Obama approves assassination of US citizen

[Flatchett]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.


It's kind of heartwarming that a guy whose election was a deliberate repudiation of the Bush administration by the American people feels no need to actually act differently than Bush. It restores my lack of faith in humanity.



I'm really not sure why I'm posting a two month old story, but I just ran across it in my bookmarks folder and it seemed like the universe was telling me to. What does time matter anyway.

[Randwulf]

Under the circumstances I sort of/almost support Obama's order. He should revoke the guy's citizenship through the court system first, however. The US government should never order the assassination of a US citizen.

But I do agree with you (and always have) that he's only thrown a scant few pennies into his change jar, even after he promised so much more.

I mean, look at his "issues" web page as it was on April 02, 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20080402183050/http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

And look at it now: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

He literally removed four fifths of his position statements. They're just.... gone. As if they never existed.

[carbon cold]

First thought: badass.

[Neville]

He did promise more transparency. I guess you didn't really want that either.

[Delilah]

First thought: badass.

First thought: hope it's not me.

Second thought: Badass.

[Flatchett]

He literally removed four fifths of his position statements. They're just.... gone. As if they never existed.

Hmm...a similar thing happened to my brother-in-law Artie.:unsure:





He did promise more transparency. I guess you didn't really want that either.

:rolleyes2: So knowing they're doing bad shit makes it okay?

[Bking]

Hey, you gotta do whatchu gotta do. Now be happy before someone blows you up while you're waiting in the speedy checkout line at Wal-Mart.

[Neville]

:rolleyes2: So knowing they're doing bad shit makes it okay?

The point was: "So what?" It's not like this is the first time the US has ever killed one of its own. At least this dude deserves to die. Were you expecting a nice discussion over tea?

[puzzled-observer]

The point was: "So what?" It's not like this is the first time the US has ever killed one of its own. At least this dude deserves to die. Were you expecting a nice discussion over tea?

Are you comfortable with leaving the decision of who deserves to die in the hands of a few powerful people?

[Flatchett]

The point was: "So what?" It's not like this is the first time the US has ever killed one of its own. At least this dude deserves to die. Were you expecting a nice discussion over tea?

How do you know? Last time I checked, only a jury could decide that.

[Neville]

Are you comfortable with leaving the decision of who deserves to die in the hands of a few powerful people?

Are you upset they forgot to consult you?


How do you know? Last time I checked, only a jury could decide that.

You should check again.

[Flatchett]

Where would you recommend that I check?

[mancroft]

Obey Obama.

Do as Obama tells you and you will be alright.

Repeat after me:

"Baaaraaack Obaaamaaa"

[NoahFence]

Hey, you gotta do whatchu gotta do. Now be happy before someone blows you up while you're waiting in the speedy checkout line at Wal-Mart.

Maybe they can work on assassinating gang leaders first. They are responsible for far more American deaths than terrorists.

In fact, maybe we could send drones into Los Angeles to level entire apartment blocks which contained a suspected gang member a month ago. That way we can see first hand what the Afghans are complaining about.

[Flatchett]

I think we need Snake Plissken.

[puzzled-observer]

Are you upset they forgot to consult you?


If by "you" you mean someone with my interests in mind, then yes.

[Bugs701]

Yes, Obama's being a hypocrite, but you had to expect that. It is easy to criticize national security policy until you're the one that has to make the decisions.

That being said, this guy is an enemy combatant. Once you declare war, by overt acts, on your country, you have effectively renounced your citizenship. He is subject to the same consequences as any foreign born enemy.

[Zephyrus055]

As much as I question Obama's political wisdom, I commend him for acting in a way worthy of being a president.

Being the chief executive has nothing to do with obeying a moral standard. Rather, you have to be pragmatic and ruthless. The executive office is not for NF pussies.

[Flatchett]

When I first joined this forum I thought y'all were a bunch of goddamn commies. Now I find a bunch of Cheney fans. What gives?

[Oso Mocoso]

According to the United States body of law, if you serve as a member of a foreign military which is at war with the United States, you have renounced your citizenship. So ... this guy wasn't a member of another nation state's military, but I think he's violated the spirit of the law if not its letter. It's not really the same thing as assassinating a Los Angelino gang leader.

Summary: Badass.

[Zephyrus055]

When I first joined this forum I thought y'all were a bunch of goddamn commies. Now I find a bunch of Cheney fans. What gives?

I have no doubt that the political greats like Machiavelli, Metternich and Bismark would have considered Cheney foolish. They were smart evil, and Cheney was foolish evil.

It's not fair to compare the gods of strategy, or those who follow their advice, to that politically unwise arsehole.

[NoahFence]

According to the United States body of law, if you serve as a member of a foreign military which is at war with the United States, you have renounced your citizenship. So ... this guy wasn't a member of another nation state's military, but I think he's violated the spirit of the law if not its letter. It's not really the same thing as assassinating a Los Angelino gang leader.

Summary: Badass.

What about gang leaders who claim to belong to the Aztec Nation? Are they not foreign military fighters on US soil?


Don't compare the gods of strategy to that politically unwise arsehole.

Oh come now. Leaving the White House in a wheelchair was a move worthy of such company, surely.

[Oso Mocoso]

What about gang leaders who claim to belong to the Aztec Nation? Are they not foreign military fighters on US soil?

What about members of the Colbert Nation? WHAT ABOUT THEM, NOAH?

But let's think about what you said:

1. Not a nation state
2. Not at war with the United States
3. If there is an "Aztec Nation" it does not have a military for them to be members of

So ... they might be fighters of a nation, but they're not (for the most part) foreign and they're not military. In the case of al-Awlaki, he was definitely part of a non-national military which is openly at war with the United States. In fact, he went to great lengths to recruit other American Muslims to declare war on the U.S.

[kendoiwan]

Treason. "What's the penalty for treason?"

[Chunes]

When I first joined this forum I thought y'all were a bunch of goddamn commies. Now I find a bunch of Cheney fans. What gives?

Look at his name. No one cares. Now if his name were Scott Smith, oh God. There'd be outrage.

[NoahFence]

I'm afraid I don't know how to define "war" except between nations. I see no difference between "non-national military" and a gang, frankly.

[Flatchett]

Look at his name. No one cares. Now if his name were Scott Smith, oh God. There'd be outrage.
Hell, there was outrage when they locked up Jose Padilla without a trial.

[!diom]

I fully support the assassination, so long as it's carried out with a very powerful bomb in an urban area with a high population density.

[Bugs701]

When I first joined this forum I thought y'all were a bunch of goddamn commies. Now I find a bunch of Cheney fans. What gives?

Why would you expect us to be a bunch of anything? We each think for ourselves. (That's an INTP thing.)

[doob]

the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them...

What do they know? Sounds like Jose Padilla's case:


Padilla was held for three-and-a-half years as an "enemy combatant" after his arrest in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive "Dirty bomb" attack. That charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court...

José Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. He was widely described in media as a suspect of planning to build and explode a "dirty bomb" in the United States, but he was ultimately neither charged of this crime, nor convicted on such a charge.

[mthomps]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P8X7MrBwq8w/Sn-5Kby1jyI/AAAAAAAAABU/-9rCjF9I4tM/s320/IndependenceDayMovieLow.JPG

Let's nuke the bastards

[Limey]

Looks like a legitimate enemy combatant to me, unlike the asshattery in use of the term as an excuse lock people up in a foreign prison without due process for years on end.
Treason=death

[Kleptocracy]

Treason=death

If that was the case all our politicians would be dead.

[jyng1]

The US government should never order the assassination of a US citizen.


There were 37 executions in 2008. That is the lowest number since 1994 (largely due to lethal injection litigation).There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia). Texas executed the largest number, 24, followed by Alabama with 6; Ohio 5; Virginia, Oklahoma, and Georgia 3; Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee 2; and Missouri and Indiana 1.

A discussion about the assassination of an American citizen for crimes against the State might be more about semantics of law rather than any concerns for morality. The US Federal and State governments already kill quite a few of it's citizens.

If a country believes it's OK to kill someone, then after that, it's just about covering your arse, something the Israel's could do with lessons in at the moment.

[nonperson]

Is it bad ass or badass?

[Oso Mocoso]

I'm afraid I don't know how to define "war" except between nations.

When someone says "Death to the United States! WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES! All right-thinking Muslims everywhere should join us in killing Americans!" and then (and this is really the important part) start killing Americans and spending billions of dollars towards the goal of better killing even more Americans, then that group is at war with the United States.


I see no difference between "non-national military" and a gang, frankly.

Let me clear that up for you.

Gangs:

1. Do not have credible national ambitions
2. By definition basically don't have any money and are powerless on an international level (see #1)
3. In public opinion, gangs are criminals
4. They don't have things like military-grade weapons, combat training, etc. pretty much the things you'd need to differentiate an army from an armed rabble

and ...

5. Noah, a non-national military is not a bunch of meth-heads on motorcycles, or potheads in low riders who happen to own handguns


Is it bad ass or badass?

