to those opposed to killing terrorists

[rdking647]

Al-Alwaki was an admitted terrorist.. a man who admitted planning the mass murder of innocents.. the fact that he was an american citizen is irrelevant.. that was an accident of birth.. as far as im concerned when your a terrorists and admit it like he did and hide in a foreign country you deserve nothing more than death. I for one am glad hes dead...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Does that go for the CIA terrorists who plan the murder of innocents via drones?

Or, by proxy by hiring killers to take out perceived "enemies"?

[sabrina 1]

2. You don't believe in the Constitution, then. Only when it's

convenient. And who did Awlaqi kill? There are many people around the world whose loved ones, children, mothers, daughters, fathers have been killed by the US. Doesn't your theory work for them also? Someone blows your baby to bits, don't you, and/or your government have the right to kill them too? Or when America kills, like over one million people over the past decade or so, most of them innocent civilians, does it not hurt as much? Muslims are different? They don't feel pain when a foreign superpower invades their country and kills their families?

Again, how do you know what Awlaki admitted to or didn't. Just because the government tells you so? Bush lied to the country all the time to justify his killing of Muslims.

If the WOT IS a real war, then both sides have the right to keep on killing don't they? When does it end? We have certainly killed way, way more of them than they have of us. So, if your rationale is correct, THEY have a lot more killing to do before it gets even! Who are we at war with? Which country invaded this country?

[TheWraith]

38. Why do you go on repeating the same false, bullshit claims?

Silly question, I know: it's because you can't put up a defense on facts. Like claiming that the only evidence against Al Awlaki was "government claims," and that obviously the Big Evil Gumbint is ALWAYS lying. Despite the fact that he himself repeatedly and publicly claimed responsibility for multiple attacks, and was convicted in Yemen of complicity in the murder of a French citizen.

[msanthrope]

44. The poster also thought Al-Awlaki had been here until a couple of years ago, and posted

said incorrect information, repeatedly, yesterday.

[TheWraith]

51. I wouldn't be surprised if she still believes that, and says it again.

She never acknowledged that she was wrong about that, or that Al Awlaki had personally declared his responsibility for the attempted Christmas Day bombing, even after having Wikipedia cited several times about it.

[rustydog]

70. We also paid 25,000.00 cash for "Terrorists" in Iraq, tortured some to death

we did torture innocent people turned in by their Iraqi enemies for the cash, not because they were terrorists.

A court is where we determined guilt or innocence, not at the declaration of one man or government through the media.

If this guy was a threat, try him in a court of law. Not in the media where the validity of statements are rarely challenged.

[DCBob]

3. Many fail to understand or refuse to understand this was a unique case..

and does not extend to other people unless they closely fit the m.o. of this dude.

[Randypiper]

5. Oh

So this one doesn't count.

[DCBob]

7. an exception, if you will, due to the nature and seriousness of the crime.

it counts, just not in the same category as many here want to put it.

[Randypiper]

9. Does the nature and seriousness of the crime over rule a trial?

What amendment was that in?

[DCBob]

14. yes, if it is deemed a threat to national security.

[Randypiper]

19. The terrorist really have won

Peace

[DCBob]

21. The terrorists will have won when we are forced to follow a religion not of our choice.

peace back to you.

[saras]

48. Nope. The EXISTENCE of "national security" is a radical-right meme. The CONCEPT is wrong.

To the extent that "national security" means anything, it means the security of the nation (i.e. the Constitution) against violation by foreign powers, such as other countries, or corporations, or corrupt individuals.

If you have to violate the Constitution, then you've ALREADY GIVEN UP any "security" the nation might have had.

[DCBob]

66. The war powers act also specifically authorizes the President to go after individuals like Al-Awlaki

but I am sure you knew that already.

[COLGATE4]

13. Except the next one will also be a 'unique case', don't trouble

your pretty little head about silly things like a 'damned piece of paper'. Right?

