When is it acceptable for the government to assassinate someone?

[rucky]

Poll question: When is it acceptable for the government to assassinate someone?

The real question is what standards of rights should we offer suspects? Should it be different if they're US citizens vs. non-US citizens? US soil vs. foreign soil? And if different standards apply to each group, what's the burden of proof before the government can justifiably kill somebody?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. When they know there is no one big enough or powerful enough to do something

about it.

[EFerrari]

2. With Death of Anwar al-Awlaki, Has U.S. Launched New Era of Killing U.S. Citizens Without Charge?

The United States has confirmed the killing of the radical Yemeni-American cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, in northern Yemen. The Obama administration says Al-Awlaki is one of the most influential al-Qaeda operatives on its 'most wanted' list. In response to news of al-Awlaki’s death, constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald and others argue the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process has now has become a reality. "One of the bizarre aspects of it is that media and government reports try to sell al-Awlaki as some grand terrorist mastermind … describing him as the new bin Laden. The United States government needs a terrorist mastermind to replace Osama bin Laden to justify this type of endless war … For a while, al-Awlaki was going to serve that function," Greenwald says. "If you are somebody that believes the President of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without a shred of due process … then you are really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_of_anwar_al_awlaki

[LuvNewcastle]

3. I think I'm more afraid of being

disappeared under the provisions of the Patriot Act than I am of being assassinated. At least it would end quickly and my loved ones would know about it if I was taken out by a drone. I believe this shit has been going on for some time now, however, they just don't feel the need to hide it from us anymore. Thanks to the near total takeover of the media, there are plenty of apologists out there ready to defend just about any atrocity our government commits. From now on, they're just making up the rules as they go along.

[rucky]

5. Why should different standards apply to US citizens?

The precedent had been set a long time ago. It's just been mostly limited to non-citizens.

I think we're missing an opportunity to put the spotlight on basic human rights and global standards of law by focusing on the citizenship of the suspect.

There are situations that, in an effort to bring someone to justice, deadly force is justified to counter an immediate threat. This was a drone strike, so I doubt that is the case here. But in the case of, say, Bin Laden, we still need to sort out what happened in that raid that justified killing over capture.

I know to some, that sounds like I'm defending Bin Laden, but really it's a defense for basic human rights and a belief in equal application of justice - regardless of citizenship. It's also sound security against further terror acts when a suspect is captured alive and gets a fair trial - it would be much harder for the next would-be terrorist to justify retaliatory actions. You can't say the same about drone strikes. It's just bad security policy in the long-run.

[polly7]

10. Good points and good post, rucky. nt.

[vi5]

4. You forgot one very important option.

"When it is a Democratic president doing it, and not a Republican one."

I suspect around here that would get a lot of votes.

[rucky]

6. I didn't want to go there, but point well-taken. n/t

[Scuba]

7. I'm for no assassinations, but understand and accept that people will get killed resisting capture.

[rucky]

12. With a drone strike, there's no capture - just kill.

[obxhead]

8. Only when the President has a D behind his name.

As soon as a Republican is behind one of these murders the outrage will be unanimous on DU.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Maybe, but "post-partisanship" seems to mean that we are all authoritarian conservatives now

I fear the transformation may not cycle around even for what now seems to be a partisan advantage rather than principled opposition.

The Bush cabal was attacked because they could be not out of disagreement. Bush had an (R) next to his name and came off as a yahoo but what he was actually doing was never the heart of the problem for many, they just want a (D) doing it and with different faces and rhetoric. The actions and policies are not at issue with too many.

[obxhead]

15. I'm learning that more and more here at DU lately.

It's not policy that's supported. It's blind support of a party, which has become a near mirror image of the "opposition" party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. When the government embraces the same morality as the terrorists.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[Creideiki]

13. Banana Republics do it all the time

And now instead of joining the ranks of Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, the UK, France, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc.,

Multiple times in the past couple weeks we have chosen to join the ranks of Syria, China, Iran, and the old-style Latin American countries.

It's shameful.

[Scuba]

14. It astonishes and saddens me to see votes for "any terror suspect". I suspect anyone who ...

... votes for one of those choices may be a terrorist!

[treestar]

16. Terrorists deemed to be such

by any reasonable process.

There is an issue of whether terrorism should be treated as crime or war. Bush chose war, which did not really apply.

The trouble is that Al Qaeda is not a country we can declare war on. Yet we can't just let them be until they do something really awful and then attempt to try them for it.

It's a difficult area, not one given to quick judgments.

If there had been knowledge of the 911 plans and a chance to shoot Mohamed Atta, who would opt for letting him carry out the plan first and then see if we could try him?

[Modern_Matthew]

17. There are at least 10 single-brain-celled organisms on DU. nt

[frylock]

18. when my guy does it