Islamist cleric Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen

[mookiemookie]

US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry said.

He had played a "significant operational role in the Christmas 2009 Detroit airline bomb attempt, said officials, and in the plot which sent two bombs in printer cartridges on US-bound cargo planes in 2010. They were intercepted in the UK and Dubai.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

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.

[Dread Knot]

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.

When hundreds of thousands of US citizens donned a foreign uniform in 1861, the Federal Government showed no compunction in killing them in droves for the next four years, even though it still considered them American citizens (in rebellion, the US never recognizing Confederate authority.)

The guy was a rebel and a traitor. Good riddance.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

The guy was a rebel and a traitor. Good riddance.

You don't get to deny someone their constitutional right to due process just because they're a jerk, a psychopath, you're overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt or even if they admit to their guilt.

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

When hundreds of thousands of US citizens donned a foreign uniform in 1861, the Federal Government showed no compunction in killing them in droves for the next four years, even though it still considered them American citizens (in rebellion, the US never recognizing Confederate authority.)

Well to be fair those rebel US citizens had no compunction in killing other US citizens either and they were the first to fire on the Federal government, not the other way around.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You don't get to deny someone their constitutional right to due process just because they're a jerk, a psychopath, you're overwhelmingly convinced of their guilt or even if they admit to their guilt.

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.

Obama would disagree.

President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Obama would disagree.

Even scarier. The president can order the killing of an American citizen now.

[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.

[BossMark]

Goodbye to bad rubbish

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Even scarier. The president can order the killing of an American citizen now.

Well, it was either now or later for treason. In these hard times Obama saved us a bundle I would say!

[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.