To those defending the killing of Al-Awlaki

[BlueCheese]

One straightforward question:

The executive branch of the US government is claiming it has the legal power to kill any American who appears on a secret list without notification, warning, indictment, or trial.

Do you agree with the executive branch's assertion?

[teddy51]

1. No more than I did when GW Bush did it! Muder is murder. n/t

[ixion]

18. exactly.

[Le Taz Hot]

85. Yep.

It puts an ugly spotlight on partisan politics, doesn't it?

[chill_wind]

2. K & R. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

3. I think Awlawki had a heads-up. We'd been discussing his being a target for

what..a year now?

[msanthrope]

5. His family filed suit on his behalf to stop the killing. You'd think he'd know....nt

[TwilightGardener]

6. I suppose he should have turned himself in to authorities then.

I guess he didn't really want due process. I guess he just wanted to keep doing what he was doing.

[mistertrickster]

89. Exactly. If he wanted a trial, he knew how to get one. nt

[BlueCheese]

7. Are you suggesting...

... that he was the only one targeted for killing? If there are others, are they all aware of it too?

[msanthrope]

14. I'm betting that if you make this UN List, you are a target.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1267

[BlueCheese]

16. Is that list complete?

Has the government stated that anyone not on that list is safe?

[bluestate10]

67. Yes. been in the worldwide press for a year+.

He was literate. He had plenty of advanced notice of intentions.

[Exilednight]

111. I noticed that you never answered the question. It's a pretty straightf forward yes or no question.

There are no caveats to be put in place, either you believe the president has the right to do it, or you don't.

[msanthrope]

4. That is not what the executive branch is claiming. When you have correctly characterized their

claim, I'll answer your question.

[MedicalAdmin]

8. I'm not the OP, so I have a favor if you don't mind.

Could you clarify for me what they did assert. I'm home sick today using my cell phone for iternet and serious in depth searches are very slow.

Help?

[msanthrope]

19. That the AUMF of 9/18/2001, and international law authorizes

the targeted killing of designated military targets.

After 9/11, the Congress empowered the President to use all necessary force to prevent further attacks under the War Powers Act. Targeted killing to prevent a continuation of terrorism is covered under that.

I wish Bush had targeted OBL. We might not have had the Iraq War.

[frylock]

60. yeh well you can shit in one hand and wish in the other..

there was a reason bush didn't target UBL.

[Exilednight]

112. Alright, so let's say for arguments sake that a Republican becomes president and puts the

ACLU on the terrorists watch lists claiming that the ACLU is "out to destroy christian conservative American values" and begins targeting them one by one.

If you're fine with the former, then you have to be fine with the proposition I just put before you.

BTW: Sandra Day O'Connor would disagree with you, but Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and Murdoch would prbably agree with you.

[BlueCheese]

9. Which part is wrong?

The existence of a secret list?
That the government claims it can kill anyone on that list?
That those on the list have not been warned, indicted, tried, or convicted?

[treestar]

101. Why don't you find out first before passing judgment?

Good grief!

[MrSlayer]

10. +1

The terrorist love fest going on around here is sickening.

[BlueCheese]

13. You're either for us or against us.

The rights of American citizens are there for the protection of everyone, from the virtuous to the vile. If this guy had been hit by a truck, I wouldn't have minded at all. But we need to be very careful when we kill people without due process, no matter how convinced we are of their evil.

[mercymechap]

31. So our soldiers fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan should

make sure they don't kill anyone, that they have their due process of law before they shoot them? Aren't we supposed to be at war with terrorists? Wasn't he a terrorist? What is is the problem here?

[BlueCheese]

41. That's a strawman.

This guy was a US citizen. Yemen is not a battlefield as Iraq and Afghanistan are. My question isn't about this one guy. My question is about the government's power to kill a US citizen without warning, presenting evidence, or otherwise following due process.

