rather than being a partisan who's simply seizin
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Let's get a couple things straight, here. (Score:4, Insightful)
>Killing him was self defense.
I don't expect you to show any outrage when the other side are killing Americans using the same "logic" then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sweet, he made unending proclamations about his involvement? I might get all my concerns laid to rest. Surely this is all online; can you link me the definitive proof that he was in Al Queda? I will accept a video of him making the assertion himself, or even a statement by a credible news agency that isn't simply quoting the government.
Oh wait. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
What you're asking me to do is take the killer's word for the fact that the victim needed killing. You seriously don't see
Re:Stop crying (Score:4, Insightful)
We're supposed to be better than them. Otherwise you might as well just have a military dictatorship where the General can kill whoever he wants at any time.