| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
He may never have killed anyone, or helped to plan anything. Doesn't matter. Regardless of action or inaction, he was a self described active member of a terrorist organization that has declared war on the US. Game on. We killed him in Pakistan, not Detroit. Why do you think he was there? Shopping spree? | ||
| Sifo |
What I think and what I can prove in a court of law are very different things. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. | ||
| Hootowl |
Many terrorists have attributed their actions to his rabble rousing. Is that mot inciting imminent lawless action? | ||
| Sifo |
The problem that I see is much like that of Rev. Phleps and the WBC. The operate very close to the edge of the law. In my mind, they also provide aid and comfort to the enemy. In the court of law it's a whole different ball game. | ||
| Sifo |
Many terrorists have attributed their actions to his rabble rousing. Is that mot inciting imminent lawless action? No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_acti on | ||
| Hootowl |
Fair enough. He still incited lawless action, regardless of whether it was imminent. I'm not sure I see a distinction. I agree that he should have been tried in absentia, convicted and then taken out. I have no problem with the government killing self professed enemies of the US who are inciting violence against innocents. The leap from that to killing political foes is a large one, and it is one that I don't believe this administration or any other forthcoming one will make. It would be a death sentence for them. Do you think Obama would order a hit on Sarah Palin? Seriously? He might want to in some dark place in his heart, the same dark place we all go when we wish ill on those we deem our enemies, but would he actually order Seal Team 2 to put the hurt on her? No f'ing way. Regardless of the mental gymnastics I'm going though, I just can't get my head around that ever happening. Cytyxslicker would tell me I'm wrong, and perhaps he's right. Whatever. This administration killing a known terrorist who happened to be a US citizen is not going to be the trigger that opens the floodgates to the killing of political dissidents in this country. Isn't going to happen. My opinion, and I hope I'm right. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Interesting thread. I'm sad whenever somebody dies, but I'm also a big believer in free will. And so long as free will exists, there will likely be people doing things they shouldn't in ways that leave us little option besides killing them. This sure seems to fit in that category. Had he come to the US and turned himself in, I'm sure he would have had a better shot at a fair trial here then anywhere else in the world. He choose neither retreat nor surrender, which limited our choices as well. It's also simply not practical to have a military operation have to constantly seek fair trials for each and every engagement. If you are at war, and you see a target of opportunity consistent with your mission at hand, you take it. You don't file suit. Somewhere there is a line though where we can't send armed planes to simply kill anyone not in uniform, not currently engaged in a specific and imminent threatening act, who is in another country. But there are also obligations to being a sovereign nation in a global community. If Pakistan (for example) is harboring and abetting subgroups intent on terrorism against the US (for example), and if they won't apprehend and disrupt parties so engaged, we can't just ignore that either. So once they abdicate their own rule of law, and pose a serious threat, we may have to act, and the only acts we may have available may be blunt (and lethal) force. Quite the can of worms... | ||
| Sifo |
I hope your right too. The only problem I see is the literally millions in history who have held the same believe/hope that their leaders wouldn't really do that. It's because of the hundreds of examples in history that our founders wrote a constitution with such high hurdles. My point here is that some of those hurdles have just been bypassed. | ||
| Sifo |
It's also simply not practical to have a military operation have to constantly seek fair trials for each and every engagement. Agreed. This wasn't even a military operation though. It was a CIA assassination. | ||
| Reepicheep |