It's badass. One word. It's not a bad ass.

http://www.hickoryhilldonkeyfarm.com/Kicking%20and%20screaming.jpg

[nonperson]

It's badass. One word. It's not a bad ass.



Thank you. :)

And for the pic' too. I love mules. And dumb asses too. That is why I post here.

[esthim8]

I love this idea if and only if Kiefer Sutherland does teh sniping. In general, when Kiefer Sutherland is not around - probably busy with some other badassary - it is a slippery slope to start condoning assassinations, which is hard for me to say about a word that contains "ass" multiple times.

[gr8ness97]

Kthnzbai!

[gregkdc]

You dumbasses. Don't you realize that if they can do it to him they can do it to you? It only takes the creative minds of politicians to come up with reasons why they can apply or change the definition of enemy combatant to fit you.

OMG I sound like Glen Beck,
but I do see the value in using a jury to find him guilty and having a republic system of government. What’s next? Barry Satoro decides that he likes your wife’s ass so suddenly you are in a Jihad against his dick?

Classic example of a government in a downward spiral. It may take many generations to get to the extremes that I mentioned above but this type of behavior is what has contributed to the down fall of governments in the past. They always first cross the line with the most hated person or group of people and eventually it comes back to haunt everyone else.
If you look at the constitution and the context in which it was written even terrorist have rights as they are inalienable and endowed by GOD not by the government. I am not saying that I believe in God that is just the way it is written and what is legal.

[nonperson]

You dumbasses.

So it is dumb ass or dumbass?

[euterpenc]

Sometimes I wonder if the whole of Washington isn't working in the interest of a foreign power, or at least a power that is not the US. But who knows? I don't know what America is anymore... nor who the American people are. There is a lot of rhetoric about these, but I often find myself at odds with both. Jeez... hope I don't get set up for assassination. I have a lot of anti-establishment thoughts... am I a terrorist?

...

[Ferrus]

I have no doubt that the political greats like Machiavelli, Metternich and Bismark would have considered Cheney foolish. They were smart evil, and Cheney was foolish evil.

It's not fair to compare the gods of strategy, or those who follow their advice, to that politically unwise arsehole.
I actually think Talleyrand was a good deal more Machiavellian than Metternich. He had an ideological agenda in his policies - Talleyrand just supported whatever would accrue to him more power.

[Flatchett]

Sometimes I wonder if the whole of Washington isn't working in the interest of a foreign power, or at least a power that is not the US. But who knows? I don't know what America is anymore... nor who the American people are. There is a lot of rhetoric about these, but I often find myself at odds with both. Jeez... hope I don't get set up for assassination. I have a lot of anti-establishment thoughts... am I a terrorist?

...

Are you For Us?

[gregkdc]

I'm very affraid. :( I guess if I could learn to be more trusting of politicians I wouldn't feel so bad.

[kendoiwan]

You dumbasses. Don't you realize that if they can do it to him they can do it to you? It only takes the creative minds of politicians to come up with reasons why they can apply or change the definition of enemy combatant to fit you.

OMG I sound like Glen Beck,
but I do see the value in using a jury to find him guilty and having a republic system of government. What’s next? Barry Satoro decides that he likes your wife’s ass so suddenly you are in a Jihad against his dick?

Classic example of a government in a downward spiral. It may take many generations to get to the extremes that I mentioned above but this type of behavior is what has contributed to the down fall of governments in the past. They always first cross the line with the most hated person or group of people and eventually it comes back to haunt everyone else.
If you look at the constitution and the context in which it was written even terrorist have rights as they are inalienable and endowed by GOD not by the government. I am not saying that I believe in God that is just the way it is written and what is legal.

So many fallacies where to begin? :facepalm:

[kuranes]

it is a slippery slope to start condoning assassinations, which is hard for me to say about a word that contains "ass" multiple times.I'm always hearing about these "slippery slopes". If a country or person doesn't deal decisively with clear threats, then those slippery slopes might turn out to be their lubed-up ass cheeks dealing with phallusies. And, to put a different spin on Noah's post, I would prefer a one to one assassination to a whole block being taken out by a missile. The question of what our foreign policy is can be looked at separately.


So many fallacies where to begin?

[Flatchett]

So if we don't assassinate this guy we might have to deal with missiles raining down on our cities?

[kendoiwan]

What do you know about this guy besides the technicality of his citizenship? Would it bother you less if he wasn't a US citizen or are you just across the board against assassination?

[doob]

I'm always hearing about these "slippery slopes". If a country or person doesn't deal decisively with clear threats, then those slippery slopes might turn out to be their lubed-up ass cheeks dealing with phallusies. And, to put a different spin on Noah's post, I would prefer a one to one assassination to a whole block being taken out by a missile. The question of what our foreign policy is can be looked at separately.

We had a prison full of "clear threats" to national security, as I recall kids as young as 12 at Guantanamo. I think about 75% of those prisoners have been released. If our foreign policy is the cause of terrorist acts against us, and I believe it is, it is the first place we should look to find the solution(s) to mitigate or stop terrorist responses is our foreign policy.


What do you know about this guy besides the technicality of his citizenship? Would it bother you less if he wasn't a US citizen or are you just across the board against assassination?

Can't speak for anybody else but I don't know anything 'bout the guy except what the news tells us the government says about the guy and we all know how many times what the government has said 'bout anybody has been proven less than truthful. We also know how much "the media" can be the mouth piece of the government. One reason we're having "wars" in the middle east.

[NoahFence]

So if we don't assassinate this guy we might have to deal with missiles raining down on our cities?

The Afghans and Pakistanis do. The CIA claims that only 30 or so civilians have been killed while something like 500 or 600 terrorists have been killed in drone attacks. The Pakistani news claims the civilian loss at 600.

Both sides have reason to skew their reports. But the US operation is the only one with any surveillance in the area beyond the handful of locals just outside the blast radius. No journalists are allowed in the region.

On the gripping hand, though, I know how people live there, and I know what those drones are packing. These are not small explosions we're talking about. All the drones are armed with Hellfire II missiles bearing MAC thermobaric warheads. Not only would the target building be leveled, the shrapnel's kill radius would be completely unhindered by neighboring structures. Sure, a Hellfire can target an individual nipple and hit it dead on from a mile and a half away, but you can hardly call it an "accurate" weapon when using it in populated areas. The idea that such blasts would not cause random casualties is laughable. They were designed for a battlefield. They were, in fact, designed to cause random casualties.

[gr8ness97]

The US works for China. They have us by the balls.

[Neville]

The US works for China. They have us by the balls.

:facepalm:

[Flatchett]

What do you know about this guy besides the technicality of his citizenship? Would it bother you less if he wasn't a US citizen or are you just across the board against assassination?

In general, I'm against all assassinations. However, I recognize that the alternatives are unfeasible at the moment, and it's not a huge deal to me compared to other things. So yes, it would bother me much less if he wasn't a citizen. Constitutional protections are supposed to mean something.


The Afghans and Pakistanis do.


I guess I was reading him as saying that if this guy gets away he's gonna launch missiles at us.

[gregkdc]

The war heads are thermobaric? How can they even pretend to be precision weapons when they convert them into the second most powerful type of explosion next to nuclear, or anti mater if they have it.

They don’t need to resort to assassination, they need to follow the law and due process if this guy is really as big a threat as he is. As mentioned before most of our problems with foreign relations stem directly form the fact that we are over there in the first place.


I voted for Ron Paul..

[kendoiwan]

Follow the law and due process? Really? Is that your argument? How do you suggest they go about doing that exactly?

[kuranes]

We had a prison full of "clear threats" to national security, as I recall kids as young as 12 at Guantanamo. I think about 75% of those prisoners have been released. Then they weren't clear threats. What I heard about this guy sounded less ambiguous. If we assume that it is definitely a threat, then we should treat it as such.


If our foreign policy is the cause of terrorist acts against us, and I believe it is, it is the first place we should look to find the solution(s) to mitigate or stop terrorist responses is our foreign policy. I agree. So, if we ever change our behavior to reflect that, then that is something else altogether. Meanwhile.......


Can't speak for anybody else but I don't know anything 'bout the guy except what the news tells us the government says about the guyTrue. That's what I'm going by. I can give an opinion on how to handle something that's a real threat, or an opinion on things that I believe are not etc, and so my recommendations about threats should be considered in that light.

If you say "How do we handle a bad guy" and I give you answer "A", then I don't think it diminishes my suggestion if you later say "Well, he isn't really a bad guy." ( implying that I should have originally given answer "B" in the light of this later info. ) I'm sure you'll agree that there have been people in the history of crime or war who were given too much slack, or benefit of the doubt.

Just like a gun itself. It can be used in a proper or improper manner. What is "proper", from one POV, not only concerns the results, but what the original intention was.

[kendoiwan]

Can't speak for anybody else but I don't know anything 'bout the guy except what the news tells us the government says about the guy and we all know how many times what the government has said 'bout anybody has been proven less than truthful. We also know how much "the media" can be the mouth piece of the government. One reason we're having "wars" in the middle east.

