Islamist cleric Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

While it's undeniably a good thing that another terrorist is dead, the fact that the CIA is now assassinating U.S. citizens is a very scary precedent.

Neither is it a precedence, nor is it anything worrysome. Nationality is not a factor here, but Islam and terrorism are the two factor to mention. Islam knows no nationalistic conceptions, and terrorism is not just any ordinary crime like everyday murder. From a moral standpoint I find it impossible to "assassinate" a terrorist, since the term "assassination" somewhat implies a negative moral assessment of the deed - but there is nothing bad in the act itself of killing/murdering/shooting from the distance/stabbing him while he sleeps/air-bombing a terrorist. It is a good deed to take out terrorists.

Problems can only raise when there is doubt about somebody being a terrorists. But this is not case here.

Terrorists are being taken out. Not because they have this or that nationality, but because they commit deeds of terrorism.

A troubled mind you must - and will - have when you kill people accidentally or are uncertain of the rightfulness/correctness of your motivation to kill them. When you are certain about it, you must not feel regret. It is depending on your moral standards, and thus is depending on the cultural context you grew up in, yes. But by the moral standards I live by, I feel no uncertainty whatever about this guy being taken out. So to hell with his passport.

I could claim that I feel disgusted that the Austrian and German countrymen of Hitler do not mind that Hitler committed suicide. Isn'T it a human tragedy? Didn'T it prevent a court to find justice for him having triggered the death of millions and millions? Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum. - One can trouble the water needlessly with this argument, yes. But is it really necessary, and can anything be won from doing so?

There is reason to worry over the intel services acting against their own country'S population. But this death of a terrorist - is not one of them.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Neither is it a precedence, nor is it anything worrysome. Nationality is not a factor here, but Islam and terrorism are the two factor to mention. Islam knows no nationalistic conceptions, and terrorism is not just any ordinary crime like everyday murder. From a moral standpoint I find it impossible to "assassinate" a terrorist, since the term "assassination" somewhat implies a negative moral assessment of the deed - but there is nothing bad in the act itself of killing/murdering/shooting from the distance/stabbing him while he sleeps/air-bombing a terrorist. It is a good deed to take out terrorists.

Problems can only raise when there is doubt about somebody being a terrorists. But this is not case here.

Terrorists are being taken out. Not because they have this or that nationality, but because they commit deeds of terrorism.

A troubled mind you must - and will - have when you kill people accidentally or are uncertain of the rightfulness/correctness of your motivation to kill them. When you are certain about it, you must not feel regret. It is depending on your moral standards, and thus is depending on the cultural context you grew up in, yes. But by the moral standards I live by, I feel no uncertainty whatever about this guy being taken out. So to hell with his passport.

President Mookie: "Fine. Neal Stevens is an Islamic terrorist. I am certain of it. CIA, please go take out Neal Stevens."

You don't see the issue with that?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

President Mookie: "Fine. Neal Stevens is an Islamic terrorist. I am certain of it. CIA, please go take out Neal Stevens."

You don't see the issue with that?

There is evidence and a long list of facts about Anwar Awlaki. There is no such evidence and long list of facts about Neal Stevens.

Now its my turn:

US-president Mookie: "Fine. Skybird from Germany is an Isalamic terrorist. I am certain of it. CIA, please go take out Skybird."

Is this better for you because Skybird is German and not American - while the problem you tried to point at still remains to be there? Is nationality really the issue here?

Or isn't it about records, data, facts and evidence showing Awlaki's/Neal's/Skybird's guilt or innocence...?

[AVGWarhawk]

The worst part here is Awlaki will not be able to see Facebook Timeline. He was such a big user of Facebook and would have loved to have seen his life pass before his eyes on Facebook.

[Oberon]

If the US government wanted to take out US citizens, you really wouldn't know about it. I know that sounds a bit like something that someone from Indonesia would say, but to be honest Awlaki gave up his right to be a US citizen when he called for the US to be destroyed.
He was a smart guy, that made him dangerous, and now the threat is removed...well...one threat anyway. Good call Obama.


Call me cynical though, but in the run up to the 2012 elections, how much do you want to bet that more terrorist heads are going to roll than at any time in the past four years?

[AVGWarhawk]

but to be honest Awlaki gave up his right to be a US citizen when he called for the US to be destroyed.

Bingo.....

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There is evidence and a long list of facts about Anwar Awlaki. There is no such evidence and long list of facts about Neal Stevens.

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Is nationality really the issue here?

Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.

Originally Posted by Oberon

but to be honest Awlaki gave up his right to be a US citizen when he called for the US to be destroyed.

Careful...now you get into the rights of free speech, and does it pass the "imminent lawless action" test. It's not black and white.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.

Now I'm not too sure about the process, but what exactly is the process of removing someone's citizenship?

can Obama sign a form or something before hand "kicking him out" of his american citizenship?

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

President Mookie: "Oh no, no, I have just as good of evidence on Neal Stevens. Of course, it's all classified and I can't show it to anyone, but just trust me, I know he's a terrorist."

