Bringing al-Awlaki to justice

[joshcryer]

Poll question: Bringing al-Awlaki to justice

How should al-Awlaki and his entourage have been brought to justice assuming the allegations against him had merit? I believe these are the primary options available.

[Toucano]

1. How about an indictment and a summons?

Lets start with that and see what might be needed after that fails.

[brooklynite]

2. Consider the following...

An indictment and summons doesn't work very well if the suspect isn't within the jurisdiction issuing the summons, and the jurisdiction he -is- in doesn't have the civil law enforcement infrastructure to make an arrest and extradite him.

BTW if the Yemeni authorities decided to just shoot him and save the paperwork, would it make you feel any better?

[Toucano]

7. Well we'll never know that since it was never tried.

I'm not responsible for what the Yemeni government does, but I do have an interest in the rule of law in the United States.

Just because Richard Millhouse Obama does it, doesn't make it legal.

One man does not have the authority to decide who is guilty and who should be executed. Not in a Republic.

[Toucano]

8. dupe

[joshcryer]

4. He was indicted by Yemen, and that didn't appear to be successful.

[Toucano]

6. So Obama works for Yemen now?

And a conviction of inciting violence carries the death penalty?

If the president is right, he can get a grand jury indictment.

No one person is entrusted with the authority to assassinate anyone.

Unless you're in say, North Korea perhaps.

[joshcryer]

9. The assumption is that an indictment would result in his turning himself in.

Clearly that assumption is wrong.

[Honeycombe8]

11. LOL! (that's a joke, right? I hope you know that's a joke.) nt

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Other

Withdraw all US troops and military assets from around the world, especially in Muslim countries. Stop bombing and attacking Muslim countries. Also, stop backing Israel's apartheid and expansionist policies in the Middle East.

There's a reason why the "terrorists" hate us and it ain't because our freedoms somehow pissed them off. Ever wonder why the Islamic terrorists never struck Brazil? They aren't sticking their noses where it doesn't belong.

The solution is simple. Awlaki is simply a side effect of the disease and the disease is US imperialism.

You aren't asking the right questions.

[joshcryer]

5. The assumption is that al-Awlaki merited the charges against him.

If you believe that assumption to be untrue, that he did not merit the charges against him, then that is beyond the scope of the discussion.

I'm not asking the questions you want me to ask because I'm trying to get a specific answer given the options we have available. I do not believe your characterization is a realistic option, and thus it was not in the poll.

[napoleon_in_rags]

10. The issue is about the larger picture. Who is scarier?

Some Arab hiding out somewhere with a trash talking website, or the worlds last superpower with an army of robots that kills its citizens without trial based on secret intelligence nobody else can see? What does "brought to justice" means without a justice system playing any kind of visible role? You clearly specify the assumption that the allegations have merit, but in doing that, you really sidestep the whole issue in my eyes, which is the fact that nobody can know that, its all secret.

[joshcryer]

12. How else am I going to have a proper poll?

You have to assume that the allegations have merit otherwise there is no justice to be brought. And thus no poll.

Note: tomorrow or something I will give my opinion but I am keeping it poll-only for now. Assume nothing about me please, I am side stepping nothing. It's a specific experiment.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. "How else am I going to have a proper poll?"

You can't.

Also, if the past is any indication, the allegations likely have no merit. The US government pretty much has ZERO credibility.

[joshcryer]

16. Which allegations have no merit?

There are quite a few. I found the emails to be particularly damning.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. LOL? Emails?

Laughable. Do you realize how easy it is to fabricate an email? Do you know how easy it is for ANYBODY to impersonate the sender? What a joke. The government is trying to keep you living in a constant state of fear and in your case, it's obviously working.

[xocet]

13. None of the above is the answer, since the question is internally inconsistent.

The defeat of an enemy is not the same thing as bringing a criminal to justice. Elements of the Wehrmacht in WWII were not "brought to justice" on the battlefield: they were engaged and killed or they retreated or they surrendered or some combination thereof. Only after the war were trials conducted. None of the soldiers who were killed on the battlefield were "brought to justice". They were simply killed in the course of combat. Only those tried after the war were brought to justice.

Are Al Qaeda and its adherents to be defeated or to be brought to justice?

Is this situation a war or a matter of law enforcement?

[joshcryer]

15. Three out of four options assume that the person is taken alive to be brought to justice.

edit: to clarify, yes it's about law enforcement.

edit: more clarification, one option assumes that being killed equals justice.

Hard for me not to interject my opinion here. Tomorrow!

[cpwm17]

18. Other

I want US politicians brought to justice for their crimes against humanity throughout the Muslim World.

Al-Awlaki is a symptom, and he is barely anybody. If he is involved in some actual crimes, it's up to the US Government to prove it. Vigilante justice by Obama isn't justice.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Your question its self misses the point of the debate.

We do not assume allegations have merit nor do we assume that if they have merit that the person accused is guilty.

Allegations having merit means a person is charged with a crime then we have established that a trial determines if the accused is guilty of the crime.

Further, most people on this list are not al-Awlaki. We have no idea what they are accused of much less if the accusation has merit and even less if they are guilty.

Josh, this entire system exists in a closed decision and interpretation loop that is unchecked. By definition if there is abuse, a failure to properly interpret information, issues with collection of intelligence, incompetence, or any other issue there is no way to know it much less correct it.

I totally understand why people would approve or applaud this action but to do so depends on a chain of assumptions that in this spotlight case, probably are correct but this case does not justify the underlying system because we are contrary to our entire system of justice making accusation the same as guilt and further distorting what not many years ago would be universally called a kangaroo court by stripping away even that pretense by combining accuser with judge, made worse by eliminating any need to even make the accusation.

Even if I hit my head and thought any particular Administration was noble, wise, competent, smart, and unerring enough to be trusted with such power there is no way in heaven, earth, or hell that I'd be so confident with ANY administration so much.

You haven't a clue in a million worlds who is on the list or if they should be. They are there at the sole interpretation and discretion of ANY President, unchecked power is corruption and cancer to liberty, justice, and self determination.

Hell, even in the case of al-Awlaki we have failed to so much as submit charges for what is determined to be a capital crime. That seems bizarre. Why wouldn't such a dangerous criminal be under indictment. Surely, there is enough evidence that a court would grant merit to the accusation so what the hell is going on here? We have a legal code, why not use it as far as it takes you, just to go by the numbers?

Building in assumptions skips the heart of the matter but also highlights it to me because that is the only way you get there.