| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
Sifo, "This was an assassination that was NOT in an active war zone." Yes, he absolutely was. The entire world is their war zone. There is no 'front line' in this war, no convenient place where they all gather so we can shoot at them whilst they shoot at us. We're dealing with people (and I use the term loosely) who hide in civilian populations and use innocents as human shields. We take them out when we have the opportunity. There's lots of evidence that this dude was a terrorist. You appear to be ignoring all of it, and that is not like you at all. | ||
| Davegess |
Blake and I usually can't agree on politics but I am with him 100% on this one. This is a no brainer. | ||
| Sifo |
Blake, I'm sorry but I just don't understand your point at all about Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco. It seems to be (to me at least) that these were worse things done by our government, so simply assassinating one of our citizens is small potatoes. Personally I won't justify bad behavior with examples of more bad behavior, especially when all examples of bad behavior are coming from the same entity. That seems to make MY point that we need to recognize this sort of thing and speak up. Ft_bstrd, Surely you aren't trying to compare law enforcement returning fire on a suspect who is shooting at them to bombing someone who is of no immediate threat to anybody. There's almost no comparison there. As for uniforms vs. terrorists in civilian clothing, the uniforms in WWII made it very clear that they had taken up arms on the other side. That is combat under the term of the Geneva Conventions. It's as clear cut as it gets. Terrorists are a much more difficult issue. That has lead to some really stupid rules of engagement on the battle field, like if the bad guy stops shooting and lays down his gun, he is no longer a target. I have a real problem with that when just seconds ago he was a valid target. What about this guy?  It seems clear enough what side of this conflict he supports. Is he a valid target for assassination anywhere we can drop a smart bomb on him? Why not bomb the entire protest group? Clearly they are all associated. Please don't continue this conversation without addressing this. It's critical to the question of when you can slap the terrorist label on someone. Actually I'd like to see this addressed by all of those calling al-Awlaki a terrorist. It's not as clear as when someone is putting on the uniform of your enemy. Blake, Where in the rules of war are targets limited to "active combatants? Again, Hiroshima, Dresden, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, heck, Richmond, VA! That is our rules of engagement in this conflict, but it also goes to evidence of someone being a terrorist. If they aren't an active combatant then what are they? Unfortunately they are civilian. Yes that puts us in a difficult situation. I'm not sure that should mean we shred our constitution though. All of your above examples except for Richmond, VA refer to cities that were targeted because of their manufacturing capabilities for supporting the war. It was an accepted practice of war during that period of time. It also didn't have any conflict with our Constitution. I'm not clear on the Richmond reference.??? What justifies the use of heavy armor against American citizens inside America, men, women, and children? Let me throw that right back at you as a slightly shorter question. What justifies the use of heavy armor against American citizens? The Constitution applies to our citizens, not just our soil. Sifo, "This was an assassination that was NOT in an active war zone." Yes, he absolutely was. The entire world is their war zone. There is no 'front line' in this war, no convenient place where they all gather so we can shoot at them whilst they shoot at us. We're dealing with people (and I use the term loosely) who hide in civilian populations and use innocents as human shields. We take them out when we have the opportunity. There's lots of evidence that this dude was a terrorist. You appear to be ignoring all of it, and that is not like you at all. Actually no it wasn't. We have documents describing where we are at war issued by our Congress. Yemen isn't listed as a war zone. I understand your point though. However geography has nothing to do with his rights under our Constitution. I've asked for the evidence of his terrorism repeatedly. The article you posted made about the best case against him that I've seen. The problem is that it basically amounted to the people he knew and the things he said. Try taking that to court and you probably wont even make it to trial. It would probably be enough to indict him, but you better come up with some solid evidence. Was he even carrying a gun when he was killed? Has he ever been known to carry a gun? Did he have any skills with weapons to pass on to others? If I'm ignoring the evidence it's simply out of my ignorance of the facts. Help me out here. I agree that his words and actions make me VERY suspicious that he was a terrorist. We don't (usually) execute suspects without due process though. I'm really looking for something he did that sets him apart from the guy pictured above. If there isn't anything that sets him apart then it seems we should be dropping a lot more bombs in a lot more places. I have suspensions that the guy in the picture shares the same ideology that al-Awlaki promoted with his speech. | ||
| Sifo |
Blake and I usually can't agree on politics but I am with him 100% on this one. This is a no brainer. I have to admit that it's refreshing to have things not sharply divided along familiar lines. I'll still side with the Constitution. | ||
| Hootowl |