[DCBob]

16. There are probably hundreds perhaps thousands of cases that are currently being reviewed.

The vast majority obviously do not meet the uniqueness of this individual.

[sabrina 1]

34. What was unique about this case? I read the Constitution and I

have not found any exceptions to the Rule of Law. Awlaki was barely known in the ME. He was not a leader of Al Queda, anymore than Al Zarqawi was despite Bush's lies to the contrary.

So explain how we are to apply this Bush doctrine in the future, who makes the decision as to what is or is not an exception to the Constitution? Does Congress debate it? Is evidence presented and made public, or is this a decision to be made by one man or woman? How does that work in a Democracy? Those are powers that used to be held only by Kings, or dictators. The US fought a Revolution to end Monarchical rule because of the clear dangers to civil liberties in such a system as history shows. And when did Democrats change their minds about these policies? And why? If it's right now, why was it wrong when Bush was president? Do we on the left owe him an apology now?

[neverforget]

67. There's an exception to the rule when the President says it, remember?

"It's not illegal if the President does it" President Richard Nixon. I guess that and the Yoo School of Law trump everything.

[TroglodyteScholar]

22. How many other "unique cases" do you think can be cooked up?

I can't believe how many people on DU have some strange and persistent inability to grasp the concept of a slippery slope. Laws are there to be enforced *in every case.* This is why it's considered so offensive when someone is perceived as "above the law." What's any less offensive about our government treating someone as being below the law?

[DCBob]

24. I dont believe anything is being "cooked up".

[TroglodyteScholar]

25. That's irrelevant.

If the power exists to declare a special case, then anything can become a special case...depending strictly on the views and/or biases of the individual or group making that decision.

If this goes unchallenged, someday an excuse will be given for another extrajudicial killing that perhaps you don't agree with. But then it's too late. Slippery slope.

[DCBob]

28. there have always been "special cases" and always will be..

the question is whether a President abuses the power in determining those cases.

[TroglodyteScholar]

29. Special cases, though, are not self-justifying as you seem to suggest.

And the question you raise about the approach and intentions of the President of the United States is a very fair question. When you look at the range of complete creeps and clowns the GOP are offering up for this coming election, do you see a single person who trust to make such a decision?

I sure don't.

[DCBob]

30. Of course not and if a President is found to be abusing that power..

then he or she should be impeached and removed from office.

[sabrina 1]

35. What we believe about the guilt of innocence of anyone based only

on what the government tells us, has no relevance in a democracy. Our system is not based on what we believe about the guilt of innocence of those accused.

A lot has been 'cooked up' to justify anti-Constitutional policies since 9/11. What do YOU know about this man other than what you being told by the MIC?

[TheKentuckian]

45. But if there was there would be nothing to do about nor even opportunity for future correction

that leads to such.

We have seen entire wars cooked up, are you certain that there was no cooking up on a smaller level.

How would we correct course if you're faith in how things are misplaced? Hell, how would we actually even know and if we did what would be our recourse?

If you are unable to envision how such power could be abused or dangerous to our civil liberties then your imagination is quite limited. If you can then you admit you understand and must on some level appreciate the concerns because you cannot identify any checks, verification, oversight, or limits on these powers.

[sabrina 1]

33. Explain how it was unique. That is what Bush used to say

and we did not accept it then, why should it be accepted now? Was Bush right after all?

Alwaki was NOT a leader of Al Queda, in fact he was barely known to most people in the ME. He had little if any influence. At most, he was a ranting, raving fundamentalist preacher. They are a dime a dozen there, and even here.

So, what makes this 'unique' especially since he is not the only one the Bush Doctrine has been applied to lately.

[DCBob]

63. How do you know he was an insignfiicant "dime a dozen" "raving fundamentalist preacher"

Are you privy to all the security and intelligence briefings??

[GeorgeGist]

62. Kinda like SCOTUS selecting Bush to be President ...

wasn't a precedent.

