Obama Murders an American Citizen

[jsteele]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
It's tricky. Without capturing him, he can't be given all of his rights before execution. An indictment alone wouldn't give Obama the right to assassinate him.

That is, aren't the only two choices: 1) capture and try him; or 2) kill him without due process?

Luis Posada Carriles is a Cuban-born Venezuelan who was convicted of blowing up a Cuban airliner, killing 73 people. He has admitted bombing Cuban hotels and nightspots. He is a terrorist by any definition. However, he lives freely in Miami. Cuba would like to have him extradited to face trial in Cuba. The US, apparently with a straight face, refuses to extradite him because he might face torture (I assume they are not referring to torture at Gitmo). So, what should the Cubans do? Do you support the Cubans launching remote-controlled drones which attempt to fire missiles at Posada? Or, should the Cuban government continue exercise legal avenues in an attempt to gain custody of him? Since the US is sheltering a terrorist, can Cuba legally attack the US? Perhaps invade and occupy us the way that we have Afghanistan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

I agree with you that short of arresting al-Awlaki, it would be impossible to give him full due process. But, there is a lot of ground between no due process and full due process. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If the President believes that he should be able to kill American citizens, he should go to Congress and ask for a law that allows him to kill US citizens. Short of that, seeking an indictment would at least provide a minimum of judicial involvement (though, as the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich). Issuing international arrest warrants and other acts that show recognition of the legal system are also good steps. But, most importantly, there should be some sort of objective review of the evidence. Do you really want to live in a world in which a single person can put your name on a list and have you killed? George Bush was criticized for tapping phones without a warrant. Obama will kill you without a warrant. Are you comfortable with that?

[Anonymous]

You're welcome to move to Yemen.

[Anonymous]

He was actively at war with the US( and outside the United States) ie a military target in a war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was actively at war with the US( and outside the United States) ie a military target in a war.

Yep. And that is all that needs to be said.

[Anonymous]

Vote Perry if you think Obama is doing a bad job at killing the bad guys. Hopefully, when the Republicans win, they will keep Obama on the national security job. Lord knows they can do the job.

[TheManWithAUsername]

jsteele wrote:Do you support the Cubans launching remote-controlled drones which attempt to fire missiles at Posada? Or, should the Cuban government continue exercise legal avenues in an attempt to gain custody of him? Since the US is sheltering a terrorist, can Cuba legally attack the US? Perhaps invade and occupy us the way that we have Afghanistan?

That's a pretty big shift in argument. I'm not saying that you don't have a point here; it just isn't nearly the one you started with.

I'll answer the question in steps, and I'll assume that all you've said is true (and I have no reason to doubt you). I think they have the moral right to assassinate him here, assuming that he's still a danger. I think the method is irrelevant to the degree that it doesn't cause additional death or significant property damage. (If it does, things start to get fuzzy, but I wouldn't say that no loss of life is acceptable.) In our reality, of course they shouldn't, b/c it will be more trouble than it's worth.

jsteele wrote:I agree with you that short of arresting al-Awlaki, it would be impossible to give him full due process. But, there is a lot of ground between no due process and full due process...[S]eeking an indictment would at least provide a minimum of judicial involvement (though, as the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich). Issuing international arrest warrants and other acts that show recognition of the legal system are also good steps. But, most importantly, there should be some sort of objective review of the evidence.

I'd rather have that stuff. I was just pointing out that while it might be preferable, I don't think it would be any more legal. That is, I don't think there are degrees of legal.

jsteele wrote:If the President believes that he should be able to kill American citizens, he should go to Congress and ask for a law that allows him to kill US citizens.

I agree. Right now we have a need for action (in the opinion of many) and no good legal way to do it.

jsteele wrote:Do you really want to live in a world in which a single person can put your name on a list and have you killed? George Bush was criticized for tapping phones without a warrant. Obama will kill you without a warrant. Are you comfortable with that?

No. My point wasn't that it was A-OK. I was just pointing out that as things are - by the government's own fault, of course - the choice as I understand it was between an illegal action and no action.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You're welcome to move to Yemen.

And you are welcome to go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous]

For the longest time I thought Yemen was where those musicians came from. Further, al-Awlaki kinda reminds me of Kenny G.

I do think that he was free to return to America and get all his due process rights, Constitutional rights and all that. He chose to remain in exile and spread his message of hate. He acted as someone who renounced his Citizenship.

I wonder what the victims families from the Fort Hood shootings think.

To look at it another way, law enforcement takes out people all the time. I view this as another example of that.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
It's tricky. Without capturing him, he can't be given all of his rights before execution. An indictment alone wouldn't give Obama the right to assassinate him.

That is, aren't the only two choices: 1) capture and try him; or 2) kill him without due process?

So if he was not dead he would have to get due process, and that would be costly for the government, and the governments secrets would become public

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure about the government secrets becoming public. John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla are US Citizens and I'm not aware of any secrets spilling because of them.

Anonymous wrote:
So if he was not dead he would have to get due process, and that would be costly for the government, and the governments secrets would become public

[Anonymous]

I guess Obama decided that taking him out was preferable to waterboarding him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess Obama decided that taking him out was preferable to waterboarding him.

Oh you mean a navy seal helicopter raid into Yemen to pull him out of a location that he may or may not be and then hope to take him alive? I think we would have been thrilled to be able to pick him up if we could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess Obama decided that taking him out was preferable to waterboarding him.

Oh you mean a navy seal helicopter raid into Yemen to pull him out of a location that he may or may not be and then hope to take him alive? I think we would have been thrilled to be able to pick him up if we could.

1. no, I think Obama has decided it is much cleaner politically and logistically to kill these guys then to capture them and question them. not saying I agree or disagree with that, but I do think that is the decision.
2. Bush would have gotten crucified over this. It is amazing to me to see the hypocrisy on the left over this. While I strongly disagree with the OP, at least he/she makes the case. Remember the deafening protests over Iraq and the treatment of prisoners? Now mostly silence.
3. to think Aulaqui was not actively engaged in war with the US is laughable. He is on tape in countless propaganda videos doing just that. He has communicated with several terrorists who subsequently killed American in terror attacks. and to take your analogy further, of course a Nazi military intelligence officer specializing in recruiting and training terrorists would be a fair target. what color is the sky in the world of these pollyannas who don't realize that there are some bad bad people out there and we are at war.
4. lastly, of course the suspected cuban anti-castro guy is a delicate situation. but hey, life is not fair. obviously when you are the sole military and economic superpower you get a different set of rules. that should not be earth shattering or surprising. like others have said, if you don't like it, try to change the law through your votes or feel free to move to Yemen.

[Anonymous]

and I'd add:

5. All that said, I would expect and hope that we would only target US Citizens, even pieces of shit like Awlaki, in countries that are essentially lawless failed nation-states or havens for terrorists, such as Yemen or Somalia. Places where there is no realistic hope for the local courts to capture and give a fair trial. If Obama starts gunning down american citizens in France or Canada, then I would be worried.

[Anonymous]

2. Bush would have gotten crucified over this. It is amazing to me to see the hypocrisy on the left over this. While I 2. Bush would have gotten crucified over this. It is amazing to me to see the hypocrisy on the left over this. While I

Bingo. This is what I was getting at when I made the waterboarding (tongue in cheek comment).