Let me ask you this. If he were on US soil, do you think that he'd willingly allow himself to be captured?
US citizen & Al-Qaida leader al-Awlaki killed...hmmm
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
Let me ask you this. If he were on US soil, do you think that he'd willingly allow himself to be captured?
Nope, you're right, he can't. Perhaps my use of example was a poor one. But much like Bin Laden, its highly unlikely that he'd allow himself to be taken without a fight, ie: resisting, using a weapon, etc. IMO, doing the more PC thing, would probably be more of a headache vs just killing the piece of ****. Where would they be tried? Would there be a risk or the location the POS is being held, being attacked by other POS terrorists? Do you feel that OBL should have been taken alive vs being shot?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #43
It's not the US that's holding her. She has the same rights - as an American citizen in Italy as she does in the USA. TO the USA. Not to Italy. But you knew that.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/09/fugitive-hijacker-caught-after-40-years/
So tell me. Here's a man convicted of murder in the USA, hijacked a plane and make his getaway. He was caught; but since we knew where he was, why arrest him? Why not just issue a Presidential Assassination order? After all, if he wanted to invoke his rights as a citizen, he should ha
I'm sorry you think that.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #44
OBL was not a US citizen. I also would have had no trouble with his death if he HAD been a US citizen. It was a military operation, and he refused to surrender and was killed. Works for me. And if that's what had happened with Al-Awaki I would have had no trouble with that, either. This was not a military engagement where he chose to fight instead of surrender. This was a Presidential order that he be assassinated from a distance and he was. There's a world of difference there.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #45
Is that the point? Do we shoot escaped murderers here in the USA because we don't think they will allow themselves to be captured, or do we TRY to capture them first, and shoot them if they refuse to give up?
I don't think we have assassination squads in the USA, deciding which criminals probably won't give up and executing them on that basis.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,931
- Reaction score
- 1,454
And maybe we could have arrested him, and maybe we'd have had people killed and been unsuccessful. This was successful, and sanctioned by the Yemeni government. All these things went into the decision making about what to do with the intelligence, and the expedient method was chosen-and probably chosen because it was perceived as the least damaging to the administration's image. Troubling? Sure. Worth squawking about? Probably not. See below.
Well, I'm tired, Bill. I squawked, loudly and long, about the PATRIOT Act-until I was finally told to shut up by my employers. I was told that it was a necessary, temporary measure that closed some loopholes. I was told that it would never be used on U.S. citizens.The last bit of crap I managed to say about it was, well, How will you feel about it when Hilary is President? 10 years later (this month), the damn thing is the law of the land, Obama is President, the end of the law and the "WOT" are nowhere in sight, and we've got a collection of corporate shills and lunatics vying for the Chief Executive office. The Constitution has been undermined by executive orders, abuse of the war powers act, and various extra legal stratagems-and it started long before 9/11; 9/11 only served to accelerate the process. It'll stand as "the law of the land," but when it really counts, there's a way around it, and that isn't going to change. In fact, it won't be long at all before we're all under drone surveillance.
Frankly, I think it's what we all deserve, in the end.
Last edited:
And it was a Presidential order to send the Navy Seals in to take out OBL. IMO, the only difference here, is this guy was taken out by a drone, not a live person.
So basically, your main issue with this is that they didn't try to take him alive first. Am I correct in saying that? So had they made the attempt, but he resisted, then, American citizen or not, you'd be fine with them killing him, either by a drone strike or someone shooting him?
Like I said in my OP Bill...my opinion is this...the guy, regardless of where he was born, IMHO, gave up all his rights. He's a dirt bag terrorist, who has no remorse or respect for anything American. **** him! I'm glad the ****er is dead, and frankly, I dont care how they did it!
See, IMO, this is yet another damned if ya do, damned if ya dont, situations. I'd be willing to bet, had they not attempted to take the guy out, when they had the chance, someone wouldve said, "Gee, you guys had the chance and you didn't act? Yeah, good job." Yet they act, and because the guy is "a citizen" now its wrong.