[rustydog]

72. His MO was talking a tough fight. he killed no one. he did not have explosives

with him whenhe was killed, he was not planning an imminent attack. He was SUSPECTED of crimes and tried in the press by Uncle Sam and you, in your fear of Terrists blindly accept the "special case".
What if you are the special case next time, is that ok?
What if the leaders of Occupy Wall street are declared Terrists and deemed "Special Cases?"
Or is it the Muslim sounding name that makes it ok?

[DCBob]

73. AQ leadership dont do the dirty work..

According to U.S. federal government officials, he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved with planning operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.<2><7><12><13><14><15> He was implicated in helping to motivate at least three attacks on U.S. soil,<16> and was the first U.S. citizen to be added to a list of persons approved for targeted killing by the Central Intelligence Agency.<17><18><19> With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, he had been described as the "bin Laden of the Internet".<20><21> U.S. President Barack Obama described Awlaki as "the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula".<22>

Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,<23> alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,<24><25> and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;<26><27><28> he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

According to U.S. officials, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda in 2009.<4><29> He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.<30><31> In April 2010, Obama approved Al-Awlaki's targeted killing,<17><18><19> an action unsuccessfully challenged by al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#cite_note-killed_in_Yemen-15

[mmonk]

4. Funny how people attempt to define others who ask questions.

[obxhead]

6. I expect you to fully support the next Republican to exercise

this power as well then.

Glad to know you feel the Constitution is only a guide and can be circumvented to fit your feelings or needs.

[Melinda]

8. To you so opposed to following the law of the U.S. Constitution...

To whom will you turn when they come for YOU? Careful now, watch what you say....

[FarLeftFist]

10. He declared war against the U.S., therefore he is an enemy combatant and fair game.

[COLGATE4]

12. Says who?

[bananas]

59. Fair Game - just like Valerie Plame? The neocons considered her a traitor and an enemy. nt

[whatchamacallit]

69. FarWhatFist? n/t

[COLGATE4]

11. Spell check is your friend. Use it.

[nineteen50]

15. I am not against killing terrorists I am against

Killing the constitution.

[nashville_brook]

56. well said.

[nineteen50]

17. Are we becoming

the same country we fought our war of independence against?
Was it not these same behaviors we fought against and demanded
rights against before we accepted our constitution?

[Earth_First]

18. This is akin to a partial support of the death penalty...

You either support Consitutional law or you don't.

You either support the death penalty or you don't.

Yes, it is that black and white.

[Vincardog]

20. Would you support the terrorists targeting and killing our recruiters?

[Marnie]

23. Do you want the same standard applied to

a member of your family who may be delusional, drunk, confused, coerced into an admission, or what ever?

"Al-Alwaki was an admitted terrorist.. a man who admitted planning the mass murder of innocents.. the fact that he was an american citizen is irrelevant.. that was an accident of birth..."



It has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was any of the things that you claim except possibly that he was an American citizen and therefore guaranteed full Constitutional and legal protections.

As a citizen he is guaranteed a trial by his peers. If that guarantee is denied him it is denied to us all, even you.

Also, too the FBI, CIA, SS, and prosecutors in general have been known to lie, and they do so frequently.

Why would any American take any claim they make at face value?

[Tsiyu]

27. Lots of good questions in this thread

No answers to any of them.

OP should have stated it was a drive-by

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. What if you are accused of being an Al Queda member?

Maybe an enemy of yours spoofs a few emails and signs you up for a few jihadist web sites. Maybe he plants a thumb drive with a plot to blow something in your trash can and then tells the FBI when you leave the house in the morning that you are right now on your way to explode a dirty bomb in whatever city you happen to be near. Who will you complain to when your car and you in it are vaporized by a Hellfire missile? Will it comfort you at all to know that many of us here on DU will offer that you got what was coming to you and that your being a citizen of the US was irrelevant because the government has some emails that proved to them that you were a terrorist.