The guy pictured above is stating that he believes Islam will dominate the world. He's not engaging in recruiting, planning, or execution of terrorist activities. At least, not that I can tell from the picture. Is the distinction not obvious to you? He may sympathize with terrorists, but that doesn't make him a terrorist. Dead dude was more than a sympathizer, he was a facilitator. I understand that we executed a citizen without trial. I get it. I don't understand why you don't believe that he was a valid target. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Is there such a thing as conviction in absentia?" There is. But it doesn't seem to apply in this case, as the defendant did not flee from a trial that was already underway. So we could NOT have convicted him in absentia, as Sifo would have wanted. That's unfortunate. I would have liked this to be cleaner too. I'm not losing any sleep over it though. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ex plainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_a bsentia.html | ||
| Blake |
>>> If they aren't an active combatant then what are they? Unfortunately they are civilian. Inaccurate. >>> I'll still side with the Constitution. It's not unconstitutional to kill the enemy in war. You seem to be contending that by virtue of citizenship, an enemy agent cannot be our enemy in war. Demanding that confidential evidence of the man's enemy status be provided you is unreasonable. We have a legal system to address concerns of any injured parties. It is up to them to take their grievance to the judiciary. What your are demanding, full disclosure of confidential evidence to support warfighting activities would be suicidal. The constitution is not a suicide pact. I reference the Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco outrages to illustrate the huge disparity between your concern related to a jihadi enemy of America who has actively participated in war fighting against America, versus actual American civilians being murdered where they live here in America. My point is that if there is to be concern, those outrages ought to be the rallying cry and basis for it, not some self-avowed jihadi islamist suicide killer/bomber recruiter. Do you really agree with code pink that our leaders must disclose confidential information in order to try to convince every skeptic in America of the validity of each warfighting attack against our enemy? Our elected representatives who do have access to the confidential information are supposed to cover that base for us, no? | ||
| Sifo |
OK, so trying him in absentia would violate his rights to due process if he wasn't there at the start of the trial, but blowing him to bits doesn't. Welcome to the New America. Interesting piece posted by Bandm... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news /#.To3N67KvN34 A secret panel putting citizens on a hit list. No public record of what the panel does. No laws establishing the panel or the rules by which it operates. Don't worry though. They aren't coming for you... Today... That you know of... | ||
| Sifo |
It's not unconstitutional to kill the enemy in war. You seem to be contending that by virtue of citizenship, an enemy agent cannot be our enemy in war. Demanding that confidential evidence of the man's enemy status be provided you is unreasonable. We have a legal system to address concerns of any injured parties. It is up to them to take their grievance to the judiciary. What your are demanding, full disclosure of confidential evidence to support warfighting activities would be suicidal. The constitution is not a suicide pact. I reference the Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco outrages to illustrate the huge disparity between your concern related to a jihadi enemy of America who has actively participated in war fighting against America, versus actual American civilians being murdered where they live here in America. My point is that if there is to be concern, those outrages ought to be the rallying cry and basis for it, not some self-avowed jihadi islamist suicide killer/bomber recruiter. Do you really agree with code pink that our leaders must disclose confidential information in order to try to convince every skeptic in America of the validity of each warfighting attack against our enemy? Our elected representatives who do have access to the confidential information are supposed to cover that base for us, no? Blake, No I don't think that we have to disclose confidential/classified information for each attack. This was a specific assassination of a US citizen who had not raised a weapon against us. It's not clear that he was a combatant. The description of how he arrived on the hit list is chilling. It's completely secret and has no apparent oversight or legal authority. | ||
| Hootowl |
Now I think you're being intentionally obtuse. A court can not convict him in absentia. The supreme count has ruled. The supreme court has not ruled that we can't kill enemy US citizen combatants in foreign countries, and precedent would appear to indicate that we can. You're making comparisons that don't make sense. | ||
| Hootowl |
Congress has oversight. Whether they are exercising that oversight is another matter. | ||
| Blake |
The population centers of Dresden and Berlin were bombed in reaction to the nazi attacks on London. They were not purely for destroying military targets, far from it. Likewise for the fire bombing of Tokyo. The city of Richmond, VA was shelled and mortared into rubble by the United States Army.       Were the American civilians there denied their constitutional rights? | ||
| Sifo |