I think it would be hypocritical to demand citizenship rights from a country you are actively plotting against.
However, there are a few legal scenarios thrown out there that muddy the waters:
Any person on US soil is subject to US laws.
That means that a German fellow for instance may find himself faced with the death sentence for commiting a violent crime, though his home country does not allow for such punishment. (Diplomatic channels will probably work hard to avoid the death penalty, but that is a matter of courtesy, not law)
On the other hand, a US citizen will be subject to the laws of the foreign nation they set foot on. I do believe it is international custom to give foreigners access to their diplomatic representatives, in order to assure due process, but that may also be a courtesy act more than law.
On the other hand, terrorists?
If you can catch them, fine, haul them in, try them and throw them in jail (or in front of a firing squad).
If not...the OP sollution works, especially in this day and age I suppose.
However.
The bigger problems that I am seeing with this is not the citizenship rights etc, it's the rights of the sovereign nation that allows (more or less) the action to go through.
Like in the Bin laden situation. Does that give other countries the right to attack people hiding out in the US?
A little bit of history though in terms of terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181
However, there are a few legal scenarios thrown out there that muddy the waters:
Any person on US soil is subject to US laws.
That means that a German fellow for instance may find himself faced with the death sentence for commiting a violent crime, though his home country does not allow for such punishment. (Diplomatic channels will probably work hard to avoid the death penalty, but that is a matter of courtesy, not law)
On the other hand, a US citizen will be subject to the laws of the foreign nation they set foot on. I do believe it is international custom to give foreigners access to their diplomatic representatives, in order to assure due process, but that may also be a courtesy act more than law.
On the other hand, terrorists?
If you can catch them, fine, haul them in, try them and throw them in jail (or in front of a firing squad).
If not...the OP sollution works, especially in this day and age I suppose.
However.
The bigger problems that I am seeing with this is not the citizenship rights etc, it's the rights of the sovereign nation that allows (more or less) the action to go through.
Like in the Bin laden situation. Does that give other countries the right to attack people hiding out in the US?
A little bit of history though in terms of terrorism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181
OP
- Thread Starter
- #49
OBL was indicted, wanted by the FBI. OBL could have surrendered to the SEALS. You can't surrender to a missile fired from a drone.
That is not my primary problem with this, it's a symptom. But to answer question, yes, if they had tried to apprehend him and he resisted and got shot dead, I have no problem with that.
My primary objection doesn't have anything to do with attempts at apprehension or Predator missiles per se. It has to do with 'due process' and being an US citizen. Like it or not US citizens are deserving of certain rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and it applies to all US citizens, even the horrible ones. Or it applies to none of us.
I keep reading about how the guy 'forfeited his rights' and how he 'gave up all his rights'. And that's frankly ********. Sez who, you? You cannot 'forfeit your rights' without due process FIRST. Popular opinion does not cause anyone to lose any rights - if it did, I'd be marked for death right now. "He gave up his rights when he did X,Y,Z," is the kind of crap that comes out of the mouths of Lynch mobs. Nobody gives up their rights without due process, and you cannot wave that away because you personally want him dead.
And like I said, I'm certain he was a dirtbag terrorist, and I'm also not sorry he's dead. But I do care how they did it, only because he was a US citizen by birth. What you're saying is precisely what I said I worried about; to you, the 'ends justify the means'. When you disregard the rights that a US citizen has because it gives us a sense of satisfaction, you can disregard ANY citizen's rights. You've set the precedent.
If in say 20 years, we get to a point where the CIA just drops missiles into people's houses inside the USA, and the President just shrugs and says "Well, he was a dirtbag terrorist anyway, so I ordered his execution," and we don't know if he was or if he wasn't, then you can't complain, because you approved it.
It's no different than vigilante justice. We *know* that Joe Schmucatelli is guilty as hell, and the wheels of justice are moving too slowly for us, so we storm the jail, haul him out, and hang him from a tree. A dirtbag is dead, who cares if he got the due process that belongs to US citizens?
