Not sure what I think about the citizenship thing. But one thing is for sure - if Obama had blown up the whole g.d. Al Qaeda, half the country would still think he's a secret Muslim.

jsteele wrote:From a legal standpoint, citizens are supposed to enjoy certain protections from their governments. In the US, citizens cannot even be jailed without due process, let alone executed. Yet, Obama has just decided that he can kill fellow citizens without the slightest due process. Why did al-Awlaki deserve to die? Because Obama decided he should. There was no legal review, no avenue of appeal for al-Awlaki, and not even a means to evaluate the evidence against al-Awlaki. Obama decided to kill him and everyone is supposed to accept the decision. As we have just seen in the state of Georgia, mistakes can be made with executions even when due process exists. What about when due process doesn't exist? Can you imagine President Bachmann being the one who gets to decide who lives and who dies?

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?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, I think it is wrong to call this murder, and due process is not the right frame of reference. Suppose a U.S. citizen defected during WWII and took up arms for the Germans. He would have been a legitimate military target and could be killed without any form of due process under U.S. law. This would also be the case if he were not on the front lines, but serving in the German command as a staff officer working on planning, logistics, etc. I'm not an expert on Mr. al-Awlaki, but what I have read suggests that he was involved in operational planning of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests. Those are acts of war under international law--which governs as he is outside of the U.S.--and he is therefore a legitimate military target. (It is likely a different issue if he were on U.S. soil, or if he was captured by U.S forces.)

Obviously if the Administration is lying about all this, it's a different issue. But what do you really think? If he were out there setting up IEDs in Afganistan, you'd argue the U.S. could not take him out without a grand jury subpoena and an attempt to capture him? That's nonsensical.

The same analogy to a citizen defecting during WWII was made in the previous discussion and I didn't get around to addressing it. So, I'll do it now. There are two issues with what you say. First, I have no problem with a US citizen who is fighting against the US being killed in battle. However, I reject the broad definition of "battle" that includes simply breathing. Al-Awlaki was specifically targeted for assassination. Nobody believes that he was directly engaged in taking up arms against the US. He would be more comparable to an American of German origin that decided to leave the US at the outbreak of WWII and return to Germany where he became a political official in the NAZI party (note, I am not calling Islamicists NAZIs). Second, and related to what I just said, it is quite disputable whether al-Awlaki had any involvement in operational planning of terrorist attacks. Anything that US officials have to say on this matter is tainted by their repeated and continued mischaracterization of his importance. Al-Awlaki was a propagandist and his value to AQAP was his ability to inspire English-speaking Muslims. That reminds me. Al-Awlaki is involved with al-Qaidi of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Today, all we hear about is that he was a high-ranking al-Qaida member. Those are two completely different organizations.

For a view of al-Awlaki by someone who actually knows what he is talking about, see:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40448

I'm not sure we disagree that much. If al-Awlaki was involved in operational planning of terrorist attacks, do you think he a legitimate target or not? I'll freely concede that if he was *just* a propagandist who had no operational involvement, he was not, and this strike was likely a war crime. Doubt we'll ever see Obama in the dock at The Hague, though. File him with Bush and Rummy, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:blah blah blah then do something about it, if you are so sure the system is broken step up and fix it.

As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men-

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Do you realize that this was the speech that got him convicted in the movie?

Anonymous wrote:
Also, I think it is wrong to call this murder, and due process is not the right frame of reference. Suppose a U.S. citizen defected during WWII and took up arms for the Germans. He would have been a legitimate military target and could be killed without any form of due process under U.S. law. This would also be the case if he were not on the front lines, but serving in the German command as a staff officer working on planning, logistics, etc. I'm not an expert on Mr. al-Awlaki, but what I have read suggests that he was involved in operational planning of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests. Those are acts of war under international law--which governs as he is outside of the U.S.--and he is therefore a legitimate military target. (It is likely a different issue if he were on U.S. soil, or if he was captured by U.S forces.)

Obviously if the Administration is lying about all this, it's a different issue. But what do you really think? If he were out there setting up IEDs in Afganistan, you'd argue the U.S. could not take him out without a grand jury subpoena and an attempt to capture him? That's nonsensical.

The same analogy to a citizen defecting during WWII was made in the previous discussion and I didn't get around to addressing it. So, I'll do it now. There are two issues with what you say. First, I have no problem with a US citizen who is fighting against the US being killed in battle. However, I reject the broad definition of "battle" that includes simply breathing. Al-Awlaki was specifically targeted for assassination. Nobody believes that he was directly engaged in taking up arms against the US. He would be more comparable to an American of German origin that decided to leave the US at the outbreak of WWII and return to Germany where he became a political official in the NAZI party (note, I am not calling Islamicists NAZIs). Second, and related to what I just said, it is quite disputable whether al-Awlaki had any involvement in operational planning of terrorist attacks. Anything that US officials have to say on this matter is tainted by their repeated and continued mischaracterization of his importance. Al-Awlaki was a propagandist and his value to AQAP was his ability to inspire English-speaking Muslims. That reminds me. Al-Awlaki is involved with al-Qaidi of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Today, all we hear about is that he was a high-ranking al-Qaida member. Those are two completely different organizations.