[Arctic Dave]

62. One could call the troops over there the terrorist.

Should the Iraqis have to give them a trial before they plant an IED?

[chill_wind]

78. And the next generations there will. And our children and childrens' children

will continue to pay, along with theirs. The Bush hubris lives on and on.

It's fucking insanity.

[Exilednight]

113. So just because we have a war on terror, we should kill US citizens. Do you hold the same view

for the war on drugs? Should we go around assassinating drug dealers without trials?

[demosincebirth]

30. The terrorists are just misunderstood. Deep down, they are very

good people. It's all our fault. So stop picking on them!

[bluestate10]

35. They love making muffins and have pet rabbits. Why kill them? nt

[demosincebirth]

114. Exactly

[Nye Bevan]

42. "Terrorist love fest"? Seriously?

I am on the fence, leaning towards supporting the administration on this, but with some misgivings. I am not, however, going to dismiss the thoughtful arguments of principled DUers as a "terrorist love fest".

[RetroLounge]

70. The shitting on the Constitution is worse

You should read it sometime.

:puke:

RL

[classysassy]

81. The love of justice

is greater than the hate fest going on around the world by the warmongers and greed merchants.

[MADem]

39. +1 n/t

[reACTIONary]

11. The executive branch is NOT making any such claim...

...not ANY American, but those who are engaged in military operations against the people of the United States. Self defense is a nation's right under international law.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1415070

[BlueCheese]

15. The executive branch itself defines...

... who fits the description you gave. They don't tell that person ahead of time. They then go and kill that person. Is that all right?

[reACTIONary]

20. It is the job of the government in general...

... and of the executive branch in particular, to identify militant threats against the people of the United States and to exercise, on our behalf, our right of self defense.

So, yes, it is right.

[BlueCheese]

22. What if the executive branch gets it wrong?

What if George Bush had decided that everyone who protested the Iraq War had declared war on the US, and needed to be detained if not executed? What stopped him from doing that?

[reACTIONary]

33. George Bush did no such thing, and if he had...

...he would not have gotten away with it. No president is arbitrarily declaring "someone I don't like" to be a militant threats to the nation, and, in fact, it isn't the president who decides who is. The fact is, as a people, we have the right to self defense, and our government is the organization that we rely on to exercise that right on our behalf. That is, to a great extent, exactly what a government is for.

I don't think the government has made a mistake in identifying Osama and Al-Awlaki as enemies of our nation that require defensive, lethal action.

It is ridiculous to claim that the government is "arbitrarily" putting just anyone in the same category, or that they would, for any reason, want to do so. They aren't assassinating anti-war protesters, they won't do so, and if they did, they would not get away with it.

[BlueCheese]

36. My point is this.

Do you trust the executive branch of the government to get it right? Do you think those accused of seditious activities should be told of the accusations against them, and to have a chance to answer them? Should the government have to present evidence supporting their beliefs? Al-Awlaki is not the only person the government might want to kill. Are you certain the next person is guilty?

[reACTIONary]

49. Do I trust the executive branch to get it right?

Yes, of course I do. Why wouldn't I? And I have seen no evidence that would indicate that they have not, or have not taken more than reasonable precautions against missdecision.

As far as your concern that those accused of seditious activities be told of the accusations against them and have a chance to answer them, I would say it is naive and unrealistic under the circumstances we are discussing - a militant located in a foreign country actively engaged in operations against our nation.

As I said, we, as a people have the right to self defense; our government is the agency of that defense; and we must be realistic and effective in defending ourselves.

[frylock]

64. rewind four years: do you trust the executive branch to get it right?

fast forward 2 years: do you trust president perry to get it right?

[Skip Intro]

12. Well, it is the executive branch. Sorry. Honestly, I'm conflicted on this.

Do I want a US where a supreme leader can order anyone killed for secret reasons? Of course not, no one does.

On the other hand, if what we're been told about this guy is true, then he was a clear and present danger to the well being of the US, and I have no problem with him being taken out.