Why don't the police just execute people they arrest for capital crimes, especially if they actually witnessed the crime in question? I mean, if the President can order the execution of a US citizen on his own authority, there is really no reason why a cop who witnesses a murder being committed can't just take justice right then and there, right? If the guy surrenders, shoot him anyway! HE WAS A DIRTBAG.
That's where this leads to.
It's wrong because US citizens, no matter how slimy, are US citizens. And US citizens get due process. It's in the Constitution, perhaps you've heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_process_clause
"There is debate over whether or not the Obama administration violated this clause by assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan[30][31][32]."
http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/
"It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."
http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/30/was-killing-american-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-legal/
"It’s clear that Awlaki was an avowed enemy of the United States, actively inciting others to inflict harm on Americans, and perhaps inspiring at least one mass killing on our soil. But as civil libertarian absolutists like the Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald note, the government can’t simply execute someone for exercising his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech. Moreover, all U.S. citizens enjoy due process under the Fifth Amendment, and Awlaki was never charged in a court of law. Obama, Greenwald argues, acted as “judge, jury and executioner.”"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
OP
- Thread Starter
- #50
Civil rights are not something a citizen demands. They are something a citizen has.
Yemen did not execute him. If they had, I'd have no objections. He was in Yemen, and the government there can do what it wishes to people inside its borders. This was a US citizen executed by the US government; it does not matter where he was (with the sole exception of being on a battlefield in military action against the US).
If the President can order the assassination of a person designated a 'terrorist' today, he can order the assassination of ANY citizen. I'm not sure how it is people don't get that.
We know this guy was a dirtbag terrorist, right? And the the next time? The President tells us so, but do we know it? And the time after that? And the time after that? We just trust that the government would not lie to use; if they execute someone without trial on the President's order, we just nod our heads and say "Well, I guess the President knows best. If he says the guy was a terrorist, I guess he was a terrorist." That's OK with you?
It's a side-question, but a good one. There is evidence that the USA has allowed operatives of foreign nations we're friendly with to carry out lethal operations inside US borders in the past, going back to the Cold War. However, we would not, (I bloody well hope) allow Israel to shoot missiles into cars on the highway carrying someone on their hit list, for example.
I mean, is anyone here OK with that? If your son or daughter was in the car behind them and killed accidentally, it's OK with you because Israel (or whomever) is our friend? You really don't have a problem with that?
I'm not sure what that has to to with this.
True. And I'm sure there're other terrorists that're wanted. They could all surrender and change their way of life, any time they want. They dont want to. So, whatever method is necessary then....Navy Seal or missile. Sorry, when you lead that lifestyle, those are the risks you take.
But what about the due process then? How is it suddenly right to blow the guy to bits if he runs, but doing a sneak attack is wrong? Either way, you're not giving the US citizen his 'due process'.
My posts Bill, are simply my opinion, to which I'm entitled to, just like you, whether you or anyone else likes it.
We all have our views and opinions, and like 'em or not, it is what it is. I'm not offended if you disagree with me Bill. I still enjoy discussing topics with you and everyone else. I think the issue here, is that its unlikely the CIA is going to drop a bomb on you or me or anyone else. Now, if we were terrorists, well, that'd probably be different. In the end, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I have to compassion or sympathy for anyone who wishes to do what these people, if thats what you want to call them, do to the US. They can take their due process and stuff it up their hat.
I think it was mentioned, but I'll ask again....lets say this guy was caught. Where would he be tried? Over there or in the US? Do you think that there would be a constant threat to the building and/or people, where this trial is being held? I highly doubt this would be some classified, secret trial. It'd be broadcast on every tv station and in every paper.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #52
Authorized use of deadly force in the attempt to apprehend a suspect does not violate due process. The due process is actually being applied by attempting to arrest him. But all law enforcement officers know this.
http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/force/useof.htm
My posts Bill, are simply my opinion, to which I'm entitled to, just like you, whether you or anyone else likes it.
