U.S.-born al-Qaeda cleric Awlaki killed in Yemen

[aesop081]

Due process ?

Yes, due process.

This isnt a court,its a war

Really ? How come i never heard of this before ?

These were dangerous people and a legitimate target.

I couldn't agree more. But what happens when the "target" legitimacy is less clear ? Is it ok for POTUS to order the killing of a US citizen just because he says it is legitimate ?

US citizens have a right not to be killed by their government without due process. All i am saying is that there is a very fine line and your government must be transparent and choose its targets carefuly when they are US citizens. Nothing good will come from having that decision made arbitrarily and in secret.

 

[jollyjacktar]

They targeted someone who took up arms against their countrymen and country.  Just as they did 150 years earlier in the US Civil War.  And we did in the NW Rebellion of 1885.  Take up arms and or work for the other side, it's not a civil criminal matter anymore.  You don't deserve due process of law, you're beyond it then...

 

[aesop081]

They targeted someone who took up arms against their countrymen and country.

Yeah, i got that. I agree. This guy's case was a no-brainer. He was bad, he deserved a Hellfire. I get it.

I'm not talking about him.

 

[Maxadia]

CDN Aviator is correct.....care must be taken with this type of action.

At no point is he saying that he disagrees with what happened this time; he is simply stating that care and oversight must be a part of the process, as it could easily get out of hand in the future.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Fine.  I'm sure there is nothing arbitrary about the process or process of thought that would be put towards an executive decision at that level.  If that is what you are worried about.  If the authorities are taking a cold hard look at you, you have probably earned the scrutiny.  Unless the USG decides to throw the rule of law out the window and go rogue, no one should need to worry about slippery slopes in Washington or Ottawa for that matter.  If life imitates art and we see "V for Vendatta" coming to pass, we'll have bigger, worse things to worry about before that day.

 

[aesop081]

  Unless the USG decides to throw the rule of law out the window

Yeah, thats never happened, right ?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yeah, thats never happened, right ?

Not in the context of "fingering" citizens, arbitrarily for extermination as a matter of new policy.  At least not that I can think of unless you care to refresh my memory with examples.  As per your suggested slippery slope of mass selective executions orders.  It's like potatoe chips, you can't eat just one, eh? 

 

[aesop081]

As per your suggested slippery slope of mass selective executions orders.  It's like potatoe chips, you can't eat just one, eh? 

I never said "mass". I do contend that the temptation will exist to kill suspects who are US citizens, even when there is less that convincing evidence simply because it is expedient and there will likely be a sense of urgency attached to such decision. The recent case was simple because the target was a very public member of AQ. If he had simply been "Mohamed Bloggins", a US citizen, long suspected of making bombs for AQ, there would be more questions being asked about why the US Gov killed one of its own citizens.

Remember, Iraq was about WMDs, right ?

 

[Container]

I cant believe that the suggestion that the government be scrutinized for its decision to kill citizens- or anyone driving in a car in another country is met with "Meh- I m pretty sure the government has a good reason."

The vast majority of the intel to make these decisions is secret. If you ask the average person with Awlaki is they would say a bad guy but they couldnt really put their finger on why. But the government killed him.

He was a scrote, and an enemy of the state. But what happens when its more murky? We are free men and women in western society. We expect government to work in the best interests of the people. And yes I believe this strike was fair play. But I also believe that if we are to continue to have the high ground and maintain being free we need to get back on track- and that means being transparent in our actions.

Everybody is scrutinized for killing someone. Thats a requirement because its the ultimate power- and it should be examined and be defended. "trust me" isnt good enough. And it isn't a slipery slope argument, IMHO, its going to be a reality in the coming years and a major point of contention. Im aware of the success Israel has had with the strikes- Im also aware of the wonders its done for international cooperation with Israel. It is definitely something that should continue- but a protocol needs to be developed to show that it is necessary.

The state should be able to kill bad guys in play anywhere when they are actively plotting or engaged in trying to kill "our guys". But the potential for being abused is there, and whether it is or not, just like in any lethal option, it will always be treated with suspicion- transparency (where it doesnt reveal methods or informants) should be expected of ANY government decision. From buying pencils to killing our enemies.

This doesnt even need to be complicated- you lay out the case and then kill the guy. Or kill the guy and then lay out the case- but the people have the right to know why their elected officials are assassinating people. Thats pretty much day one stuff for democracy isnt it?

I cant believe Im the hippy in this thread.  :'(

 

[Container]

If I may introduce some granola-

For ten years at the end of the 70's the military junta in Argentina caused the disappearance of 30000 (high estimate) with torture and murder. The state was able to do so because the citizenry basically believe that it wasn't possible that the government would do something like this.