Err, you can actually go and find this dudes videos, tapes, writings online and hear it from the proverbial horses mouth. There is no ambiguity about where he stands and what he stands for. This is treason, plan and simple.

[gr8ness97]

:facepalm:

? It was a response to someone who said who runs the US. *rolls eyes*

In all seriousness, as previously mentioned, the US Citizen thing is a technicality. Its just like someone who harms someone else. They should be punished. The punishment for this guy is death, which is inhumane except that if he isnt stopped, he will kill..and kill Americans.

[doob]

Then they weren't clear threats.

According to our last Presidential administration they were, the reason they were captured and and imprisoned.



What I heard about this guy sounded less ambiguous. If we assume that it is definitely a threat, then we should treat it as such.

I haven't yet read what he has done, only that he has been linked to folks who are/were proved dangerous. I know more people than I'd like to admit who have done things I'd (hopefully) never do. I'm not really good on acting on assumptions, so it could be my flaw.


I agree. So, if we ever change our behavior to reflect that, then that is something else altogether. Meanwhile.......

Meanwhile, because we're unwilling to change our foreign policy, comply with international law, ignore United Nations resolutions, ignore other countries and peoples sovereignty (as agreed upon in treaties) it's okay 'cause we can do that, 'cause we got the big guns. How does this help correct the problem of terrorism?


True. That's what I'm going by. I can give an opinion on how to handle something that's a real threat, or an opinion on things that I believe are not etc, and so my recommendations about threats should be considered in that light.

And we should all have our opinion, hopefully informed (not saying yours isn't). What I am attempting to convey is I can't know, and the US government is frequently known to bend the truth, I am being generous. If we're to believe this guy is worth assassination tell us why. Tell us how he got to another country after being tied to several known terrorist. I am not defending this guy personally. I am attempting to defend his right from execution, without proof of his mis deeds.


If you say "How do we handle a bad guy" and I give you answer "A", then I don't think it diminishes my suggestion if you later say "Well, he isn't really a bad guy." ( implying that I should have originally given answer "B" in the light of this later info. ) I'm sure you'll agree that there have been people in the history of crime or war who were given too much slack, or benefit of the doubt.

As I'm sure you'll agree there are people who have been imprisoned and killed based on false information. I am not excusing anybody from their just punishment. I do think it should be articulated and proven.


Just like a gun itself. It can be used in a proper or improper manner. What is "proper", from one POV, not only concerns the results, but what the original intention was.

okay.


Err, you can actually go and find this dudes videos, tapes, writings online and hear it from the proverbial horses mouth. There is no ambiguity about where he stands and what he stands for. This is treason, plan and simple.

Thanks for the tip, but I likely won't bother. What he stands for or what he has said is not proof for what he has done, and from what I've read in the article in the OP nobody says anything he has done. If he's guilty of a crime prove it. I know plenty of people who sell (what we used to call) "wolf tickets," so this does not IMO make for a U.S. sanctioned assassination. If he has committed treason, capture him and put him on trial for treason. As we well know there are plenty of people in prison where there is no proof they committed any crime (e.g. Leonard Peltier) or have spent many years in prison when the government knew they committed no crime (e.g. Geronimo Pratt).

[Oso Mocoso]

Thanks for the tip, but I likely won't bother. What he stands for or what he has said is not proof for what he has done, and from what I've read in the article in the OP nobody says anything he has done. If he's guilty of a crime prove it.

Well, the evidence of his guilt is there for you to look at but apparently you're too lazy.


I know plenty of people who sell (what we used to call) "wolf tickets," so this does not IMO make for a U.S. sanctioned assassination. If he has committed treason, capture him and put him on trial for treason.

Oh right, as if they'll just waltz over to Yemen and he'll come along peacefully.


As we well know there are plenty of people in prison where there is no proof they committed any crime (e.g. Leonard Peltier)

Umm ... what? Peltier freely admits he shot at FBI agents who were killed by bullets consistent with those fired from his gun. He doesn't claim he is innocent of the crimes he was convicted of, merely that his trial was unfair. This is because all of his friends rolled over on him, turning state evidence to get off easier on the charges they were accused of.

[kendoiwan]

People really need to go and research this guy and his track record and cease and desist with the all the talking from the anus.

[fripping]

where can i put in an application for my own assassination?

[kendoiwan]

Orchestrate some successful attacks against the U.S., take credit for them and hide out in a foreign country. Throw in some "Death to America's" for good measure.

[fripping]

ugh. there's always a hidden cost to these so-called free services.

[esthim8]

People really need to go and research this guy and his track record and cease and desist with the all the talking from the anus.

I think that would serve no purpose as the majority of arguments against the assassination has nothing to do with his criminal record and past deeds. The argument is based on a much more general principle derived from axioms of ethics and the idea that America is governed by law; therefore rendering opinions of the president on who deserves to die irrelevant.

The irony is that if I were teh Pres I would probably, if given the power, hand-select some awesome-cool-guys to blow some shit up and assassinate this guy.

[doob]

Well, the evidence of his guilt is there for you to look at but apparently you're too lazy.

I did never say he wasn't guilty. I can't know. I am saying if he's guilty capture him and put him on trial.


Oh right, as if they'll just waltz over to Yemen and he'll come along peacefully.

It seems if you can find him for assassination, you can find him for capture. If it becomes a battle and you kill him and his protectors while trying to capture him, that's another story entirely. If you find him and capture him and his protectors you've still accomplished your job.



Umm ... what? Peltier freely admits he shot at FBI agents who were killed by bullets consistent with those fired from his gun. He doesn't claim he is innocent of the crimes he was convicted of, merely that his trial was unfair. This is because all of his friends rolled over on him, turning state evidence to get off easier on the charges they were accused of.

one stop shopping: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier

These quotes are consistent with what I know about Peltier.


...Peltier did not commit the murders, and that he either had no knowledge of the murders (as he told CNN in 1999), or that he has knowledge implicating others which he will never reveal, or (as told in Peter Matthiessen's In the Spirit of Crazy Horse) that he approached and searched the agents but did not execute them.


An FBI ballistics expert testimony during the trial asserted that a shell case found near the dead agents' bodies matched the gun tied to Peltier. However it was specified that a forensics test of the firing pin, which would have more definitively matched the gun to the cartridge case, was not performed because the gun was damaged in the fire.

Rather, a less definitive test was done which indicated that the extractor marks on the case and gun matched.Years later, after an FOIA request, the FBI ballistics expert’s records were examined. His report stated that he had performed a ballistics test of the firing pin and concluded that the cartridge case from the scene of the crime did not come from the gun tied to Peltier. That evidence was withheld from the jury during the trial.


At the conclusion of Peltier’s trial, the prosecutor closed his argument saying, "We proved that he went down to the bodies and executed those two young men at point blank range." However, at the appellate hearing, the government attorney conceded, "We had a murder. We had numerous shooters. We do not know who specifically fired what killing shots...We do not know who shot the agents."

I have not argued the innocence or guilt of Anwar al-Awlaki, I am asking if what is reported is true, and am denouncing Obama's approval of an assassination on the man.

[rainfall]

The point was: "So what?" It's not like this is the first time the US has ever killed one of its own. At least this dude deserves to die. Were you expecting a nice discussion over tea?

This attitude is precisely why I don't mind ragheads blowing stuff up in US.

[doob]

I think that would serve no purpose as the majority of arguments against the assassination has nothing to do with his criminal record and past deeds. The argument is based on a much more general principle derived from axioms of ethics and the idea that America is governed by law; therefore rendering opinions of the president on who deserves to die irrelevant.

Thanks for saying' it with clarity, I apparently didn't.


The irony is that if I were teh Pres I would probably, if given the power, hand-select some awesome-cool-guys to blow some shit up and assassinate this guy.

I hope I wouldn't, but who knows.

[kendoiwan]

:facepalm:

[doob]

:facepalm:
:facepalm:

[kendoiwan]

Lets get down to brass tax. This line of reasoning you guys are advancing is garbage. I can rattle off a list of potential terror suspects who were on U.S. soil and were arrested and charged (two just this morning), to the howl of neocons across the nation, and you guys want to harp on this one douche who has clearly committed treason, admits as much (if you bothered to check), is responsible for multiple attacks on his own country, who's hiding in Yemen. If he valued his citizenship as much as you guys did, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

[NotATanar'ri]

Hey, I always approve of the killing off of dumbshits. Bravo Obama.

[Kleptocracy]

All the people calling it "badass" are retards. Just thought I'd point that out.

[shimoochiai]

(Preface: I am pretty liberal. I was angry about the Bush years and Guantanamo, and I was for a long time (before moving to Japan and getting sucked into my worklife) an active member of Amnesty International. I have met with and been moved by the stories of Guatemalans and Nicaraguans who were targets of extrajudicial harrasments/assassination attempts by their own governments. I think assassination--taking a person's life on political grounds without a trial--is a terrible thing, no matter who is the victim. I also fully acknowledge that US intelligence has been wrong before and will probably be wrong again, as evidence by the utter fiasco of Saddam Hussein's WMDs.)