Who decides who is a terrorist?
Many feel the way you do. I believe we will come to regret that mentality, and sooner rather than later. I, like you, have my opinion. And in my opinion, when it comes to pass, I will blame you and all those who think as you do on this subject. It will absolutely be your fault.
I really don't know where he would be tried. I'm really not certain that is germane to the topic.
I suppose if I wanted to dive into the arena of this particular dirtbag, I'm seeing more and more to dislike. It appears - and I am only partially aware of the situation, but it appears - that this guy was thought to be a 9/11 conspirator, but the US not only didn't have enough evidence to charge him with, but they didn't have enough evidence to keep him from becoming, post-9/11, the Muslim Chaplain to George Washington University and from speaking to CONGRESS as if he were a 'moderate' Muslim, for God's sake. Then he went to the UK and lived there for many years - obviously we could have had him arrested if we had wanted to, but for whatever reason, we didn't - I have to wonder if it's because we could not prove anything in court. Then he goes to Yemen and becomes a Youtube sensation, preaching hatred and Jihad, and apparently 'advising' both the Army Muslim shooter and the Detroit underwear bomber via email. It was only (again, apparently, I'm just getting into this) recently that the US stated that he was actively involved in planning operations for A-Q, rather than simply being a venom-spouting anti-US hate-monger. And all we have as evidence of this is that the White House says so. And it was after this that he was put on the Presidential hit list.
So it would appear that he didn't fit under the authorization for use of force by Congress, because that is only for 9/11 conspirators and if he was one; well, we seem not to have done much about it when he was actually talking to CONGRESS about 9/11, which seems a little bit of an oops, huh? If indeed he did take up operational day-to-day planning of A-Q operations, all we have is the White House's word for it. If, and I am just saying if, he did not actually do that, then it would appear that we officially assassinated a US citizen in Yemen for saying mean things about us on Youtube and encouraging others to harm the US with terrorist attacks. That's kind of WOW. It is a crime to incite to riot and so forth, of course, but for some reason, we didn't bother charging him or issuing a warrant. We just killed him, point blank.
In any case, I don't want to get sidetracked into whether or not this guy was really the dirtbag the White House says he was. I'm perfectly happy to assume he was the worst of the worst and absolutely deserving of death. I just do not think the ends justify the means; ignoring due process for US citizens when it is convenient to do so will lead to other abuses. It blows my mind that people can't or refuse to see that. It will come back to haunt us, and we will be sorry.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #53
I thought this was interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/
I think the Obama Administration is afraid they are on shaky legal ground, so they are refusing to disclose the exact justification used to authorize the assassination of a US citizen.
And let me just pose a hypothetical. It's obviously not the case, but just play along for the sake of argument. Let's say that al-Awlaki was NOT a 9/11 conspirator, and that his only crime was ranting and raving via YouTube about how terrible the US is, and how we all ought to be killed. Same result, he is assassinated on the orders of the President. Is it still OK with you, or would that be a bad thing? The reason I ask is because it appears the only evidence we have that al-Awlaki did these bad things is because the White House says so - now. They apparently did not say so before, when he was in the US and the UK for years after 9/11. So they are telling us the truth - and we believe that why?
I'm not saying al-Awlaki was innocent; I believe he was knee-deep in terrorist activity against the USA. I'm saying that since he didn't get due process, we'll never know, will we? And the next time President Obama decides to execute a US citizen without due process, we'll still believe him as to his reason. And the time after that? And the time after that? Because we know the government never lies to us. Right?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/
I think the Obama Administration is afraid they are on shaky legal ground, so they are refusing to disclose the exact justification used to authorize the assassination of a US citizen.