He evidently did declare war on this nation. If this is true, and he put plans into action, or clearly planned to do so, then I'm kinda ok with his demise.

The protection of our nation and our people from imminent danger is paramount, and I believe in extreme circumstances, that singular function and effort trumps all others.

This appears to be one of those extreme cases.

[BlueCheese]

21. Oh, I'm not an absolutist by any means.

If an American had defected to the German Army in World War II, then of course, we could kill him on the battlefield, or in a rear area, or wherever.

And I understand that the US faces real threats. But this "war" has no boundaries, no time limits, and no clearly defined enemy. If I could be guaranteed that this guy was the only such case, I would be perturbed but not as alarmed. But it's not clear who else is on this list, or what safeguards there are against it. Could I be on this list, just for seditiously questioning whether the government has the authority to maintain such a list? It's much much spookier.

[madinmaryland]

23. I agree with your assessment of the issue. Nice to see a

non kneejerk response to what happened.

[Jakes Progress]

17. You just have to know the rules.

If our guy does it, it is good.

It their guy does it, it is bad.

See. Simple. Now stop all that thinking and get with the program.

(Oh. And send money.)

[Lint Head]

24. If I had planned the killing of 3,000 innocent people I would expect to be targeted.

I do not agree with the legal power to kill 'any' American just because they are 'suspected' of anything.

The one thing no one can disagree with is that Al-Awlaki will never plan or insight another killing. He is dead.

There are actual war criminals that were once running our country. They haven't even been taken to court by the current federal law enforcers. That is more of an issue to me than whether our government took out someone who wants to kill more Americans.

[COLGATE4]

50. It isn't an 'either-or' proposition. The fact that the Bush era war

criminals haven't been brought to justice doesn't serve to affirm the right the President has taken to order the execution of an American citizen without any due process.

[Lint Head]

74. It was not an either/or supposition.

It was an observation of hypocrisy.

[Tx4obama]

25. He declared WAR on the USA, and the USA took him out.

The USA has the right to defend America from anyone that declares war on the USA and its citizens.

[A HERETIC I AM]

37. Damned right.

Shoot that son-of-a-bitch in the head.

Or shoot a missile up his keester.

Either one.


Good riddance to bad rubbish.

What ever happened to the idea of treason?

[COLGATE4]

51. If he's accused ot treason indict him, charge him and bring him

to justice. What you want is the Old West version of shoot first, ask questions later.

[A HERETIC I AM]

57. What I want is religious nutcases who promote the killing of random and innocent Americans...

and anyone else, for that matter, to leave this mortal coil by whatever means are handy.

Fuck that fundamentalist, religious nutcase dipshit.

Fuck him sideways.

With a missile.

The funny thing is, you think I want the old west.

What assholes like that want is the old 12th century.

YOU decide.

[Bonobo]

69. "Shuffle off this mortal coil", not "leave it". Don't misquote Shakespeare...

or you just look stupid.

[A HERETIC I AM]

71. It's called "Poetic License"

And I'll use it as I please.

I want the likes of that asshole to leave this (or his) mortal coil, not "Shuffle" off it. LEAVE it. Straightaway.

I don't think he should have any say in the matter. I have a pretty good idea of what he wanted. I prefer to live in this century, not the one he wants to world to revert back to. There is no place here in the future for that type.

As far as looking stupid...well...it's late. And I just don't give a fuck.

[NutmegYankee]

92. We didn't do that during the Civil War.

We fought the traitors and killed them in droves, sometimes from long range with artillery (cannons). Not one of those men was ever tried or even charged. But each was engaging in war against us.

[treestar]

103. Good point.

There are people to whom we cannot apply the Constitution, because they don't want it. Alwiaki and Al Qaeda scorn our Constitution.

[treestar]

102. Al Qaeda members are not going to do that

They don't even want that! They will take down as many as they can with them.