What are the rules around a law enforcement action? Forgive the image here... its necessary to the point. Here is the parallel... a cop steps around a corner and sees a bloody woman in the street. Standing over her is a large man with a baseball bat, getting ready to swing again. The cop, I pray to God, will take out his gun and say "drop the bat". If the guy starts to swing he should get 3 to the center of mass and one to the head. Maybe the woman has a gun and tried to mug and kill the guy. Maybe he is defending himself. That wasn't a trial. It was the only option left in a really bad situation where a trained professional charged with keeping the peace had to apply practice, policy, and training. If the cop made the wrong call, the question is if he followed that training. If he did and it was wrong, we fix the policy if we can, we don't jail the cop. This seems to fall in this category, just maybe in slow motion. That policy out to be public though. Especially if you were elected on a platform claiming that stuff not nearly as bad as this was immoral, illegal, and that you were going to fix it. How much you want to bet it was developed by Bush people under Bush, and Obama, now that he is no longer telling lies to try and gain votes, simply adopted it? Or worse, and it will be another "day late and dollar short" effort of the Obama amateur hour white house and they are waiting to see if the media gives them a bye or not, and they will write a policy "later". | ||
| Sifo |
You're right we don't jail the cop in that situation. We do investigate the incident though. You may notice that unlike Ron Paul, I haven't even hinted that BO should be impeached over this. I'm just saying lets take a good look at it without keeping justification for it secret. Only then can you answer the question did the cop follow his training. OTOH, when the cop keeps facts secret and refuses to cooperate with an investigation... | ||
| Hootowl |
"My point here is that some of those hurdles have just been bypassed." I agree with you in principle. But in reality, I'm glad he's dead, I'm glad we took him out, and I don't care whether it was technically legal. Perhaps I should, but I can't seem to get worked up about it. I'm usually pretty quick to point out unconstitutional (or what I believe to be unconstitutional) action on the part of the government. This one isn't raising my hackles. Unrelated to topic, but a question of constitutional authority... This morning in the shower, I was having random thoughts on how I was going to pay for college for my kids, whether they would go to school in Maryland, or come back to Texas. Then I thought about paying out of state tuition, and it occurred to me that higher education costs for out of state students amounted to a tariff on services across state lines. The federal government would be well within its constitutional authority to declare that illegal, and under the commerce clause, declare that states must charge the same rate for all their students for the same product or service purchased. This would be one of the ONLY laws congress has passed that could realistically be based on that clause. Can you imagine if grocery stores charged out of state customers more for a loaf of bread than in state customers? There would be rapid legal action. Why are schools exempt? (Message edited by hootowl on October 04, 2011) | ||
| Hootowl |
"OTOH, when the cop keeps facts secret and refuses to cooperate with an investigation..." Point taken. Transparency from the self proclaimed king of transparency would be refreshing. However, they know things we don't. There could be national security issues in play. I'm willing to give wide latitude in prosecuting this war. | ||
| Sifo |
Why are schools exempt? I would guess that it has to do with the fact that state schools are funded with tax dollars from that state. An in state student (their parents anyway) have already paid into the school. An out of state student hasn't. What I really don't understand is how illegal aliens get deals on tuition.  Also, trust me when I say that I haven't lost any sleep over the death of al-Awlaki. | ||
| Blake |
>>> It seems the standard is that you must be likely to incite imminent lawless action. I don't see him falling into that category Which of all the dead drone killed al Qaeda do? Those are not the rules of war. That said the guy did recruit and incite the underwear bomber. Good enough? | ||
| Sifo |
And all you have to do is claim someone a terrorist to remove their rights? Who gets to be judge, jury and executioner? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Does Al Gore with his hate to the Constitution and a call to an 'arab' spring warrant a drone ? auction off the joystick and trigger.... I bet the economy gets a nice little bump. | ||
| Blake |
