WRT the Awlaki killing

[Nuclear Unicorn]

First, it wasn't just Awlaki. An American citizen by the name of Samir Khan was also killed that day so that's 2 American's killed and both were deliberately targeted. I think it's safe to say that this incident is not an exception but a rule.

Now, it has been said that Awlaki waived his rights to due process when he took up with the enemy. But my question is -- how do we ascertain he took up the enemy without due process? You can't just yell, "He's the enemy!" and start shooting. Near as I can tell we're entitled to ask, "What enemy?" and "What has he done that makes him the enemy?" and "Even if he is the enemy is it an enemy we need to be shooting at?" A presidential finding developed strictly within the executive branch with evidence supplied by executive agencies and carried out by other executive agencies without any oversight by either of the the 2 remaining branches of government seems a bit too much for me.

It's really a matter of checks and balances.

When many of us warned against the slippery slope of denying foreign fighters their rights under international law this is exactly the scenario we were envisioning. We were told by conservatives that once the "terrorists" begain operating as non-state actors they waived their rights under the Geneva Conventions. We protested, many times literally, that such a determination was not the exclusive right of the Bush administration to decide.

To those who defend these extra-judicial targeted killings against Americans I ask, by what process and evidence -- outside of the executive branch -- has the US determined these were enemy combatants who were sufficiently dangerous enough to warrant killing?

[Warpy]

1. Would you have preferred they have a show trial in absentia, Soviet style?

I do think there should be hearings held on this stuff to determine exactly what sort of evidence existed and whether enough treason had been committed to warrant summary execution.

However, I see this is a question of a list of unacceptable and questionably legal alternatives.

[Angry Dragon]

4. Yes, this country should now hold hearings to see if

they should have died ........... and then if found that the evidence was lacking
we could have someone bring them back to life .......

[Warpy]

17. That's obviously not the point and you know it.

Having to defend the decision in public is enough of a pain in the ass that it pretty much insures that the particular policy won't be business as usual.

It's the same reasoning that has IA investigate every discharge of a cop's firearm. The police tend to be a lot less gun happy because of it, at least outside NYC.

[bvar22]

24. The Pre-Magna Carta Monarchs thought so too.

Its just too much trouble to go to a judge and get a warrant.
I don't see why everybody is whining about The Constitution and everything.
They were "Bad Guys"
so Take 'Em OUT!
Easy Peasy.



Did you support Bush-the-Lesser when he grabbed these new powers for a Unitary Executive?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. It would be nice if we could have the hearings BEFORE life was lost

Of course, if some capital offense case is reviewed after the death sentence has been affected would that obviate the need for review of death penalty cases?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Polanski was tried and convicted in absentia so perhaps the Soviet analogy doesn't hold 100%

But you do bring up an excellent point.

Actually, you bring up more than 1 good point as you also note there are few, if any, palatable alternatives.

However, I would note that unlike the Soviet Union genuine opposing council can be had in the US and the ACLU was trying to work desperately to fill that role when their efforts were rendered moot.

I think it's a scary scenario that evidence provided by executive agencies (CIA, etc) convince the executive (the President) to have other executive agencies (the DoD) carry out killings without any outside review. It is the proverbial judge, jury and executioner gambt we have all been warned against since time immemorial.

Even if one does not subscribe CIA-bogey man conspiracies one should at least be allowed to ask, "Yes, but what if you're simply mistaken?" We hear with all too much regularity of police serving warrants at the wrong address. I'm sure in the world of international intelligence gathering things are even more unclear.

[Crabby Appleton]

10. Polanski pled guilty to reduced charges but fled just before sentencing

He wasn't tried and convicted in absentia

[Boojatta]

2. Why is there no controversy about the birth certificates of Awlaki and Samir Khan?

It's not even an attempt to answer your questions, but I don't think it will derail the thread. Send me a PM and I will delete this post if you are concerned that it will derail the thread.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Near as I can tell, no party involved (gov't, Khan family, OIPs) is disputing the US BCs

Would that the president had as much leeway but there you have it.

[teddy51]

3. I seriously think that Obama has appointed himself as Judge, Jury, and

executioner on this one. Also think he is walking on very slippery ground here. If Awlaki this time, why not you or me the next?

[Bladian]

6. Have you attempted to incite people to attack the US?

No? Then you're fine. Dear jesus stop using this argument, it doesn't work. "Someone did something super extreme and was targeted for it, who's to say that myself, living a completely ordinary life and not saying or doing anything threatening, might not be next!" Oh come on.

[teddy51]

8. These are very dangerous powers for any President to assume, so whats

going to happen when we get one of the right wing loonies in the WH?

[Bladian]

16. I apologize for sounding so venomous.

Started the day off tired, continued the day tired. Lots of stuff going on. I'm sorry.

[teddy51]

22. Hey, I have thick skin... lol have to have to post on DU. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Many a Tea Partier has claimed speech by union officials constitutes incitement

Remember the recent kerfuffle over Mr. Hoffa's comments. Other union officials have endured similar complaints.

Now, I am on record at DU as condeming some of the more careless blandishments but "attempted to incite people to attack" is an overly broad statement that can be easily exploited.

[gratuitous]

11. Not to mention whose judgment we're going to trust

What constitutes "incitement," and as objectionable as speech might be, it's not up to the executive to determine that it violates the First Amendment, nor is it up the executive to determine unilaterally and without a presentation of prima facie evidence that someone has "waived" his or her rights. Even a death row convict has a hearing before he can waive his right to further appeal to expedite his death sentence.

We took the first tentative steps down a slippery slope several years ago. We now appear to be running pell mell down that slope to find out where it leads (Hint and spoiler alert: It's not a constitutional republic). The argument for the execution of bin Laden was that he wasn't a U.S. citizen and therefore didn't "deserve" due process. Now we're executing citizens using the military, and the argument seems to be that the decedent wasn't in the United States (as if one's rights as a citizen disappear as soon as you're out of the country). What will the argument be when the person executed is a citizen in the United States? Because there will surely be a new, heretofore unasserted "legal" doctrine that explains it all for us slowcoaches who insist on reading the Constitution.

[Vincardog]

12. Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: +1) Somebody does not like the truth

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I don't underestand why the OP would get so many unrecs

If someone takes issue with my line of argument they can easily enough post a rebuttal. If that rebuttal is legally sound and reasonable then far from unrecc'ing the thread it should be pushed as high-up as possible to make the prevailing argument that much more likely to be seen.

[Vincardog]

15. There ya go THINKING again. The unrec patrol do everything they can to discourage that

I am convinced they are the PARTY over Policy, branch of the "Know nothing stand for nothing" ESTABLISHMENT

[uppityperson]

18. unrec for whining about rec/unrec feature

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Hey! You're unrecc'ing my thread for someone else's comment!

I think I just became unrec collateral damage.

:P

:hi:

:hug:

[uppityperson]

21. you did, sorry. Wanted to explain why the unrec though.

I will be SO glad to have that feature changed in DU3.

For the OP. There are checks and balances but each of the 3 branches (exec, judge, congrss) can and does do things on their own.

"To those who defend these extra-judicial targeted killings against Americans I ask, by what process and evidence -- outside of the executive branch -- has the US determined these were enemy combatants who were sufficiently dangerous enough to warrant killing?"

I don't know. It is interesting, having the head of the exec branch being the chief of military (whatever the proper title is, typing fast here). It leads to all sorts of odd scenarios. I don't have answers, am just musing here.

[Vincardog]

23. whining about rec/unrec feature? No just commenting on the use of it. Unrec for whining about BS

[Vincardog]

13. sorry dupe