Anonymous
03/11/2012 09:00
Subject: Obama Administration, Killings of Americans Abroad
Anonymous wrote:Al Awlaki was a moderate theologian
His interpretation of the al-quida version of islam was more moderate.
Does not make much sense
In fairness, I don't think his theology has a lot to do with whether he should be targeted, one way or the other. It is whether he participated in terrorist attacks.
I just want to clarify this because we don't want to get in the business of killing people based on their religious beliefs, no matter how extreme. It is their actions that should count.
jsteele
03/10/2012 23:12
Subject: Obama Administration, Killings of Americans Abroad
Anonymous wrote:Al Awlaki was a moderate theologian
His interpretation of the al-quida version of islam was more moderate.
Does not make much sense
I agree. This has bothered me all along. If the Obama administration knows this, why did they kill a moderate? If they don't know it, they shouldn't be in the business of killing (of course, that's true either way).
Anonymous
03/10/2012 21:48
Subject: Obama Administration, Killings of Americans Abroad
Al Awlaki was a moderate theologian
His interpretation of the al-quida version of islam was more moderate.
Does not make much sense
His interpretation of the al-quida version of islam was more moderate.
Does not make much sense
Anonymous
03/10/2012 10:51
Subject: Re:Obama Administration, Killings of Americans Abroad
jsteele wrote:Holder's speech is the very definition of dictatorship in which the executive is judge, jury, and executioner. I argued this even before Al-Awlaki was killed. But, Arabs in general and Al-Awlaki in particular have been so demonized in this country that very few were willing to look beyond Al-Awlaki's beard and Quran and see the principles involved. If there is one thing we have learned over the past couple of decades its that once executive power is established, it will not be relinquished. As a candidate, Obama criticized the illegal wiretapping conducted by the Bush Administration. As President, Obama has defended that practice in court. Can you imagine the power to kill that Obama is establishing being in the hands of a President Santorum or President Gingrich?
It is disappointing that liberals have become so detached from their values that they are unwilling to criticize a President who is subverting the constitution in plain sight. But, it is bewildering that conservatives who have demonstrated in the street because they may have to purchase health insurance seem quite comfortable with the fact that they could theoretically be killed by Obama. Come on right-wingers, now is when your country needs you!
I think the difficulty for many liberals is that conservatives have such a long negative agenda on civil liberties that there is nowhere to turn. The days of the true "small government conservative" are over
Anonymous
03/10/2012 10:34
Subject: Obama Administration, Killings of Americans Abroad
It's depressing.
jsteele
03/10/2012 09:37
Subject: Re:Obama Administration, Killings of Americans Abroad
Holder's speech is the very definition of dictatorship in which the executive is judge, jury, and executioner. I argued this even before Al-Awlaki was killed. But, Arabs in general and Al-Awlaki in particular have been so demonized in this country that very few were willing to look beyond Al-Awlaki's beard and Quran and see the principles involved. If there is one thing we have learned over the past couple of decades its that once executive power is established, it will not be relinquished. As a candidate, Obama criticized the illegal wiretapping conducted by the Bush Administration. As President, Obama has defended that practice in court. Can you imagine the power to kill that Obama is establishing being in the hands of a President Santorum or President Gingrich?
It is disappointing that liberals have become so detached from their values that they are unwilling to criticize a President who is subverting the constitution in plain sight. But, it is bewildering that conservatives who have demonstrated in the street because they may have to purchase health insurance seem quite comfortable with the fact that they could theoretically be killed by Obama. Come on right-wingers, now is when your country needs you!
It is disappointing that liberals have become so detached from their values that they are unwilling to criticize a President who is subverting the constitution in plain sight. But, it is bewildering that conservatives who have demonstrated in the street because they may have to purchase health insurance seem quite comfortable with the fact that they could theoretically be killed by Obama. Come on right-wingers, now is when your country needs you!
Anonymous
03/10/2012 09:12
Subject: Obama Administration, Killings of Americans Abroad
I will admit that I was on the fence about the targeting of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Perhaps there may be some cases where a person who openly claims to attack the US should be targeted because it's effectively an admission of guilt, and we could discuss whether he in fact did so.
But I am more disturbed about the principle put forth by Eric Holder, namely that these individuals are entitled to due process, just not always "judicial due process". The reason is that the guarantor of due process is the judicial branch of government. The notion that the executive branch of government - be it state, local, or federal - can monitor its own function clearly upends the very principle of separation of powers. In this way it is no different than warrantless wiretaps (bad enough IMO) except for two things in my mind:
(1) AFAIK we don't have any boundaries on how wide this principle could be applied. I'd argue that this is even broader and more vague than the wiretapping, fewer relevant laws (FISA).
(2) The result of the policy is irreversible and ultimate. Wiretapping is information gathering. Death is forever.
But I am more disturbed about the principle put forth by Eric Holder, namely that these individuals are entitled to due process, just not always "judicial due process". The reason is that the guarantor of due process is the judicial branch of government. The notion that the executive branch of government - be it state, local, or federal - can monitor its own function clearly upends the very principle of separation of powers. In this way it is no different than warrantless wiretaps (bad enough IMO) except for two things in my mind:
(1) AFAIK we don't have any boundaries on how wide this principle could be applied. I'd argue that this is even broader and more vague than the wiretapping, fewer relevant laws (FISA).
(2) The result of the policy is irreversible and ultimate. Wiretapping is information gathering. Death is forever.