But I am resigned to the reality that each and every one of us has to approach this world in a relative way. And to the fact that we elect leaders to make some of the more difficult relative choices for us.

I would far, far rather be a citizen of a country which chose to resort to assassination before war, the kind of mass violence in which we attempt to kill certain people in the full knowledge that we will inevitably have "collateral damage" in the form of innocent lives suddenly and violently ended, surviving families and communities ruined and traumatized, and great enmity towards my country engendered.

I am deeply opposed to the death penalty, even when the prisoner has been tried by a jury of his or her peers. I think it has no place whatsoever in a humane society. The death penalty is a harsh, retroactive punishment that serves no purpose but revenge: the prisoner is already in custody, and can be prevented from repeating their crimes again.

Assassination in contrast is an aggressive form of self-defense. If you have compelling evidence that the only way to prevent an individual from causing grave harm to you or your group is to target them for killing (=murder them), then I think you are entitled to try to do so. And I think you are morally obligated to try to do so before you decide to rain down bombs on a city or village.

Again, not to say that this is a good situation to be in, or that it is the most desirable outcome to a conflict. But I think it is preferable to many others, and that

All the better if you make it known publicly that this is your intent, so that any people in society with evidence that such as step is unjustified can come forward with it, and give them the opportunity to turn themselves in or somehow communicate with you if they have been falsely accused.

My two yen.

[kuranes]

According to our last Presidential administration they were, the reason they were captured and and imprisoned.I thought most came from an actual Afghan battlefield, at least initially. I hear that some who were released have gone back to trying to blow stuff up again.

While I live in the USA, and ride on its airplanes, and take its subways, and drink its water, I like to enjoy some concept of safety in doing so. Maybe I'd feel differently if I lived elsewhere. * shrug * I remember a cartoon showing a guy beat up by some thugs and left robbed and wounded in an alley. The caption indicated the victim saying "But I know why they did it !" It is this sense of "1st world guilt" ( the cartoon was more about racial guilt ) that I think I hear somewhere in your statements, even though I appreciate your advocating a sense of "fair play" etc. As much as I disagree with Bush about so many things, when he said "They're using freedom to destroy freedom" I understood that, as it related to the USA, and I agreed with it. I see the same thing happening when people shoot at soldiers from mosques with "holy immunity", and hide behind women and kids at schools to when ambushing etc. It's supposed to be OK that they do that, because we are such a powerful "bully' and we're supposed to "be the better man" etc.

I also think it sucks that we have to put protective devices on most pieces of container-held food, and make toilet tissue awkward to use in public bathrooms; all to deal with the people who want to be "free" to fuck with the system. Yet, what else can you do ?



Meanwhile, because we're unwilling to change our foreign policy...
To me, that's for a separate thread.

I thought the point of this thread was:

( 1. ) IF someone is shown ( as clearly as can be reasonably demonstrated without having the person in custody already ) to be either dangerous or strongly enabling said danger, THEN

( 2. ) Does it make more sense to just put a hit on them versus getting an entire army going after them, or a drone attack that might be more likely to inflict damage on innocents ??

Whereas you seem to feel the thread is just a general discussion of US foreign policy.



It seems if you can find him for assassination, you can find him for capture. If it becomes a battle and you kill him and his protectors while trying to capture him, that's another story entirely.



I totally disagree with your statement that if someone can be assassinated then ( therefore ) it would be just as easy to bring that person to trial. LOL. And whose country would we try them in ?

Plus, these people ( even seen as soldiers versus "stateless" ) wouldn't need or be expected to have "trials" in a war battle, but only as prisoners AFTER such a battle. We're supposed to think it is not a war, because of the guerrilla nature of the whole thing. Yet it is a war. ( And yeah, gangsters will sometimes declare themselves a "nation", and so they should be considered to be "soldiers" too, since they have self-defined themselves as such. The times they are a'changin', and we should be changin' with them. ) Soldiers have more rights than stateless saboteurs, and so maybe this would be a good thing from your POV. Geneva convention etc. And then maybe OUR soldiers will not be getting beheaded on video without a "trial" per se, once they have similar "rights". I could understand you asking me whether our assassin would be considered a "soldier" or not, however. :devil:

[doob]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp



It's kind of heartwarming that a guy whose election was a deliberate repudiation of the Bush administration by the American people feels no need to actually act differently than Bush. It restores my lack of faith in humanity.



I'm really not sure why I'm posting a two month old story, but I just ran across it in my bookmarks folder and it seemed like the universe was telling me to. What does time matter anyway.

The OP seems to me about the more things "change," the more they stay the same. While the OP cites an article regarding the actor, it is a commentary on the acts of the current presidential administration. I commented how many lies we're told by government and how do we know what we're told is true considering the many government lies (esp. terrorism). I used Padilla as an example and later Peltier and Pratt. It's suggested to find his videos to find evidence, which I didn't care to do as it would have not changed my opinion about US sanctioned assassinations. I am chastised as lazy and "corrected" by someone who was too lazy or purposely provided incorrect information.

The following is posted:


I think that would serve no purpose as the majority of arguments against the assassination has nothing to do with his criminal record and past deeds. The argument is based on a much more general principle derived from axioms of ethics and the idea that America is governed by law; therefore rendering opinions of the president on who deserves to die irrelevant.

I think it sums up the posts well.

It was or likely I was given a "turd" for my response to it. Then there's a message about harping, clearly a projection. An accurate reading of the posts will identify who is harping. For me there is no need to continue. I don't care about the actor. I do think US government lacks integrity by attempting to divorce itself of implications of it's foreign policy, etc. What relief will assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki bring the US from terrorism? Will it dissuade his followers or make him a hero? What does the US government hope to accomplish by sanctioning or successful assassination of this guy.

BTW, what's up with Bin Laden?

[nonperson]

So it is dumb ass or dumbass?

bump

[Flatchett]

Watabout dumb arse?

[vSv]

Are you really that surprised?
I've given up hope in politicans ages ago, if I ever had any that is.

[Stryfe]

I love this idea if and only if Kiefer Sutherland does teh sniping. Why should a Canadian do the Americans' dirty work?!

[esthim8]

Why should a Canadian do the Americans' dirty work?!

For the love of the game.

[Madrigal]

When I first joined this forum I thought y'all were a bunch of goddamn commies.
*falls off chair*


According to the United States body of law, if you serve as a member of a foreign military which is at war with the United States, you have renounced your citizenship. So ... this guy wasn't a member of another nation state's military, but I think he's violated the spirit of the law if not its letter. It's not really the same thing as assassinating a Los Angelino gang leader.

With that reasoning you can kill just about any subversive within the country that's organized against the State or regime. No questions asked, no trial, whether or not they have a gun in their hand pointed at someone at the time of their capture. That goes for freedom fighters of every kind.

Should we kill everyone who openly professes agreement with the Communist Manifesto? Because it says we should violently rise up and destroy the capitalist State. Or is a previous crime required for assassination without due process? And if so, doesn't that make you in favor of 1) vigilante justice by the army and 2) a state-backed death penalty?

Hell at least Stalin mounted some bullshit frame-up trials to kill the State's most prominent "enemies".


You dumbasses. Don't you realize that if they can do it to him they can do it to you? It only takes the creative minds of politicians to come up with reasons why they can apply or change the definition of enemy combatant to fit you.


Exactly.

[nonperson]

Watabout dumb arse?

No. Obviously doesn't translate into English English........

[AntJ]

First and last thought: You never know the real facts of event, so it's useless to read about these things and form positive/negative judgements.

[MadamI'madaM]

I'm not a fan of this at all, but this particular guy shouldn't have expected any less.

Also, it's naive to believe that the president saying something like this publically has any real bearing on whether or not worthy adversaries of government and industry get rubbed out.

As to whether or not the transparency of this case will lead to more assasinations of possibly less combative "combatants" can only be speculated. Sounds like slippery slope paranoia, but who's to say.

[kendoiwan]

First and last thought: You never know the real facts of event, so it's useless to read about these things and form positive/negative judgements.

you were saying?

[Madrigal]

you were saying?

Sorry but do you mind pointing out the inconsistencies in what this guy says in the video? Or are you just defending Uncle Sam Uncle Tom continuing Bush's warmongering policies because he's black? You used to be left wing - gone are the days, I guess.

[kendoiwan]

Sorry but do you mind pointing out the inconsistencies in what this guy says in the video? Or are you just defending Uncle Sam Uncle Tom continuing Bush's warmongering policies because he's black? You used to be left wing - gone are the days, I guess.

Nope not at all. I don't have to agree or disagree with what the guy says to point out that what he is doing is an act of treason. Left wing or right wing through out history the penalty for treason has always been most severe.

[Madrigal]

Nope not at all. I don't have to agree or disagree with what the guy says to point out that what he is doing is an act of treason. Left wing or right wing through out history the penalty for treason has always been most severe.