Suicidal people can kill anyone they want to. Look at Columbine. Would it have been wrong to shoot them down or did we have to wait until they were done killing? This is functionally like that.

It's a war but not a war, and terrorism is proving to be a real challenge to our ideals. Yet here at least we are targeting Al Qaeda, instead of indiscriminate war as against Afghanistan.

[StarsInHerHair]

26. hell no

[madamesilverspurs]

27. ...

[Gregorian]

28. I don't think a nation can be at war with one person.

I thought only nations could wage wars.

[mercymechap]

32. We are at war with the terrorists, they are not a nation

so what do we do, ignore them?

[Gregorian]

48. Are we at war?

That is the question. We are not at war. Maybe with Bush's rhetoric. But not truly at war. This is a problem. We're tossing out terms like we know what is happening, but our definitions are loose.

[Life Long Dem]

72. According to Wiki.

A declaration of war is a formal act by which one nation goes to war against another.

Terrorist organizations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declare_war

Anwar al-Awlaki was implicated in helping to motivate at least three attacks on U.S. soil. This violence puts us at war with the Anwar al-Awlaki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[BadGimp]

29. Fuck Noi

pardon my language

[bluestate10]

34. Yes.

Al-Awlaki was a rabid animal that was a threat to americans, whether they pristine innocent or corrupt. He was sent to his place in hell today. Good riddance to him and the jackal that was killed beside him.

[BlueCheese]

38. The question is not about al-Awlaki only.

You may be comfortable with the government killing him. Are you comfortable with the government killing anyone else it deems to be a threat, without presenting evidence or notifying the person?

[bluestate10]

45. Plenty of notice was given. The same will happen for the next american

that plots with terrorists to kill innocent americans. Once those people cross a line, I don't give a shit what happens to them, they can knife each other with knives that we supply for them, I would only care if one some how came out of that alive.

[BlueCheese]

46. You do realize the list is secret, right?

[bluestate10]

66. Information that is in the general press is not secret.

It was reported many months ago the President Obama had signed a "capture or kill" order for the murderer. In case you don't realize it, any information that gets into the public domain is no longer secret.

[BlueCheese]

82. That al-Alwaki was on the list was not secret.

There are others on the list that the government is trying to kill. Those are still secret.

[treestar]

104. I agree. How can anyone plotting with Al Qaeda possibly

claim they have no "notice" that the US is after them?

If he'd somehow come forward and surrendered that would be different.

[KOfan]

40. No

And the sh*tbag deserved a trial of peers imo. These wars and fantasy trips for the military are getting stupid.

[StarsInHerHair]

43. here's what Abe Lincoln had to say about subverting the Constitution

..."Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. "...

…Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”...

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/american-fascism-by-political-definition-the-us-is-now-fascist-not-a-constitutional-republic

[emilyg]

44. Thanks.

[reACTIONary]

63. This is the president who...

... suspended habeas corpus in defense of the nation. And I ain't complaining.

[mistertrickster]

91. Yup, I thought of that too. Good point. nt

[Recovered Repug]

80. According to Jefferson (one of the patriots of '76 that Lincoln

mentioned and a writer of the Declaration of Independence):

" strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

[DCKit]

83. +2

We're no better than animals if we sink to their level.

No offense to animals, many of whom have far more humanity.

[mistertrickster]

90. I guess all those Southerners got a trial before Sherman burned their houses down. nt

[Progressive dog]

96. Lincoln also said this

Later in the war, after some had criticized the arrest and detention of Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, Lincoln wrote to Erastus Corning in June 1862 that Vallandigham was arrested "because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it. . . . Must I shoot a simple-minded deserter, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?" Lincoln did not comment on the proper channels of due process regarding such "agitation."

from Wikipedia also cited in almost all biogaphies of Lincoln

[Ikonoklast]

106. And then he subverted it when it suited him.

By suspending Habeas Corpus, which is written into that very document.