"Trust me" is not a basis for an imperial death sentence handed down without and due process.

Yes, for me. Citizens of the United States are granted certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process of law.

Supreme Court justice Scalia, usually one of the more conservative ones, even argued in 2004 that it was unconstitutional to even imprison a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism as an "enemy combatant" without a trial. I'm sure he'd be just as opposed to imposing a death sentence on one without a trial as well.



Careful...now you get into the rights of free speech, and does it pass the "imminent lawless action" test. It's not black and white.

out of curiosity - is the united states legally allowed to assassinate non-us citizens in countries, and of countries, that the us is not at war with?

are there defined limits to this?

[Osmium Steele]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

out of curiosity - is the united states legally allowed to assassinate non-us citizens in countries, and of countries, that the us is not at war with?

are there defined limits to this?

To my knowledge, there is no current statute/ordinance/law etc. prohibiting the federal government from such action. Such a law would be idiocy in the extreme.

Pres. Gerald Ford signed an executive order prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state, but iirc, George W. Bush recinded that order.

[TFatseas]

He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in, but that is purely academic at this point.

Personally I'm glad he became a smoking hole in the ground.

[vienna]

There is a difference between a civil war and an assassination. While I shed no tears for another terrorist being turned into a smoking hole in the ground, I'm simply pointing out that this is a bad precedent and a slippery slope.

Yes, there is a difference. And there is a difference between civil war, assassination, and battlefield actions. If someone, in effect, defects to the side of an enemy force, his death in a battlefield action is no longer an assassination; it is a casualty of war. This "cleric" chose his side in a war, acted in support of an enemy "army" (whether or not it is a part of or supported by an established state), engaged in the planning and execution of military actions, and died as result of an action as part of a war. His death is not a pure assassination. He was merely another combatant killed in action. there are some who may argue, given the techological aility to pinpoint a single target on the battlefield, we are engaging in a form of selective 'assassination". The counter is, throughout the history of warfare, removing the leadeship, military or civilian, of an enemy has been a goal of military planning. Taking out enemy leadership is seen as a means of demoraliizing enemy troops, debilitating the planning capabilities of an enemy, and, perhaps, shortening the overall length of combat and the attendant losses and injuries to one's own troops (not to metion the reduction of materiel expended in support of an exteden war). As recently as WWII, with the U.S. action labelled "Operation Vengeance" in 1943, Admiral Yamamoto, the primary architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor, was specifically was specically targeted and killed. These attacks aginst Al Qaeda are no diffent than any other prior actions taken by many, many nations througout the length of history.

As far as his being an American citizen and denial of due process is concerned, again, if someone defects to an enemy force, he has chosen his side and it can not be expected he should be shielded by expectations of "rights" he has renounced, from a country he has renounced (and denounced) and has actively sought to destroy...

[AVGWarhawk]

Wiki:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses that undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at "usc|18|2381" [25] states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

[Skybird]

Mookie,

so you want to say that killing a man on basis of intel data (that you question in principle anyway) is not okay if he is American, but is okay if he is not American?

Really...?

That would border a nationality-based pendant to racism. Americans are more valuable than non-Americans, "in dubio pro reo" is valid for Americans only, but not for non-Americans.

Mookie, that guy was a terrorist, and a Muhammdan. The first means he was a murderer and master of terrorising people, the secon means his national identity by his passport had no meaning whatever for him.

Maybe it would be best idea you stop trying to make it complicated over nothing. Terrorist mastermind is dead - good. CIA was right - also good. Believe me, trust me, I tell you: this guy was no saint. And I assure you you can still safely sleep at home, trusting in that Obama'S CIA death squads are not haunting innocent US citizens at night to raise false accusations and bring death and fire over them and their families. A terrorist got killed. The system this time functioned well. No accidents this time. No mishaps. No rivaling sevices ruining an operation. It worked all well. Period.

I hope there will be more successes like this in the future. In an ideal world, all of Awlaki's kind would get identified, targetted and taken out. Highly unlikely, but at least one can dream.

Back to my pizza lab now.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe it would be best idea you stop trying to make it complicated over nothing. Terrorist mastermind is dead - good. CIA was right - also good. Believe me, trust me, I tell you: this guy was no saint. And I assure you you can still safely sleep at home, trusting in that Obama'S CIA death squads are not haunting innocent US citizens at night to raise false accusations and bring death and fire over them and their families. A terrorist got killed. The system this time functioned well. No accidents this time. No mishaps. No rivaling sevices ruining an operation. It worked all well. Period.

I've got to run, but I agree with you here, to a point. Make no mistake about my argument, this is a good thing. The end results are positive here. The guy was scum and the world is a better place without him in it.

I'm simply saying that the ends don't always justify the means. We have a process for a reason. When the process gets circumvented, it raises issues as to why we have the process in the first place, and were the things the process was set in place to ensure really done right. That's all.