Anyone fighting against an oppressive state can be accused of treason, that doesn't make it right for you to condone what you are condoning, see my above post to Oso. And yes you have changed your tune; must've been the huge bailout that Obama gave to all the poor inner city black and hispanic families that one time. Or maybe I just dreamt that. :gm:

[Oso Mocoso]

With that reasoning you can kill just about any subversive within the country that's organized against the State or regime. No questions asked, no trial, whether or not they have a gun in their hand pointed at someone at the time of their capture. That goes for freedom fighters of every kind.

Umm ... whut.

I just said that assassinating an outspoken terrorist recruiter who helped orchestrate a plot which resulted in the deaths of thousands of New Yorkers is not ethically the same as killing a Los Angeles gang leader. One of them has clearly abandoned any loyalty to his country and taken up arms against it, and the other is merely an outlaw. In the former case, even if the terrorist hasn't formally renounced his citizenship his actions speak much louder than the mere words "Death to America and Americans!" In a country that values freedom of speech, I don't think those words are enough.


Should we kill everyone who openly professes agreement with the Communist Manifesto?

Yes, Madrigal. That is clearly the logical extension of my argument that Fox News would make. Are you applying for a job there?

[kendoiwan]

Anyone fighting against an oppressive state can be accused of treason, that doesn't make it right for you to condone what you are condoning, see my above post to Oso. And yes you have changed your tune; must've been the huge bailout that Obama gave to all the poor inner city black and hispanic families that one time. Or maybe I just dreamt that. :gm:

Your response to Oso focuses on a hypothetical that doesn't apply to this situation. This man is not just some guy who is speaking out. Not someone who potentially has committed treason or may do so down the line. He has committed treason. It's not a maybe, or an if.

He hasn't been framed, he has claimed responsibility for all the acts attributed to him. He isn't someone who is being cast as potentially a danger, he is someone who stands proud as a threat.

I believe Kuranes said it best, if you want to debate the U.S. foreign policy go right on ahead, but that is an issue separate and apart from this particular case and this particular individual. If he wants a trial let him stop hiding in Yemen and turn himself in.

[Madrigal]

Umm ... whut.

I just said that assassinating an outspoken terrorist recruiter who helped orchestrate a plot which resulted in the deaths of thousands of New Yorkers is not ethically the same as killing a Los Angeles gang leader.
I would not attempt to argue with that, and I wasn't.


Yes, Madrigal. That is clearly the logical extension of my argument that Fox News would make. Are you applying for a job there?
I wasn't exaggerating. And yes I would apply for a job there. :devil:

[Oso Mocoso]

And yes I would apply for a job there. :devil:

Really? That's shameless. Did they run out of your brand of granola at the Commune?


I would not attempt to argue with that, and I wasn't.

I don't think this man is defensible. I don't believe in the slippery slope argument. This guy's a terrorist cretin with the distinction of being good at helping to kill people. It's okay to kill someone like that if there's a chance he'll help someone else pull off another massacre. He's stated his intention to do so in no uncertain terms.

[jyng1]

My mechanics father was responsible for the running the hangings at Nuremburg (Pierrepoint worked for him). As is the case with most people like that, they become fairly opposed to the death penalty.

To me the issue is the essential morality of taking someones life. Most killers can justify the act. Ask any murderer in prison, they're all innocent.

Any terrorist will also tell you the taking of life is justifiable, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Weaponshops]

gr8ness97
The US works for China. They have us by the balls.

Who told you about our Chinese masters? That's supposed to be a secret...;)


kendoiwan
Err, you can actually go and find this dudes videos, tapes, writings online and hear it from the proverbial horses mouth. There is no ambiguity about where he stands and what he stands for. This is treason, plan and simple.

He hasn't been framed, he has claimed responsibility for all the acts attributed to him. He isn't someone who is being cast as potentially a danger, he is someone who stands proud as a threat.

I am not claiming that he has been framed, because how would I know. But, just how in the hell would you know for sure that he hasn't been? Have you ever met the man? Do you know what he actually sounds like? What reason do you have to think he even exists at all? When the video of Osama claiming credit for the 9/11 attacks was broadcast all over the news, most of the people who actually spoke the language thought that the voice in the video had been dubbed over because his mouth didn't match the words he was speaking. Aside from that, I have personally seen solid convincing evidence that the only terrorists responsible for the world trade center attacks were high ranking U.S.A. military leaders. They practically told me that they had caught the people that were going to do it about a month before it happened. But, in all actuality I have no way of knowing whether there even were any terrorists aside from our own military to begin with... :banghead:


jyng1
Any terrorist will also tell you the taking of life is justifiable, but two wrongs don't make a right. So, you are saying that it is wrong to kill someone for being a terrorist then, right?

I definitely agree that two wrongs don't make a right. But, sometimes revenge can make people feel better about the situation anyway. I would have to say though, that for the government to have a citizen (or anyone else for that matter.) killed without the proper chance to defend their innocence is not only incredibly wrong, but also goes against everything this country is supposed to be about. Our government has prosecuted me without allowing me to have a jury or even giving me the chance to testify on my own behalf in the past and even presented false information as evidence in order to justify doing so. :mad:

If this man is a terrorist though, making a martyr of him will only encourage more, and more violent, attacks on our country. :stupid:

BTW... I actually read the whole thread this time. Which took forever with my untreated ADD.

[Neville]

Who told you about our Chinese masters? That's supposed to be a secret...;)



I am not claiming that he has been framed, because how would I know. But, just how in the hell would you know for sure that he hasn't been? Have you ever met the man? Do you know what he actually sounds like? What reason do you have to think he even exists at all? When the video of Osama claiming credit for the 9/11 attacks was broadcast all over the news, most of the people who actually spoke the language thought that the voice in the video had been dubbed over because his mouth didn't match the words he was speaking. Aside from that, I have personally seen solid convincing evidence that the only terrorists responsible for the world trade center attacks were high ranking U.S.A. military leaders. They practically told me that they had caught the people that were going to do it about a month before it happened. But, in all actuality I have no way of knowing whether there even were any terrorists aside from our own military to begin with... :banghead:

So, you are saying that it is wrong to kill someone for being a terrorist then, right?

I definitely agree that two wrongs don't make a right. But, sometimes revenge can make people feel better about the situation anyway. I would have to say though, that for the government to have a citizen (or anyone else for that matter.) killed without the proper chance to defend their innocence is not only incredibly wrong, but also goes against everything this country is supposed to be about. Our government has prosecuted me without allowing me to have a jury or even giving me the chance to testify on my own behalf in the past and even presented false information as evidence in order to justify doing so. :mad:

If this man is a terrorist though, making a martyr of him will only encourage more, and more violent, attacks on our country. :stupid:

BTW... I actually read the whole thread this time. Which took forever with my untreated ADD.

You know you're an idiot, right?

[Weaponshops]

You know you're an idiot, right?

How so exactly??? :devil:

Edit:Well I am an idiot. But, I don't know how you would know anything about it or how it relates to this thread in any way, so maybe you should keep your ignorance and insults to yourself.

[Neville]

How so exactly??? :devil:

It's not terribly difficult to figure out; give it a go.

[Resonance]

Sorry but do you mind pointing out the inconsistencies in what this guy says in the video? Or are you just defending Uncle Sam Uncle Tom continuing Bush's warmongering policies because he's black? You used to be left wing - gone are the days, I guess.

hasty generalization (all people living in America are evil Americans//support the American foreign policy)
Ad hominem tu quoque (they want to spread islam through the world and make the words of the prophet Muhammad to be above all others, but their goals are not imperialistic?)
America is fighting for worldly gain yet it has already cost them $40 billion dollars just for the improved security in airports?

The guy sounds nice and he almost had me convinced. I can see how he has so many followers.

[md5fungi]

who cares everyone deserves to die

[Weaponshops]

who cares everyone deserves to die

LOL:theclap:

Do you actually mean that? I cant help but to both agree and disagree with that statement at the same time either way. But mostly because I really like paradoxes and because the implications of that statement are very broad.

[Oso Mocoso]

Aside from that, I have personally seen solid convincing evidence that the only terrorists responsible for the world trade center attacks were high ranking U.S.A. military leaders. They practically told me that they had caught the people that were going to do it about a month before it happened.

Oh really. Tell us more, Weaponshops. Did they make you pay for the DVD?

[Weaponshops]

Oh really. Tell us more, Weaponshops. Did they make you pay for the DVD?

Well, I suppose I didn't expect anyone here to believe me that easily. But, If anyone wants more information about it, then please send me a private message about it. I would rather not put the specifics directly on the forum.

[MacGuffin]

Well, I suppose I didn't expect anyone here to believe me that easily. But, If anyone wants more information about it, then please send me a private message about it. I would rather not put the specifics directly on the forum.

Don't worry, they recalled the Predator drone circling overhead, it's safe to post.

[jyng1]

So, you are saying that it is wrong to kill someone for being a terrorist then, right?