Funny dat.

[LuckyTheDog]

47. As I said to another on this board...

Look, I know the "war on terrorism" isn't really a war and isn't really "on terrorism." But it is an armed conflict against an enemy that is out to attack the U.S. and HAS attacked the U.S. It's a very different kind of conflict than has been typical in our history. But it is what it is.

Those guys were military targets. No court in the country would be likely to rule any differently. And that's not because they are all cowards. It's because the law does not consider such killings to be assassinations. I know you would like the reality of this to be otherwise. But it isn't.

Had the U.S. found a way to kill Hideki Tōjō during WWII, that would not have been an "assassination," either. That's because the leaders of organizations in violent conflict with the U.S. are legitimate military targets. And it stretches credibility to suggest that al Qaeda isn't in a violent conflict with the U.S.

[COLGATE4]

54. The difference is that Tojo and the others weren't American

citizens. This guy was.

[TwilightGardener]

73. How far should being an American shield you when you move to another country

and join an organization at war with the United States--and you refuse to surrender to face charges when it's known that you are wanted, but instead continue your participation in acts against the US? Having been born here mitigates taking up arms for the other side in war? I don't think so.

[LuckyTheDog]

87. You know who else were Americans? The leaders of the Confederacy

Should they have been off limits to the U.S. armed forces?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. And World War II was a DECLARED war

against three identifiable nations.

[LuckyTheDog]

86. And? So?

So, al Qaeda leaders should be off-limits because they are not acting on behalf of a state? I think not.

[TheKentuckian]

99. The entire issue is nebulous to the extreme and you know. The "war" is everywhere, at any time, and

without a nation, the combatants wear no uniform and serve under no flag.

Without any judicial review, yes anyone at anytime can be declared a "terrorist" and be made an enemy of the state subject to being murdered or disappeared. The knuckledragging logic of don't be a terrorist is dependent on an accurate assessment in good faith of those with no checks on their power. There is no limitation to Al Queda and no burden of proof.

The Civil War is no guide here either, the circumstances are in no way similar. Other than the word of our Executive (which throughout history has been dubious in a good term) there is little ability to test the validity of such accusations and gets more cloudy as we move our focus from big names to the unknown. The list is its self a secret.

I find your line about it being likely that no court would rule any different particularly disturbing because I don't see the basis and feel that willful avoidance of even that level of oversight means your likely isn't as water tight as you pretend. It troubles me that we would be in a position to extrapolate court oversight, that defeats the entire purpose. As in sports, the game is played on the field rather than on paper.

[phleshdef]

52. The President was granted the authority by Congress to use force against members of Al Qaeda.

He was a member of Al Qaeda.

Case fucking closed.

[COLGATE4]

55. The AMUFA doesn't supersede the Constitution. But thanks for playing.

[phleshdef]

59. Sounds like the same argument gun nuts make against gun control.

Its the same argument that say since the constitution grants the right to bear arms, that all forms of gun control imposed by Congress or other sub-bodies of government are unconstitutional. Those kinds of constitutional generalizations do not hold up.

The fact is, he declared war against the United States and participated as a high ranking member in a terrorist organization. If he didn't want to be dead, he should have stopped evading capture and turned himself in to face justice for his crimes.

And the other fact is, the parts of AMUFA that grant the President this authority has NOT been successfully challenged and overturned. Until that happens (which I doubt it will), then that stands as the LAW. Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, the President has that kind of authority, period.

[JCMach1]

84. Exactly...

[Tx4obama]

53. The LIST of the 'top' SEVEN most wanted al Qaeda terrorists is NOT a secret

On the link below are the names and the photo of the TOP seven:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/most-wanted-al-qaeda-terrorists/2011/05/02/gIQAGJqk9K_gallery.html#photo=1

----
I think that the OPer might be confusing the 'secret U.S. memo' with the list of the folks that are on the 'wanted' list - which are two different things.