Who said that?  The answer is no. You've gone way past any standard of war fighting I've ever heard. No strike unless guarantee of no noncombatant casualties? Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Berlin, Nagasaki... We are at war with al qaeda. Anyone supporting them, recruiting for them, 100% fair target. Righteous kill. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278845/assa ssin-chief-kevin-d-williamson?page=1 The civil libertarian in me is a tiny bit concerned that my President can order people killed. Ok, not just people, but people assumed to be protected under US law, a US citizen. In this case a real jerk, true. And the jump from some far off land many couldn't find on a map, to Detroit ( hotbed of potential terrorists ) or Buffalo ( ditto ) or your suburban lawn, isn't that big.... From a dude we have on tape claiming to be AQ to a Tea Party sympathizer is a bigger jump, but, again... Do you want President Bachman able to, with zero restraint from the "law" kill your fellow citizens, at will? If you erase the line, how can you claim it's been crossed? Bottom line. The President asserts that he has the right to kill you, if HE determines you are a threat. And the reasoning, the legal opinion that says he can, is secret, and you may not know it. If any government can have secret laws, that they can punish you for without telling you what the law is you have broken... then you have a situation that has happened before. It's never turned out well for us regular folk. | ||
| Sifo |
We are talking about a CIA assassination of a US citizen, not military combat. | ||
| Hootowl |
I know Sifo. I get it. I do. In this particular case however, I just don't care. When they kill Susie for selling lemonade without a license, then I'll get upset. Currently, they're just threatening to arrest her. | ||
| Sifo |
And there's the moral relativism. I understand it. I even feel it in myself. That doesn't make it right. | ||
| Reepicheep |
If a fugitive represents an active threat (even a low and slow active threat), I'd say they are still an active threat. Maybe some kind of published "surrender or be targeted" list with judicial oversight. It gives the fugitive a chance to peacefully surrender and face trial, or deal with the fact that we have only one option if they continue their hostility and flight. Call it the "GCT". Geneva Convention for Terrorism. The first Geneva Convention was the rules two combatant armies will mutually agree to follow. The GCT would be a set of rules nations agree to follow in the face of combatants that refuse to follow the original Geneva Convention. It would bring out into the light and open up to public debate the things that are necessary in the face of wars with terrorists (who are willing to kill innocents). | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't see the relativism. Bad guy was a self described member of a terrorist organization that has attacked the US. That made him a threat, domestic or foreign, to be eliminated. His legal right to constitutional protection evaporated when he went to Pakistan to fight for the enemy. I really don't understand why you're on the fence about this. In a classroom at a law school, it might be intellectually interesting to bandy this about, but in the real world there just isn't any convincing argument that would lead me to believe he had the right to an attorney. | ||
| Sifo |
The moral revivalism deals with when one is willing to disregard the Constitution of the United States of America. Sorry if you can't see it. | ||
| Hootowl |
That's not a morality issue. It might be morally wrong to offer protection to once class of people (citizens) and not to others (non citizens) but that isn't what we're talking about. Moral relativism has to do with saying it is OK to rape a woman or a small boy because it is acceptable in their culture to do so. While we find it objectionable, we have no business criticizing them for their actions because it isn't "wrong" in their culture. Rape is rape, no matter what culture it occurs in, and that is what moral relativism is. Denying constitutional protection to a terrorist is not moral relativism. | ||
| Sifo |
Is it not a moral judgement that he is a terrorist? It certainly isn't a legal judgement, that has been suspended in this case. | ||
| Drkside79 |
I'm sorry I'm not quite sure my liberal mind gets this one. He's an American he joins the terrorists and supports the war against his own country. That makes him guilty of treason. He does not surrender that makes him guilty of treason and continuing to act against the US. So we fire a rocket up his ass. Good for Obama, Good for the US military, and for once a good use of tax dollars. Winner winner chicken dinner. | ||
| Hootowl |
It is neither. He is a self described terrorist. And even if it were a moral judgment, it isn't moral relativism. We apply the same set of morals to everyone. Hide in civilian populations and target civilians, you're a terrorist, regardless of your nationality. I think you're misusing the term 'moral relativism'. | ||
| Hootowl |
Also remember that their goal is to disrupt life and cause chaos within the US. Recruiting US citizens to their cause is part of their game plan. It makes it harder for us to deal with them because we are a nation of laws, and we try very hard to live by them. They know what our laws are, and they use them to their advantage. See WBC. The TSA has also fallen into this trap. Flying used to be fun. Now I dread it. Terrorists sure won that round. |