And let me just pose a hypothetical. It's obviously not the case, but just play along for the sake of argument. Let's say that al-Awlaki was NOT a 9/11 conspirator, and that his only crime was ranting and raving via YouTube about how terrible the US is, and how we all ought to be killed. Same result, he is assassinated on the orders of the President. Is it still OK with you, or would that be a bad thing? The reason I ask is because it appears the only evidence we have that al-Awlaki did these bad things is because the White House says so - now. They apparently did not say so before, when he was in the US and the UK for years after 9/11. So they are telling us the truth - and we believe that why?
I'm not saying al-Awlaki was innocent; I believe he was knee-deep in terrorist activity against the USA. I'm saying that since he didn't get due process, we'll never know, will we? And the next time President Obama decides to execute a US citizen without due process, we'll still believe him as to his reason. And the time after that? And the time after that? Because we know the government never lies to us. Right?
I'm with Bill on this.
The legal precedent for the killing might be found in the case of the German Saboteurs during world war 2. Two of the German's were American citizens. When they were captured with the other 6, they also were denied trial by jury in front of civillian courts. Haupt, was executed as a spy even though he was an American citizen captured on American Soil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius
OP
- Thread Starter
- #56
"All eight defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death."
Whether the trial was a military tribunal or a civilian court, they were arrested, tried, and convicted before being executed. That's due process.
The Last Legionary
All warfare is based on deception.<br><b>nemo malu
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
I'm all for the President doing whatever he wants, when he wants, how he wants, as long as he's not having me shot. If he does, that bastard better give me a full trial, a foot rub, and while he's at it, a reach around, but only if he's a Dem. I don't want no smelly GOPPER touching me. That would be wrong.
cdunn
2nd Black Belt
That's pretty much it, right there.
Can't view this at work. I'll have to read it later. As for the process being started during the capture attempt...I didn't know that. See, I guess you learn something new every day.
I guess anyone that falls into the definition of one.
Ok...then blame me. I dont give a ****.
Should I blame you and those who think that you do, when it comes to being a sheep instead of a lion, when it comes to SD? Yeah, I know its a different topic, just sayin'. Sure it is.
Whats interesting is how you make it sound so easy to arrest these people to ensure they get their due process. But whatever...like I said, you have your opinion, I have mine. I respect yours, you dont respect mine, probably because it differs from yours but thats fine.
You can hold a trial in absentia.
The end point is, an American Citizen was killed by a branch of the American Government, -without- being due process of law.
He may have renounced his citizenship. Doesn't matter. Unless he's filled out the right forms, filed, etc, it's invalid.
Ask the IRS about that.
He may have been involved in plots, 9/11, etc. But there's no proof offered, no charges, no conviction, no trial.
When he was within reach, he was allowed to go roam free.
So again, you have an American Citizen was killed by a branch of the American Government, -without- being due process of law.
What is there to stop -any- sitting President from doing this again? I'm rather critical of the US Government. Should I worry about a drone hit on my Prius when I'm taking my grandfather for a hot dog?
That's Bills point I think. It is mine in any case.
Show me the safeguards in the system now to prevent a non-convicted US Citizen from being executed without a fair trial by the US Government, since it's quite clear that USC Article III Section 2 & 3 no longer are the law of the land.
The end point is, an American Citizen was killed by a branch of the American Government, -without- being due process of law.
He may have renounced his citizenship. Doesn't matter. Unless he's filled out the right forms, filed, etc, it's invalid.
Ask the IRS about that.
He may have been involved in plots, 9/11, etc. But there's no proof offered, no charges, no conviction, no trial.
When he was within reach, he was allowed to go roam free.
So again, you have an American Citizen was killed by a branch of the American Government, -without- being due process of law.
What is there to stop -any- sitting President from doing this again? I'm rather critical of the US Government. Should I worry about a drone hit on my Prius when I'm taking my grandfather for a hot dog?
That's Bills point I think. It is mine in any case.
Show me the safeguards in the system now to prevent a non-convicted US Citizen from being executed without a fair trial by the US Government, since it's quite clear that USC Article III Section 2 & 3 no longer are the law of the land.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Tai Chi's Push Hands Law of Primal Unity- Latest: windwalker099
-
-