Cheers!

[Amonester]

31. You ask a Lawyer to help you, and don't fly out to a terrorist camp.

Ask a Lawyer.

[Vinnie From Indy]

36. really?

What good would a lawyer do if the President puts you on the kill list? What court can you go to and who will keep you safe until the court decided whether to even hear your petition?

[Amonester]

37. IF the President puts...

I hope you're not 'discussing and arranging' plots to kill any amount of civilians. (Just one would be too many.) I presume you're not a member of any such Internet-related 'group' hiding somewhere, so your IF is a big 'if'. :tinfoilhat:

Anyway, just in case, here's a hint: search ASK LAWYER (thousands links returned in less than 1 second).

[Vinnie From Indy]

39. What a thoroughly disjointed reply!

In short, WTF?

[TheKentuckian]

60. Of course if you aren't a famous "slam dunk" case you could have no idea and no involvement

with terrorism and got targeted because of bad intelligence and will never know as the hellfire missiles obliterate you and your innocent children and you pass from this world never knowing you had a target on you.

No one will ever know. No one will know what the case was against you. Hell, no one will ever have a chance to correct the errors that led to your demise or that the real target slipped by as the innocent burned to perpetrate another crime.

In fact, if some future President with a cooperative clandestine service far exceeds the purpose of these powers we will be hard pressed to know or take any corrective effort if we did nor even be able to apply a penalty for such actions because we have an endorsed a law that is so damned broad that about any second year law student would certainly get you off if you can come up with any excuse as good as "the dog ate my homework".

It blows my mind that folks are seemingly pissed at the very idea of checks and balances or even the formalities like bringing charges in a court of law. Maybe some kind of review process? Perhaps court supervision or Congressional oversight of who is on the list and why?

We aren't fighting Germany here. Just as the government needs more latitude to fight the threat where it exists, whoever it is. It is absolutely critical that the government be subject to more fail safes and and oversight of methods and targets, not less and not the same.

Anyone that thinks even granting the best of motives and highest excellence in execution, that the margin of error doesn't go up dramatically in such a dispersed and shadowy opposition in a global battlefield with few allegiances just isn't doing much thinking.

Just since these laws have passed and powers granted and ceded by Congress we have seen the tremendous ability for error in both our information collection, processing, prioritizing, politicizing, interpretation, and reactions that I find it to be mindblowing that so many have unassailable faith in assumably not only the present administration but logically past and certainly future ones.

Almost like the power, intentions, threat combine to create infallibility and trustworthiness in those given such power and authority without accountability or any form of review.

Talking about FAITH based, this is as operative a definition as any. Self justification and credentialing.

Why are these people being targeted? They are terrorist.

What did they do? Planed or engaged in terrorism.

I mean what was it they are accused of? Being terrorist.

What acts is what I mean. Err... They planned, incited, or engaged in acts of terrorism.

Okay, okay! We'll come back to this. Who is being targeted? Terrorists, of course.

Who though? People like known terrorists mastermind Osama bin Laden.

What do you mean like bin Laden, that level and visibility? Haha...No, we mean terrorists, planners and orchestrator's of terrorism, financiers of terrorisms, those that we believe give aid and comfort to terrorists and those that harbor and ally themselves with such.

Wow! So, you guys have to identify and sift through a lot of targets. Potentially.

Where are we looking for and targeting people? Everywhere.

Which people are we looking for? Terrorist could be anyone or using anyone that is why it is important to give granny a pat down or a full body scan.

Fishing through so many people how do we avoid mistakes? By only targeting terrorists of course!

Sure, but on what evidence? That is a national security secret.

Figures but the courts approve who can be targeted based on the secret evidence, right? No the sole arbiter would be the President though of course in an administration realistically many are arriving at the decision.

What so Congress has no oversight, nothing? That is correct.