No. I'm saying it's wrong to kill someone. Doesn't matter if you're an immoral decadent American or a fanatical Arab. Generally both parties can find enough evidence to justify whatever they want to do.


Many in the West see Muslims as fanatical, violent, and as lacking tolerance. Meanwhile, Muslims in the Middle East and Asia generally see Westerners as selfish, immoral and greedy – as well as violent and fanatical.

http://pewglobal.org/2006/06/22/the-great-divide-how-westerners-and-muslims-view-each-other/

As soon as you descend to the level of your attacker, you lose the moral advantage. Any nation or organisation that resorts to torture, illegal acts, use of WMDs or assassination is supporting or conducting terrorism.

If any of these actions are illegal under international law, anyone ordering them to be done or carrying them out should be brought to justice... anyone.

[nonperson]

Well, I suppose I didn't expect anyone here to believe me that easily. But, If anyone wants more information about it, then please send me a private message about it. I would rather not put the specifics directly on the forum.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s5vfRP-dx3E/SLTW5w6crAI/AAAAAAAANAs/hG7L05aoFDY/s400/Kaley_Cuoco_Big_Bang_Theory_Tank_Top_1.jpg

"Oh honey, the bus doesn't go where you live."

[nonperson]

No. I'm saying it's wrong to kill someone. Doesn't matter if you're an immoral decadent American or a fanatical Arab. Generally both parties can find enough evidence to justify whatever they want to do.



http://pewglobal.org/2006/06/22/the-great-divide-how-westerners-and-muslims-view-each-other/

As soon as you descend to the level of your attacker, you lose the moral advantage. Any nation or organisation that resorts to torture, illegal acts, use of WMDs or assassination is supporting or conducting terrorism.

If any of these actions are illegal under international law, anyone ordering them to be done or carrying them out should be brought to justice... anyone.

Moral absolutism is a nice idea, but.....

[jyng1]

Moral absolutism is a nice idea, but.....

Yeah well... I think New York will make a nice place to leave a suitcase nuke.

Shame there won't be a target to hit back at...

The price of escalating conflict sometimes gets quite high.

[Weaponshops]

Don't worry, they recalled the Predator drone circling overhead, it's safe to post.
It's not that I am afraid of being hurt in anyway for what I have to say. I have already been through things that most people would never even start to imagine. So I am not really afraid of much of anything. There are just certain things that I would rather keep to myself unless someone is truly interested in knowing at this point.


No. I'm saying it's wrong to kill someone. Doesn't matter if you're an immoral decadent American or a fanatical Arab. Generally both parties can find enough evidence to justify whatever they want to do.

http://pewglobal.org/2006/06/22/the-great-divide-how-westerners-and-muslims-view-each-other/

As soon as you descend to the level of your attacker, you lose the moral advantage. Any nation or organisation that resorts to torture, illegal acts, use of WMDs or assassination is supporting or conducting terrorism.

If any of these actions are illegal under international law, anyone ordering them to be done or carrying them out should be brought to justice... anyone.

Well I do agree with you. And if it were possible to get things to work that way I would be all for it. I myself have been tortured for no logical reason on more than one occasion. So, I understand how very wrong it is. But, even so, I have still wanted the same thing to be done to the people responsible. I would never go so far as to do it myself, but if someone else decided to do it I probably wouldn't think any less of them. The concept of an eye for an eye may not be the way the world should work. But, that is what I have come to expect from life. Anytime I have done something wrong to someone else I have usually had something equally as bad if not worse done to me.



"Oh honey, the bus doesn't go where you live."
Well, I am not quite sure what you mean. But I get the impression I have amused you somehow. So I am glad. :devil:

[kendoiwan]

This thread has it all... From slippery slopes and irrelevant conclusions, to strawmen and red herrings. You name it we've got it here.

[Flatchett]

This thread has it all... From slippery slopes and irrelevant conclusions, to strawmen and red herrings. You naame it we've got it here.
I feel it's been a SUCCESS.

[stigmatica]

This thread has it all... From slippery slopes and irrelevant conclusions, to strawmen and red herrings. You name it we've got it here.
And don't forget the painfully stupid, as well. First thread I read this morning, and I'm grumpy already. :mellow:

[md5fungi]

...and red herrings.

Yo. (raises hand)

[Voice_Of_The_People]

Well, I would like to make a few points here, and I hope that posting this way prevents any kind of personal oriented bickering that would distract from what I'm trying to say. Failing that, I expect to be mostly ignored, but I will post this anyway. Mainly, I view this as a sign of approaching fascism. This means that whether or not the act is "morally justified" is not so important, because the consequences in conjunction with other things that are going on are going to be extremely negative.

First, an Enemy of the State is being killed without resorting to the judicial system. There is not a real legal justification for this, and the normal response would be to rush the person and arrest him. If he is judged by the state as someone who absolutely needs to die quickly, they "accidentally" kill him in the crossfire, but the state continues to say that just going out and killing him would not be okay because that's just not how we do things in America. Often the state will actually go through an arrest, trial, and monitored execution. Even if much of that is a lie, it at least builds up a tentative blockade against fascist type thinking and organizing on the part of the general public, which in term prevents a structural reorientation on the part of the state. It all provides a kind of liberal justification that is openly hostile to fascism, and that is a very good thing just in terms of end results.

Secondly, I do not propose that "you could be next." But perhaps I could be next, given the reactions of the people here. I hear people saying that this person deserves to die on the grounds that he advocates acts of violence against the united states, and would probably be willing to participate in them too. Guess what? I advocate acts of violence against the United States. I consider the United States to be an empire and the resistance to it to be just resistance, which is one thing I have in common with the person who was killed. I do not engage in acts of violence myself, nor do I provide material assistance to those carrying out armed fighting, but this is a tactical decision- those in the US who do such things are snubbed pretty quickly without landing major blows on the system as a whole. But perhaps just believing these kinds of actions to be just is too much; perhaps I too deserve to die. Perhaps many people deserve to die, because of their associations, for what they would probably be willing to do based on what they have thought and said, or for what those things say about their moral character. For me this is a very scary and pressing thought. For non-dissidents, this may not be as close to home, but I hope that you see the implications of this kind of thing as something that is dangerous.

Thirdly, many of people's reactions show openness to fascist encroachment into the state. Many people's first reactions is not "This is legal and necessary to defend the state" or "This is unnecessary to defend the state and illegal," but "That's so badass." The idea of the state taking this kind of action is cool, as long as they find a good target. But luckily, "good targets" abound. We don't need to feel bad about this, because it's just a handful of crazy people operating on the fringes of society. Perhaps before long we can have them all killed off! Yet for some reason this never happens and people keep saying things from the fringes. Why are these people so present? what can be done to further annihilate them? This is not a personal diatribe against anyone, but when a population provides legitimacy to the extreme use of force as something that's pleasurable or worthwhile in itself, this is the natural progression for many people. You may or may not be "above that," but other people certainly are not. This also occurs within the context of voluntary border patrols, a little girl being killed by the police (http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/05/officer_whose_bullet_killed_ai.html) while being recorded for a entertainment oriented television series, etc. These all imply fascism taking root in the general population, not just in particular instances, but on a mental level.

In general, I am pretty cynical towards the American population and its potential for progressive change. But I do feel that it is genuinely possible for liberalism (in the declaration of independence sense) to triumph over fascism in the United States, and that requires the support of people on a basic level. This is one of the few things that I, a dissident, and you, someone who probably/hopefully identifies with Liberalism on some level, can work together on. I really hope we will, because as I've said, for me there is a big sense of urgency; it is not at all unreasonable that I or someone I know could be killed in the coming years or months. Even if a bullet to the head is not a realistic danger to you personally, at least not in that time frame, I hope that you see that this is a real problem, and that this is something would push the whole world into a more dangerous and violent place. That's something we've absolutely got to oppose strongly, consistently, and with vigor.

[Gchrist]

Good post. Pity I know who you are and.....
.
.
.
I'm telling Obama. Godspeed.

[Madrigal]

Really? That's shameless. Did they run out of your brand of granola at the Commune?
Granola?! We eat meat. Raw.


I don't think this man is defensible. I don't believe in the slippery slope argument. This guy's a terrorist cretin with the distinction of being good at helping to kill people. It's okay to kill someone like that if there's a chance he'll help someone else pull off another massacre. He's stated his intention to do so in no uncertain terms.
Let's imagine I actually want this guy killed, like you do. Whether or not I do is beside the point.

This is like me arguing against someone getting the death penalty, and your response being, "But he was a serial murderer and rapist, doesn't he deserve to die?" I would say yes, he deserves to die, but not at the cost of allowing a State (which is an enemy of its own people) the privilege of deciding who lives and who doesn't, not at the cost of setting a precedent where a govt. can revoke your rights because it considers you a threat to the state. Yes it IS a slippery slope.


hasty generalization (all people living in America are evil Americans//support the American foreign policy)
This makes me smirk actually. The guy, who probably doesn't support democracy anyway, is saying Americans voted a warmongering president. They, in fact, did. He has a point there; his only flaw is not forgiving people for their ignorance.