Now I think you're being intentionally obtuse. A court can not convict him in absentia. The supreme count has ruled. The supreme court has not ruled that we can't kill enemy US citizen combatants in foreign countries, and precedent would appear to indicate that we can. You're making comparisons that don't make sense. Not being obtuse at all. Sure we can kill combatants. A combatant is one involved in combat. Simply putting a label on someone when they aren't engaged in that activity as a means to side step the Constitution is BS. When he was bombed he was neither in the act of combat or terrorism. Congress has oversight. Whether they are exercising that oversight is another matter. Assuming they do, and I'm not sure about that, where does Congress get the authority to deprive a citizen of due process? If you find him in the act of terrorism, then he is a terrorist. Simply slapping that label on him to avoid due process is a huge fail. Blake, I really don't see how any of that applies to the discussion. Things to do folks... | ||
| Hootowl |
Who is slapping a label on him? You make it sound like they made an uninformed and arbitrary decision. You're making observations while wearing blinders and claiming to see the big picture. The big picture is that he was a terrorist and was a valid target. | ||
| Hootowl |
Blake's reference to civil war deaths is perfectly valid. They were US citizens, not actively engaged in warfare, and were killed by the US government without being given due process, and without being convicted of any wrongdoing. Sound familiar? Why is that different or not applicable? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sifo, I believe I understand your position, but please help me if I misstate it. Your contention is that because Al-Aweaponscatcher didn't personally pick up a weapon and fire on US soldiers (or at least there isn't any evidence of this known to the public) but that he merely stated negative things about the US and recruited enemy combatants for a terrorist group that his activity didn't rise to the level of State sponsored assassination. Is this correct? If this is your position, would you accept the precedent set in other legal proceedings and apply it to this position specifically in this instance of Al-Aweaponscatcher engaged in our current asymetrical war on state and non-state sponsored terrorism? If I recruited and paid you to kill another person and you carried out that act, would I be free from prosecution simply because I was a "recruiter"? If I convinced you to strap a bomb to your body and walk into a crowded mall during Christmas season, would I be subject to prosecution? What if I convinced you to put a bomb in your skivies? Shoot up an army base? Blow up folks at Times Square? If the intent is to prevent additional individuals from being "recruited" to commit such acts, would it be more expedient to identify and go after the next recruit or the recruiter? | ||
| Blake |
Again... Where in the rules of war does it say that a target must be a combatant let alone an active combatant or even armed. I too see obtuseness. You asked about Richmond. Seems to me that it fits right in with your desire to view the dead islamist only as an innocent until proven guilty American citizen. Well MANY of the folks in Richmond were exactly that. War. If you agree that our response to islamists actively working to destroy America ought to be mainly one of law enforcement, then your concern might make sense. If you agree that we are at war and must destroy the enemy, then not so much. I think you need to choose. Are we at war against violent islamism, or should we retreat militarily and only engage on the legal civilian front? >>> I've asked for the evidence of his terrorism repeatedly. Yes, and it is a straw man. Where is the evidence of bin laden's terrorism?  What we do have publicly available is clear evidence of the dead islamist's allegiance to al qaeda, and his longtime activity recruiting suiciders to attack America. We also almost assuredly have loads of classified evidence. Are you demanding that it be released to the public in order to satisfy your concerns? If so, then you and code pink agree. At some point the people have to trust those we elect to oversee such things. We are at war. If one desired, one could make a case to question every offensive warfighting operation that we conduct. It's not reasonable. >>> Sure we can kill combatants. A combatant is one involved in combat. Simply putting a label on someone when they aren't engaged in that activity as a means to side step the Constitution is BS. When he was bombed he was neither in the act of combat or terrorism. Again, where in the rules of warfighting is there any such requirement? You haven't answered that question, but seem to base your argument on the idea that only combatants actively engaging in combat are valid targets in war, that absent them posing any direct imminent threat, they must be allowed a day in court. It just isn't true. Thus my oft repeated examples of entire cities being attacked, destroyed, layed to waste. Thus the truly outrageous examples of our gov't killing American citizens where they live here in America that ought to concern you FAR more. If you want to rail against the executive, those are the most outrageous and troubling cases. This one pales in comparison. | ||
| Blake |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-k illlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005 Says he was "operational." | ||
| Reepicheep |
I think the rub of the question would be:
That is the question Obama refuses to answer... probably because his answer is "whatever Bush said!". Which, ironically, is I think a reasonable answer (and I think Bush answered it reasonably given it was a really hard question in a really bad situation, as we are discovering here). | ||
| Reepicheep |
Huh. Sorry if this was already covered and I missed it: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-k illlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005 | ||
| Whistler |