For a view of al-Awlaki by someone who actually knows what he is talking about, see:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40448

jsteele wrote:That is a headline that you should -- but probably won't -- see coming from our usual Obama haters. As I discussed in this thread:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/100601.page

Obama placed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, on a list of people who could be captured or killed (essentially authorizing his assassination). Today, a US drone carried out the act. Of course everyone will immediately respond that al-Awlaki is a terrorist and has attacked America and so on. But, if there is so much evidence of al-Awlaki's guilt, why has there been no criminal indictment? Even bin Laden had been indicted. Think about that. Bin Laden received more due process than this American citizen. Yes, yes, our CIA knows everything. If they say he is guilty, he is guilty. Just like Saddam had WMDs just like the CIA said he did. Let's just accept that the CIA is infallible. In fact, why don't we just do away with our entire justice system and allow Obama and the CIA to run the entire thing? Also, while we are at it, let's criticize a few more foreign leaders for killing their political opponents.

Perhaps, Mr. Steele, this should convince you that the Obama haters, such as myself, are in fact acting based on their principles (which, I acknowledge, you dispute vigorously). Criticizing Obama for this, if one would not criticize a Republican president for it, would be hypocritical and unfair. Small wonder many on the right have not made an issue of this, and those that have, such as Ron Paul, are acting consistently with their own articulated principles (in Mr. Paul's case, relatively strict isolationism).

Also, I think it is wrong to call this murder, and due process is not the right frame of reference. Suppose a U.S. citizen defected during WWII and took up arms for the Germans. He would have been a legitimate military target and could be killed without any form of due process under U.S. law. This would also be the case if he were not on the front lines, but serving in the German command as a staff officer working on planning, logistics, etc. I'm not an expert on Mr. al-Awlaki, but what I have read suggests that he was involved in operational planning of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests. Those are acts of war under international law--which governs as he is outside of the U.S.--and he is therefore a legitimate military target. (It is likely a different issue if he were on U.S. soil, or if he was captured by U.S forces.)

Obviously if the Administration is lying about all this, it's a different issue. But what do you really think? If he were out there setting up IEDs in Afganistan, you'd argue the U.S. could not take him out without a grand jury subpoena and an attempt to capture him? That's nonsensical.

I googled him
He dined post 9-11 at Pentagon with top us military brass
The drone that killed him killed also another us-born citizen
he got arrested soliciting prostitution
worked at George Washington university

takoma wrote:
On the citizenship issue: Is it a greater crime to murder a citizen? Isn't it a question of whether it's murder or justified national defense, no matter who the victim is?

From a moral standpoint, the murder of a citizen is the same as the murder of a non-citizen. From a legal standpoint, citizens are supposed to enjoy certain protections from their governments. In the US, citizens cannot even be jailed without due process, let alone executed. Yet, Obama has just decided that he can kill fellow citizens without the slightest due process. Why did al-Awlaki deserve to die? Because Obama decided he should. There was no legal review, no avenue of appeal for al-Awlaki, and not even a means to evaluate the evidence against al-Awlaki. Obama decided to kill him and everyone is supposed to accept the decision. As we have just seen in the state of Georgia, mistakes can be made with executions even when due process exists. What about when due process doesn't exist? Can you imagine President Bachmann being the one who gets to decide who lives and who dies?

I am in a quandary on this one.

I don't argue against the rule of law, but find it hard to claim that a president, who is sworn to protect the country and has the power to declare war, does not have the legal power to order an attack on an individual who is a threat to the country.

On the citizenship issue: Is it a greater crime to murder a citizen? Isn't it a question of whether it's murder or justified national defense, no matter who the victim is?

This is one of those (many) times I am glad I'm not the decider-in-chief.

This stuff freaks me out.

Your 10:38 post has it right, I'm afraid. It's distressing.

This is about right:

Anonymous wrote:I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Right. So if you're in the military, you can't question military decisions because of chain of command and duty. And if you aren't in the military, it would be hypocritical to question military decisions and you have no right to b/c you haven't fought for freedom. Sorry - I mean, "freedom."

I'll refresh you on that if our current Commander-in-Chief orders you and yours rounded up into camps - which you should be concerned about, with him being Hitler and all.

Oh - you do realize that Nicholson's character was the villain of that movie?

blah blah blah then do something about it, if you are so sure the system is broken step up and fix it.

As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men-

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

That is a headline that you should -- but probably won't -- see coming from our usual Obama haters. As I discussed in this thread:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/100601.page

Obama placed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, on a list of people who could be captured or killed (essentially authorizing his assassination). Today, a US drone carried out the act. Of course everyone will immediately respond that al-Awlaki is a terrorist and has attacked America and so on. But, if there is so much evidence of al-Awlaki's guilt, why has there been no criminal indictment? Even bin Laden had been indicted. Think about that. Bin Laden received more due process than this American citizen. Yes, yes, our CIA knows everything. If they say he is guilty, he is guilty. Just like Saddam had WMDs just like the CIA said he did. Let's just accept that the CIA is infallible. In fact, why don't we just do away with our entire justice system and allow Obama and the CIA to run the entire thing? Also, while we are at it, let's criticize a few more foreign leaders for killing their political opponents.