How hasty is it to invade a country and kill thousands of innocents just to "dismantle a terrorist network" or "find weapons of mass destruction"? The US punished entire populations for the attacks on the WTC and other reasons. So the argument of "hasty generalization" is hypocritical to the core.


Ad hominem tu quoque (they want to spread islam through the world and make the words of the prophet Muhammad to be above all others, but their goals are not imperialistic?)
Actually he didn't say that, he only said he wants to have their own Islamic state without corrupt officials and without foreign interference. He didn't say he wanted to conquer the entire planet and convert it to Islam.

Which, again, is a downright hypocritical argument because the US invades countries whose regimes it disagrees with, as in the Middle East. They're the ones invading the planet and converting countries.


The guy sounds nice and he almost had me convinced. I can see how he has so many followers.
Yep, I can too.

[Melody]

hmmm. how about this scenario

some guy has some bitch hostage. he is pointing a gun at her head. he's already killed 1 or 2 people in the last hour. he says this:


i'm going to shoot this bitch in 3 seconds.
.
.
.
one
.
.
.
two
.

question: do you, or do you not order your sniper to take the guy out?

do not forget the important piece in all of this, which is that the guy holding the hostages is a US citizen

[stigmatica]

hmmm. how about this scenario

some guy has some bitch hostage. he is pointing a gun at her head. he's already killed 1 or 2 people in the last hour. he says this:



question: do you, or do you not order your sniper to take the guy out?

do not forget the important piece in all of this, which is that the guy holding the hostages is a US citizen
Yep, I pull that trigger. Twice, for good measure.

However, if he's a known killer somewhere roaming around, I go after him with handcuffs. If he then takes a hostage, and blah blah blah, yep... sniper time perhaps... but I make an effort to apprehend him for the courts. It IS a slippery slope. I'm not in the mood for the rest of the arguments opened up.

[Flatchett]

hmmm. how about this scenario

some guy has some bitch hostage. he is pointing a gun at her head. he's already killed 1 or 2 people in the last hour. he says this:



question: do you, or do you not order your sniper to take the guy out?

do not forget the important piece in all of this, which is that the guy holding the hostages is a US citizen

A relevant and appropriate analogy. Thank you for this worthy contribution to my thread.




Who tagged this "not exactly paul robeson"?:lol:

[Gchrist]

A relevant and appropriate analogy. Thank you for this worthy contribution to my thread.


Given that the possibility of arrest/incapacitation is still on the table, I'd say it's a pretty poor analogy actually.

Other notable factors which are not addressed are the lack of solid time constraints, multiple people who could pick up where he left off, and political repercussions.

Bastardized Analogy:
Terrorist is on top of a very tall building, pointing a gun down at the streets below.
"It's possible I will kill someone down there sometime in the future! I don't like them and it's happened before!"
He then begins mumbling something incoherent that could be construed as a countdown starting at 534,902 or maybe 299.
Before you order your sniper to shoot, you have to remember the time where you shot a similar looking man but then he popped right back up and said, "You killed me! Now I'm really pissed!" and begins mumbling faster. This guy could be immortal for God's sake!!
Also, if you kill him, you might just set a precedent allowing idiots who have committed lesser crimes like pointing a finger gun at a crowd and saying "Pew Pew" to get killed.

After a while, you just say "Screw this asshole and screw this situation." and get someone to sneak up behind him and smack him with the butt of a rifle while he's mumbling incoherently. No pesky immortality, no slippery precedents, no bleeding hearts crying murder, and no dead Americans.

Now if only that faceless guy from Yemen wasn't standing behind him saying, "I got you, just keep mumbling and pointing that gun. No one is going to arrest you."

What an asshole.

[Madrigal]

hmmm. how about this scenario

some guy has some bitch hostage. he is pointing a gun at her head. he's already killed 1 or 2 people in the last hour. he says this:



question: do you, or do you not order your sniper to take the guy out?

do not forget the important piece in all of this, which is that the guy holding the hostages is a US citizen

Is that how they're going to find him? Pointing a gun at someone's head? If so, I couldn't "object" to it from a neutral and legal standpoint.

Sending some foreign army to do your dirty work in messy and unconstitutional ways is another thing altogether.

[Flatchett]

Given that the possibility of arrest/incapacitation is still on the table, I'd say it's a pretty poor analogy actually.


I think it's a ludicrous analogy. I thought my snark was obvious.

[kendoiwan]

Who tagged this "not exactly paul robeson"?:lol:

That would be me.

[Melody]

Is that how they're going to find him? Pointing a gun at someone's head? If so, I couldn't "object" to it from a neutral and legal standpoint.but... but what gives you the right to order the death of a US citizen? are you so noble that you think you can take control of justice, which is normally reserved for the courts?

[Flatchett]

What are you talking about? Last I checked, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or another person who has a reasonable fear of serious injury or death. That is what your analogy is about. That has no relevance in this case.

[Melody]

What are you talking about? Last I checked, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or another person who has a reasonable fear of serious injury or death. That is what your analogy is about. That has no relevance in this case.hmm. so in the case of the hostage-taker, the fact that he is a US citizen is irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to have him shot?

[Thirsty]

hmm. so in the case of the hostage-taker, the fact that he is a US citizen is irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to have him shot?

Yes. If an individual is trying to kill another individual against their will, it is the government's duty to protect the victim. Citizen or not, this man is trying to kill people with his plan; and because he's in Yemen, our government doesn't really have many alternatives.

[kendoiwan]

Yes. If an individual is trying to kill another individual against their will, it is the government's duty to protect the victim. Citizen or not, this man is trying to kill people with his plan; and because he's in Yemen, our government doesn't really have many alternatives.

Agreed, although he's not just trying, but already has.

[Oso Mocoso]

Is that how they're going to find him? Pointing a gun at someone's head? If so, I couldn't "object" to it from a neutral and legal standpoint.

Of course. How else do you think he spends his afternoons between playing terrorist cricket and having terrorist tea on the lawn?


hmm. so in the case of the hostage-taker, the fact that he is a US citizen is irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to have him shot?

Well, wait. In the example *I* was using, the hostage-taken was a U.S. citizen, which was of great importance. If the hostage-taken wasn't a U.S. citizen or was a mere citizen of the third world then I think this entire thing is a travesty of justice, and Obama should leave this poor eccentric idealist alone to pursue his ambitious but perhaps misguided dreams. In that case, they should probably go so far as to mail him his passport back.

But of course he's gotta be all anti-American and stuff, which makes him a mutant Commie terrorist traitor.

[Flatchett]

Yes. If an individual is trying to kill another individual against their will, it is the government's duty to protect the victim. Citizen or not, this man is trying to kill people with his plan; and because he's in Yemen, our government doesn't really have many alternatives.


Hmm...pretty sure the threat is supposed to be imminent. That's why you don't hear of cops gunning down suspected murderers. Or if they do, they claim he was reaching for a gun or something.

[Thirsty]

Hmm...pretty sure the threat is supposed to be imminent. That's why you don't hear of cops gunning down suspected murderers. Or if they do, they claim he was reaching for a gun or something.

I think he was a little more than "suspected." If you're going to order the killing of a man, and accept the resulting national shitshow that will follow your administration because of your decision, you had better be damn sure that this man is drafting plans. Some government officials may be stupid, but I doubt they'd be dumb enough to order a shot in the dark.

If the government commissions a man's assassination, there is almost definitely a pretty damn big threat.

[Flatchett]

I think he was a little more than "suspected." If you're going to order the killing of a man, and accept the resulting national shitshow that will follow your administration because of your decision, you had better be damn sure that this man is drafting plans. Some government officials may be stupid, but I doubt they'd be dumb enough to order a shot in the dark.

If the government commissions a man's assassination, there is almost definitely a pretty damn big threat.

1. You do understand what "imminent" means, right?

2. Your faith in the innate wisdom and goodness of our government officials is.....touching.

3. Regarding your second paragraph, history begs to differ.

[Melody]

Well, wait. In the example *I* was using, the hostage-taken was a U.S. citizen, which was of great importance. If the hostage-taken wasn't a U.S. citizen or was a mere citizen of the third world then I think this entire thing is a travesty of justice, and Obama should leave this poor eccentric idealist alone to pursue his ambitious but perhaps misguided dreams. In that case, they should probably go so far as to mail him his passport back.aye, that was my next question

for those who do not see the glory which is Obama, the question is this:

all else being equal, say this guy that Obama has stuck a target on was not a US Citizen. would the order to assassinate be acceptable?

[Thirsty]

1. You do understand what "imminent" means, right?

2. Your faith in the innate wisdom and goodness of our government officials is.....touching.

3. Regarding your second paragraph, history begs to differ.

1. I do. One of the reasons we're having this discussion is because we seem to disagree on whether the threat posed by this man was great enough to justify killing him. We may not have been in imminent danger, but we were still in danger nonetheless.