The Texas Penal Code allows a person can be convicted of any felony, including capital murder, "as a party" to the offense. "As a party" means that the person did not personally commit the elements of the crime , but is otherwise responsible for the conduct of the actual perpetrators defined by law; which includes: -soliciting the act, -encouraging its commission, -aiding the commission of the offense, -participating in a conspiracy to commit any felony where one of the conspirators commits the crime of capital murder The felony does not have to be capital murder; if a person is proven to be a party to a felony offense and murder is committed, the person can be charged with and convicted of capital murder. The legal procedure would be as follows: Trial phase - a capital trial in Texas is a bifurcated trial, consisting of the "guilt-innocence phase" (where the jury must determine if guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt) followed by the "punishment phase" (in which the jury determines whether the person will be sentenced to death or life in prison). Guilt-innocence phase - The guilt-innocence phase in a capital case in Texas proceeds identically to a non-capital case with the expectation of voir dire (jury selection). In a capital case, voir dire is conducted on each potential juror individually rather than as a group, and voir dire must result in a death-qualified jury. Punishment phase - A punishment phase will not take place if the death penalty will not be imposed. If no punishment phase is held, the sentence is life imprisonment. As a result of the special issues in death penalty cases, there are different rules of evidence that apply in capital cases in the punishment phase than for a non-capital case. In a non-capital case, the State may introduce evidence of prior bad acts that did not result in a conviction only if "shown beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence to have been committed by the defendant or for which he could be held criminally responsible." There exists no such limitation in capital cases, and the State may introduce evidence "as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence" without burden of proof. Once each side has pleaded its case in the punishment phase, the jury must answer two questions (three, if the person was convicted as a party) to determine whether a person will or will not be sentenced to death: -the first question is whether there exists a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a "continuing threat to society". "Society" in this instance includes both inside and outside of prison. -the second question is whether, taking into consideration the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the moral culpability of the defendant, there exists sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence. If the person was convicted as a party, the third question asked is whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased, or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased, or "anticipated" that human life would be taken. In order for a death sentence to be imposed, the jury must answer the first question "Yes" and the second question "No" (and, if convicted as a party, the third question "Yes"). Otherwise the sentence is life in prison. The imposition of a death penalty in Texas results in an automatic direct appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal tribunal which examines the record for trial error. (Message edited by whistler on October 06, 2011) | ||
| Aesquire |
Drkside79, please read my post on this thread from Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 02:14 pm: I may be wrong on some small detail, but the events at Waco were pretty damn sad for a Republic. There are close parallels between Waco and the 2010-2011 Gunrunner operation. An impeachable act if there ever was one. Likewise for the fire bombing of Tokyo. Actually, the fire bombing of Tokyo was to destroy the war making ability of the enemy. Tokyo had a distributed factory network where large numbers of job shops supplied parts for the making of planes, bombs, ships, guns, etc. At that point in the war we had already bombed the large factories, a lot, but had not slowed the rate of production as much as hoped. By burning out the heart of Tokyo, we hit the factories that were supplying the arms used against us. Tokyo was not the only target of fire bombing raids. By the time we dropped the Bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, we had essentially eliminated all targets worthy of a large bombing raid, mostly because of the efficiency of those "conventional" raids. It worked, too. At the end of the war thousands of new built planes were grounded because we had destroyed the musical instrument factory that made propellers.. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-21.htm l http://www.answers.com/topic/yamaha-corporation Where is the evidence of bin laden's terrorism? His own words, on video, as he brags about the fools he sent to their death not knowing they were going to kamikaze the buildings. Bragging to an arab sheik he was entertaining. Other than the pilots, the rest of the crew thought it was a hijacking to demand..... blah blah. Bin Laden laughed at the fools. Any court on the planet would take that as evidence. It very much annoys me that that footage isn't on high rotation overriding the arab news networks. The vast majority of people are unaware Osama mocks men he sends to their deaths. Seems to me it should be common knowledge, especially in the mid east. I admit I'd have the picture of the naked guy on a leash held by a female US soldier ( who was court martialed for the act ) blown up on billboards all along the Iraq/Syria & Iraq/Iran borders with a mocking caption... "this is what you face here, future slave of infidel women". Or the like. probably a good thing I wasn't Sec Def under Bush... or there would be. (with claymores embedded to take out the inevitable raiding parties to remove the very offensive bill boards) Based on the concept of aid and comfort to the enemy.... the WBC crowd is perfectly legal for the Prez to bomb.  