See article on the link below:

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html?hpid=z1

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. To those defending the killing:

Does this mean that the Rumanians were right to kill that exile with a poisoned umbrella back in the 1980s? After all, he was a danger to the Ceausescu regime.

Do the Chinese have the right to fire drones into Dharmsala, India, if Tibetans fighting against the Chinese are there?

Does Cuba have the right to fire drones into Miami because there are former Cuban citizens there trying to overthrow Castro?

Or are these things right only when OUR COUNTRY does them, because we're so damned special and all that?

Or do you make an exception only when a Democratic president does these things, because everything Democrats do must be right?

[ProgressIn2008]

61. I gather that we agree when it's our team, but it's fascism otherwise. nt

[reACTIONary]

65. International law gives all nations the right to self defense. That isn't fascism. nt

[The Traveler]

68. I do NOT agree with that assertion

But there are conceivable conditions under which the government not only has the right but the OBLIGATION to kill an American citizen. It all depends on the circumstances.

Hmmmm ... I might concur with the deed while dreading and opposing the policy? Slippery slopes ahead ...

[The Northerner]

75. K&R n/t

[Chan790]

76. It's not quite a new assertion.

It's widely believed that during the Cold War era the collective US intelligence community assassinated upwards of 1000 individuals as deemed necessary, globally*...since that probably includes double-agents in the field and individuals who presented threats to national security domestically, some portion of that theoretical 1K+ were certainly Americans. Also, it seems safe to presume at least some portion of them deserved it less than this guy.

*-It's known that it was policy of the US government to use assassination as a means to obtainment of national security and intelligence objectives since Gerald Ford issued a directive that we were ceasing that policy...only the number and individual-facts of such assassinations are classified. (Translation: We admit that we assassinated people but refuse to say how many or who or any circumstance thereof.) It's a known fact for example that the CIA attempted and failed to assassinate Fidel Castro repeatedly. While we don't know the procedures in these incidents, it seems safe to assume that it was extrajudicial nor were the targets forewarned.

[gateley]

77. Seriously, does it matter what WE think? We have no say?

Why is everyone spinning their wheels over this? It's done, we couldn't have stopped it, we can't stop it from happening again.

The LAWS need to be changed (or changed back, probably more accurately) - THAT'S where we should be focusing our energies, not trying to prove EITHER side is RIGHT and the other is wrong. Sheesh.

Have at it, kids. Let me know what you've accomplished when you're done.

[Chan790]

79. I support the law as currently interpreted. n/t

[gateley]

107. Sadly, it's irrelevant what you and I do or do not support.

[mistertrickster]

88. If a sniper at the top of the Washington Monument opened fire on the people below,

we would kill him to protect the innocent.

Same deal with Al-Awlaki.

[Nye Bevan]

98. If someone ranted publicly about going to the top of the Washington Monument to shoot people,

but didn't actually shoot people himself,

would we kill him?

[Chan790]

109. Actually if we believe that he is an imminent threat.

...we could legally and might.

For example, if he said "One of these days I'm going to go to the top of the Washington Monument and shoot tourists on the Mall." or "Someone should go to the top of the Washington Monument and shoot tourists on the Mall." or even "It is entirely morally permissible, in fact it is the obligation of any moral individual, to go to the top of the Washington Monument and shoot tourists on the Mall."...

then at a later date he is seen in the area of the Washington Monument with a sniper rifle, you had best believe that they're going to shoot him. Further, that they will probably opt for the kill-shot over the disabling shot to account for unforeseen variables like the possibility that he's wearing a suicide bomb vest so that he'll never be taken alive. (I say this because this was functionally the same scenario and action plan as when the guy seized the lobby of the Discovery Building here in Silver Spring several months ago...there was never any attempt to take him alive, to my understanding it wasn't even a considered option based on his past threats of violence and the impression of those who knew him that he'd not allow himself to be arrested or deterred. Sadly, that was pretty much exactly how it went too...in his case the issue was mental illness rather than fanaticism.)