Well, hells bells...what if you're wrong? We only target terrorists.

This isn't an Abbot Costello routine, these are our civil liberties and real people we are talking about here?

[rdking647]

43. since im not hanging out with terrorists in tyemen im not worried

[Zorra]

32. Under the US government definiton of Terrorism, President Obama could be

considered an international terrorist by the people of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm

[Better Believe It]

40. "An enemy of the state is whoever the state tells you is an enemy of the state."

"Does anyone see a problem with that?"

As another writer put it so well.

[LWolf]

41. I oppose killing, period. I don't think it benefits anything or anyone.

I also oppose assassinations of any kind, ever.

I oppose the Death Penalty with no exception.

I also oppose the killing of an American without due process.

Finally, I fully oppose ignoring the U.S. Constitution when convenient.

If I were to wish everyone who causes harm dead, there wouldn't be enough humans left on the planet to keep the species viable.

[rdking647]

42. since there are so many claiming that Obama violated the constitution by killing our enemy

Id like the same people to show me where in teh constitution social security is mentioned.., or medicare...
since they arent mentioned in the constituion I guess they are illegal as well..
Oh wait....


the Fact remains that am avowed enemy of the US has no rights to the protection of the constitution when he is in a foreign country actively plotting against us...

[Better Believe It]

49. That's right! Who the hell does the ACLU think they are anyway? Under the bus with them!

"An enemy of the state is whoever the state tells you is an enemy of the state."

[COLGATE4]

53. The right to have Due Process before your life is taken by the State

is guaranteed IN WRITING IN THE CONSTITUTION (ARTICLE V). Read it before you make any more sophomoric posts on the subject.

[JackDragna]

58. That's such a false analogy I don't know where to begin.

The people who take issue with the killing are not some kind of conservative, strict Constitutionalist nutjobs who object "because it's not in the Constitution." We object because the rights of American citizens are clearly laid out in the document. My god, can your side make a single argument worth a damn?

[Paladin]

46. Consider The Company You're Now Keeping.

Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and the Wall Street Journal all share your opinion on this matter. The ACLU doesn't. Give that some thought.....

[rdking647]

47. and ron paul shares yours

[COLGATE4]

54. Nyah Nyah. Ron Paul says it so you must be wrong, In this case

Paul is the broken clock that manages to be right twice a day.

[Matariki]

50. " when your a terrorists" "glad hes dead"

That's Tea-bagger spelling, son.

[rdking647]

52. so grammer counts in politics ???

[Matariki]

57. By their SPELLING ye shall know them. Yea, by their spelling.

See also: teabonics

[Matariki]

55. self delete

for talking to myself

[Xicano]

61. The Constitution is just a Gawd Damned piece of paper!

:sarcasm:

[Canuckistanian]

64. Did he make an official confession to US authoities?

Is there a transcript of that somewhere?

I can say right now that George Bush confessed to War Crimes to some US official and you'd believe me?

No trial, no guilt. I thought that's what America stood for. There are ZERO exceptions in American law for "terrorists".

Either you have a verdict or you don't. Period.

[akbacchus_BC]

65. What? How the fuck you know who is a terrorist?

[whatchamacallit]

68. If a SUSPECT is FOUND GUILTY IN TRIAL

I support the punishment prescribed by law. It's terrifying to see how right the neocons were about the transformative power of "a new pearl harbor".

[Shandris]

71. So...his actual crime is Thought?

He didn't (to my knowledge) actually attempt to carry out any plans, he didn't hire others to carry out plans. He MAY have Conspiracy if he had other people working on the same plans. But...he didn't like us.

Hope you don't ever get real mad at your boss one day. "I hate you, some days I swear I could kill you, you bastard!" **INCOMING DRONE!! THOUGHT CRIME DETECTED!!**

I don't like terrorists of any stripe. But we should be bringing them to justice, not killing them outright. Accident of birth or no.