2. Most of our government officials have taken the job because they want power. If they act out, the public will not elect them again. I'm not putting my faith in their wisdom, I'm putting my faith in their desire to cover their asses.

3. History has also shown that constituents tend to get pretty pissed and take action when government recklessness is made public. The problem corrects itself eventually. Don't get me wrong, the system is far from perfect, but when the people feel oppressed or wronged, change usually follows.

[Thirsty]

aye, that was my next question

for those who do not see the glory which is Obama, the question is this:

all else being equal, say this guy that Obama has stuck a target on was not a US Citizen. would the order to assassinate be acceptable?

Assuming the target is the same aforementioned man who was a known terrorist, of course. We're having this debate because the man was a US citizen, and we ignored his rights as a US citizen, thus bringing the legitimacy of the rights of all US citizens under question. Were he not a US citizen, he would fall under the category of people we are at war with, and would be killed without debate.

Apologies for the double post.

[Resonance]

This makes me smirk actually. The guy, who probably doesn't support democracy anyway, is saying Americans voted a warmongering president. They, in fact, did. He has a point there; his only flaw is not forgiving people for their ignorance.

How hasty is it to invade a country and kill thousands of innocents just to "dismantle a terrorist network" or "find weapons of mass destruction"? The US punished entire populations for the attacks on the WTC and other reasons. So the argument of "hasty generalization" is hypocritical to the core.
I guarantee there was at least 1 person killed in those attacks who voted for Kerry.

Yes, the U.S. as a whole is hypocritical. But the U.S. as a whole is not the sum of its parts. In fact, it's barely more than half, if even that.

Frankly, the U.S. is not the one accusing these terrorists of being hypocrites. I am. I know the U.S. is hypocritical, too. But it's stupid to try and change a nation by playing tit-for-tat, especially when that nation's tats are much bigger than yours.


Actually he didn't say that,
No? What do you make of this:
5:14
"We seek to apply the rule of Quran and make the word of Allah supreme over all other, and God Willing, we will strive to achieve these goals (which are what we possess?) and we will fight to the last man against whoever stands in our way."


he only said he wants to have their own Islamic state without corrupt officials and without foreign interference. He didn't say he wanted to conquer the entire planet and convert it to Islam.

Which, again, is a downright hypocritical argument because the US invades countries whose regimes it disagrees with, as in the Middle East. They're the ones invading the planet and converting countries.
You're missing the point: they're both hypocritical. Neither one has the moral high ground, yet this asshole wants to pretend they do.

[Melody]

Assuming the target is the same aforementioned man who was a known terrorist, of course. We're having this debate because the man was a US citizen, and we ignored his rights as a US citizen, thus bringing the legitimacy of the rights of all US citizens under question. Were he not a US citizen, he would fall under the category of people we are at war with, and would be killed without debate.but see this is where it may be wacky. where are the rights of the US Citizen in the hostage-taker scenario? we have 2 separate situations. the hostage-taker one, and the terrorist one

* in the case of the hostage-taker who is *not* a US Citizen, our decision is to kill
* in the case of the hostage-taker who *is* a US Citizen, our decision is to kill

in this case, the citizenship is not a factor because the person has become sufficiently dangerous or has placed others in dangerous situations. he more or less voided his due process rights because those rights are trumped by the rights of self defense/preservation of life or something

* in the case of the terrorist who is *not* a US Citizen, our decision is to kill
* in the case of the terrorist who *is* a US Citizen, our decision is... to not kill?

in this case, the citizenship has a magical power of making the person less dangerous?

[puzzled-observer]

hostage-taker

Did he have hostages?

The reason it's ok to take the life of a hostage taker rather than capture him is because approaching a hostage taker means endangering innocent lives. That's not true for someone who isn't armed or isn't threatening anybody's lives.

[Resonance]

Did he have hostages?

The reason it's ok to take the life of a hostage taker rather than capture him is because approaching a hostage taker means endangering innocent lives. That's not true for someone who isn't armed or isn't threatening anybody's lives.

He is armed with a brain, and he is endangering millions.

[kuranes]

"Badass" might be defined as "getting things done" versus "hormonally inspired empty macho posturing".

"Holding the moral high ground" is supposed to be its own "reward", of course. When one gets into the practicalities of some aspects - the non-idealist reasons for doing so ( or trying to appear to be doing so ) - it can just be a boat anchor around one's neck. How many countries think of the USA as being part of some "moral high ground" as things stand today ? Not that many, I'd bet, despite all the USA talk about "bringing freedom to others" etc. How many countries think that the USA so saddled is just "weak" or "naive" ? That's not to say that killing is a "good thing", but I think this role of "global boy scout" we've painted for ourselves is wrong for a number of reasons, including some that my opponents in this debate would probably agree with themselves.

These "Geneva convention" ( or updated versions of such ) restrictions should work both ways, or be selectively discarded, if both parties aren't going to abide by them. People should also allow for "rule of thumb" considerations for vanilla situations versus conditions where the definitions are extremely stretched, as when one looks at robins and blue jays versus penguins as examples of "birds".

There ought to be situations or types of opponents for which one can "remove the gloves", but this doesn't mean that one needs to completely discard the use of gloves.

[puzzled-observer]

He is armed with a brain, and he is endangering millions.
Well, we all have those, and consequently we all do that.
Come on!
I'm talking about immediate threat! That's the kind of situation that calls for immediate, permanent action like assassination! There should be an obvious difference between these two situations!

[NoahFence]

There ought to be situations or types of opponents for which one can "remove the gloves", but this doesn't mean that one needs to completely discard the use of gloves.

The cage in a cage match is only partly for the contestants...I think it's mostly to protect the audience.

[Resonance]

Well, we all have those, and consequently we all do that.
Come on!
I'm talking about immediate threat! That's the kind of situation that calls for immediate, permanent action like assassination! There should be an obvious difference between these two situations!
When you can start a riot with a phone call, standard procedures are a little bit questionable.

[NoahFence]

A serial killer with a length of clothes line is far more dangerous than a cheerleader with a stinger missile.

While I'm all for assassinating cheerleaders with stinger missiles, on the grounds that owning such a thing is a mite suspicious, I think far more lives are saved by concentrating on the serial killers. I particularly have no issue with assassinating serial killers with stinger missiles. What I object to is assassinating them with enough explosive force to level the neighborhood they happen to be hiding in. This causes me to wonder if the person who fired this missile is not among the serial killer ranks.

[Limey]

You're next nihilists!
http://writtenpolicy.com/boss_pointing.gif

[Randwulf]

A discussion about the assassination of an American citizen for crimes against the State might be more about semantics of law rather than any concerns for morality. The US Federal and State governments already kill quite a few of it's citizens.

Right, but they do it after a judicial trial, something which all US citizens supposedly have a right to. I don't like the idea that the president can order the execution of US citizens at his own discretion.

[Karl]

This would bother me even if he wasn't a US citizen. And if the situations were reversed and the Al Qaeda announced their intentions to start assassinating our individual leaders (even military leaders like generals), I'm sure a lot of people would be upset. If they were successful then it would be called "terrorism," but when the US government does it then it's OK somehow.

[puzzled-observer]

When you can start a riot with a phone call, standard procedures are a little bit questionable.
Even if that's true, and I don't think it is, it's more questionable to not use standard procedures. Simply having the potential to do harm isn't enough. I don't think it's justified in this instance.

[jyng1]

but when the US government does it then it's OK somehow.

No, it's called terrorism; just not in America.

[Limey]

No, it's called terrorism; just not in America.

Look, our god is an awesome god. You might want to run around worshipping gods who make scary faces with their eyes and tongues, but our god is gonna light those motherfuckers up with Ezekiel 25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+25&version=KJV)

Big ass titties!

[jyng1]

Look, our god is an awesome god. You might want to run around worshipping gods who make scary faces with their eyes and tongues, but our god is gonna light those motherfuckers up with Ezekiel 25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+25&version=KJV)

Big ass titties!

Yaddy yah...Tonga's religious, didn't help them any.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eGCsEQ15L4&feature=related

I like how they put a little target on his chest. So civilised.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_re_us/us_utah_firing_squad

[Etherealsage]

Eh, whether we found out or not, this guy was going to have an execution order put on him. I imagine enemy combatants within the US have been executed many times before (when not held hostage), and they will be again. Were I president, I'd probably order it myself. So I can't really bring myself to be upset about this.

[Melody]

i should point out i don't necessarily agree with what i was arguing here. it seems to me that in terms of the legality, the shoot-to-kill order is clearly illegal barring some kind of constitutional stretching. but in the cold hard reality there are a variety of reasons for why it may be the inevitable choice, reasons which approach the kind of reasoning for why shooting mr. hostage-taker is acceptable. my default stance is that this shoot-to-kill order is wrong, but in practice i can't say what my actions would be if i were in the president's shoes because he is probably privy to troubling non-inactionable information that i ain't

i should also point out that the "left-wing" media were all on Obama's case in this issue