I wasn't completely happy when Clinton started the "rendition" business, sending captured terrorists to foreign lands to be tortured for information. I actually liked Bill better when I found out, but that was after his admin. Those were foreign bad guys. Is it cool to send US citizen bad guys to Turkey to be tortured? ( did we send US citizen bad guys to be tortured? ) I'm not demanding rights for terrorists, and Al-Aweaponscatcher probably deserved his fate. I'm concerned that the decision to kill you or me may be made in secret, by men who are unafraid of the consequences of their actions. This crowd in power seems to resent any restrictions on their power. If you think that it's ok for Obama, is it ok for Bush? ( reverse that for the Bush fans ) Or ok for Palin? Or Newt? | ||
| Blake |
I've not seen the bin laden recording or transcript you mention. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnwDr6BwF2Q Here's one. Like the footage of people jumping off the WTC, it's not something our mainstream media shows. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, >>> His own words, on video, as he brags about the fools he sent to their death not knowing they were going to kamikaze the buildings. Bragging to an arab sheik he was entertaining. Other than the pilots, the rest of the crew thought it was a hijacking to demand..... blah blah. Bin Laden laughed at the fools. Any court on the planet would take that as evidence. The video's subtitles show bin laden stating that the subordinate highjackers knew they had signed on for a "martytdom operation", but that they were only told the specifics just prior to boarding the planes. That does appear to be damning evidence against bin laden. I do now remember seeing that. | ||
| Aesquire |
It's been a while, It may have been another translation of the same tape, and I may not be recalling perfectly. But Bin Laden, may the fish be healthy, was amused at his own exploitation of the faithful. That's why I'd play that part on tv. You can draw a parallel to the "occupier" movement. Idealistic young fools exploited by rich evil men. I'm always suspicious of the next Reichstag Fire....  But am well aware that history does not really repeat itself. It Rhymes. ( the political ploys of the 1930's are very close to several other coups and empire building tactics throughout history. Read "The Prince". ) So.... who wants to bet on violence and a "temporary state of martial law" in the "occupier" "protests" as a desired and planned outcome? ( not MY desired outcome, the G Soros and SEIU's desire ) | ||
| Sifo |
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-k illlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005 Says he was "operational." It also says the evidence was "patchy". What would be the likelihood of convicting someone in court, where the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt", based on "patchy" evidence. No problem though, just take that patchy evidence to label him an operational terrorist so that we can justify eliminating the step of due process and assassinate him. Really? You don't see the problem here? I still have no idea what your point is about Richmond. If that were done in modern times it would be considered war crimes. Is it really your contention that since in our past history we committed what would now be considered war crimes that a simple assassination of one of our citizens is palatable? I'll say it again; You don't justify bad behavior with bad behavior. As for whoever pointed to the lawsuit that "said it was OK to put his name on the kill list", that isn't correct. The court decided not to look at the case at all. No judgement was made as to the validity of putting him on the kill list. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1207/Jud ge-dismisses-bid-to-remove-Anwar-al-Awlaki-from-US -kill-list
Just a couple more pieces that question the validity of this... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feisal-g-mohamed/anw ar-al-awlaki-killed_b_989485.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/anwar- al-awlaki-killed_b_996902.html
BTW, I just had a great 4 day weekend on the bike. Perfect weather, great colors, great roads shared with great friends. One of the best weekends on a bike I've ever had. This thread needed just a bit of bike content!  | ||
| Reepicheep |
Again, it's amateur hour in the white house, and they are making life or death decisions. I don't miss the guy, and I didn't shed a tear about a non uniformed combatant being waterboarded if it meant saving American lives (yet another reason not to be a terrorist or a pirate). But this one was handled really badly. | ||
| Aesquire |
The real question is always the next one. | ||
| Blake |
Neither Richmond, VA, Tokyo, Desden, etc would be illegal today in all out war. That is the point. As I stated earlier, either we are at war with al qaeda, or we handle them as a law enforcement issue. >>> What would be the likelihood of convicting someone in court, where the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt", based on "patchy" evidence. You seem to prefer we handle the conflict as a law enforcement issue. I cannot disagree more strongly, especially when it comes to a well-known enemy propagandist and recruiter. Killing people is what war is. It's awful. Killing the enemy, no matter if they are engaged in active combat, carrying a pistol, or sitting at a desk whipping up propaganda and recruiting yet another bomber or shooter from within our ranks, killing the enemy is never illegal in war. |