I'm uncertain that this is an equivalent example though.

If he made the same threatening comments and were instead intercepted in the act of trying to buy the gun, bomb components or otherwise engage in logistics towards carrying out the threats, I think they'd try to arrest him first...if he resisted and there was even the vaguest impression that the situation was going to escalate to violence...they'd probably still shoot him.

Still uncertain the same rules apply though as this was pretty much preemptive.

In such a case, I don't think the Law Enforcement comparisons hold...it's most similar to the use and policy of extrajudicial intelligence proscriptions allegedly carried out by both sides during the Cold War.

[mistertrickster]

117. Except that he DID actually shoot people. nt

[kentuck]

93. Only with oversight from Congress.

The executive alone should not have the power to decide who is a threat to our country.

[still_one]

94. Do you agree with this assertion that may al-awiaki was no longer a citizen?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

[badtoworse]

95. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to defend the country from its enemies.

That is going to involve killing people at times. Trying to take down individual, high value targets is a legitimate military exercise.

[TheKentuckian]

105. They decide what danger means, they decide who is a danger, they decide all of it in a completely

closed loop. That is unchecked and nearly absolute power hiding behind real world security concerns.

Hell, there isn't even a fucking check on the definitions of these terms and the whole thing is shrouded in the veil of state secret.

If history and human nature aren't enough warning about such trust then you cannot have been paying any attention.

What is the limit on this power?

[badtoworse]

108. I'm very comfortable treating this as a war.

Wars are not waged with oversight by a third party.

[TheKentuckian]

110. I'm not, the idea is absurd and has no definable victory and an enemy by definition on

moving goalposts in a battlefield that is everywhere on Earth.

The enemy is defined by an unchecked group of people, free to act without prudence or by any verification.

Your comfortable spot is the recipe for some pretty disturbing nightmares.

Your great faith in the judgment, discernment, wisdom, faithfulness, intentions, aims, infallibility, righteousness, and impossibility of corruption and consequential misuse of these powers that give you such great comfort is truly impressive but not helpful to maintaining our civil liberties or if desired our lives.

[badtoworse]

115. It all comes down to what risks you comfortable taking

I'm more comfortable with the risk of giving our government the means to neutralize Al Qaeda than I am with the risks of dealing with Al Qaeda in some half assed manner (overseen by a judge?) that allows them the ability to keep operating.

[JoeyT]

97. We're hearing the exact same arguments Bush supporters used to push all his policies.

That in itself is telling. About half the comments defending it amount to "terrorist sympathizer!" or "With us or agin' us!"

[BlueCheese]

116. Exactly.

"It's okay we're trampling over their rights because we know they're guilty evil-doers. No, we won't show you the evidence. Or even who we think is an evil-doer. If you support them, you support the terrorists."

[treestar]

100. Is that what they are claiming?

I do not defend it so much as refuse to jump on the bandwagon while still uninformed.

I would like to see the WH's side on this issue, a thing never considered by the many lamenting the end of the Constitution over this.

They just seem too eager to judge.

Terrorism is a horrible thing and it raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions. We can't just attack a country since Al Qaeda is not one. Yet it seems making it no more than a crime could easily lead to many of us getting killed first. This is a group that does suicide attacks, too. Al Qaeda volunteers for the death penalty, so how can we expect they want to get a chance at a fair trial? What is the chance of accidentally killing an innocent person in all this?

[TheKentuckian]

118. Leaving Obama out of it might make your thinking clearer.

Let's hear Bush's side, or Bachman's side, or Rick Perry's, or Jeb's.

Let us hear from a corrupt, ideological, and incompetent administration past or future and think on how much they should be trusted with unlimited, unsupervised, and unchecked powers.

Should these be powers of any Presidency, not just Obama's or a Democrat's but ANY?