I am certainly not suggesting that the American government is doing this. But the idea that the government wouldn't throw out the rule book has failed populations in the past.

Say it isnt 30 000. Say its twenty Americans- or five, who get nixed by the system being abused or slightly abused. Is that okay? At what number or potential should we examine the secrecy of the decision?

I do not love western society just because we're super awesome. I love our society because in most senses I am free- being free requires the state to be accountable.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The present day USG is not as far as I can discern a military junta ala Chile/Argentina circa 1974 or Nazi Germany 1932-45.  Although I am sure there are those out there that would debate that point.  Until and if it does become such a place I believe there will be oversight and other checks and balances such as the rule of law over any such executive decisions as they will be made at that level of govenment.  The executive branch.  I don't believe the decision was made lightly or without merit.  Or without scrutiny of some form.

Trust.  While we have a democracy there will always be some form of oversight and scrutiny if it is to work.  If not, it is not a democracy anymore and it won't matter to you or anyone else if they are trustworthy and dependable as they will do as they damn well please whether you agree with it or not.  I don't say "Meh" to what they do.  I may not be a fan of those in power, but I personally have to have some trust that they work for my best interest as a citizen of this society, and that it runs with the rule of law.  If I don't have that, then I should consider leaving for somewhere that fits my ideals.

 

[Container]

The Argentinian junta had encouragement to finish its "dirty war" from the United States government, as is gleaned from declassified documents. This was a different time- socialism was a real threat. But it is clearly not above any government to be a little dirty. I also dont think we can assume how much the government knew-but they had to have suspicions.

I do believe in state secrets. But I believe that there should be a reason for something to be a secret.

We will have to politely disagree- I dont care that the government whacks people that threaten it. But without transparency the rest of the world, of whom we are a part of, will always be able to cast doubt on our motives. Not that we owe them anything but in order for diplomacy AND force to work there has to be some trust we are doing the right thing. That openness will shut down some of the mild tin foil hats and put some reality in the face of the conspiracy wing nuts running other countries.

But I've said my piece and all consider your point of view 

As a side- in order for me to trust the government in this manner it would have to be infallible. Since it makes mistakes it needs to be open to being examined. Trusting the government to do the right thing doesn't seem to be in line with democratic society......trusting the government to always do the right thing for its citizens is what makes communism attractive....and unrealistic....no?

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm always up for some friendly debate and discussion.  It's good to see other view points and consider alternate ideas.

 

[aesop081]

The present day USG is not as far as I can discern a military junta

I never once said that it was. All i ever said is that a careful eye must be employed to keep things from getting out of hand.

Trust. 

I'm more of a "trust but verify" guy........someone famous said that too........

 

[cupper]

I'm more of a "trust but verify" guy........someone famous said that too........

Don't you know you aren't supposed to quote Reagan to the right wing. It only stirs them up.

And just because they have all of the intel they need to sign an order doesn't mean that the intel can't be wrong. WMDs in Iraq are a prime example of that. When the government has an agenda, they can cherry pick all they want, and fabricate what's missing. The uneducated masses will pretty much drink the Kool-Aid. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Now having said that, Al Awlaki gave them everything they needed to prove their case (much like the criminals that video tape their sprees for all to see) so the only question left to be answered was why it took so long to nail him in the first place.

And as for his cohort, that's why we have terms such as collateral damage. However, there is enough evidence on the web to put together a pretty strong case as well.

Where I think the USG is overstepping their authority are the cases where they have nailed individuals and small groups by setting them up for a takedown. Like the latest guy who supposedly was planning to hit the Capitol Building and The White House using remote controlled model jets loaded with explosives. Many of these guys are pretty low on the intellectual food chain, and only came on radar because they spouted canned rhetoric on a blog or website. If the Fed's didn't provide the encouragement and supply the "Plan and Weapons" in the first place, would the supect have progressed beyond exercising his so called first amendment rights?

 

[Kalatzi]

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans
link here http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/#.TopWhdTmqws.email

"The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. But they won't release it. "

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

So much for openess and accountability.  :

 

[wildman0101]

Jim S and Jolly J,,
Ill drink to that also
F/N A Cheer's Lad's,
Scoty B

 

[FlyingDutchman]

I wonder how news worthy it would be if they decided against the strike.  Then people would be screaming 'why didn't you kill him?'

 

[Container]

And they would be "screaming" it for the same reason as people are asking questions now- because there is no transparency to the process.

 

[tomahawk6]

These US citizens had joined the jihad and were supporting AQ.I think most every country has seen some citizens go off to Afghanistan to fight NATO and most end up dead. No hand wringing about the legality. Awlaki and Khan by going to Yemen moved beyond the reach of law enforcement thus they felt safe to continue their efforts to radicalize as many young men as they could.