Where is the line that separates a society that respects laws from a lawless society?

[Stinky The Clown]

Think about it. Our government, in our name, maintains a list of human beings it wishes to have killed. There were no trials. Just intelligence reports and names placed on a list.

To be sure, none of the people on that list are nice. They wish us all dead. They wish us wiped from the face of the earth.

And so, instead of civil law, we sound as if we're invoking some fundamentalist religious law, not unlike those who are bent on our destruction.

To make it a more pressing issue, today we learn that a US citizen has been placed on this list. As above, and again to be sure, this man is no sweetheart. He is clearly an enemy of our society.

But hit lists?

That seems to me a very slippery slope. In how many years will we be so numb to it that more ordinary citizens get on the list? Oh sure. Today such a concept seems very tinhatty. It seems to me that protecting our citizens from our government has no room for error. No wiggle room. Similarly, there is little wiggle room in human decency. We either are a state that sponsors murder in lieu of the mechanisms of justice or we're not.

The story that provides the inspiration for this post is this:

Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill

A Muslim cleric tied to the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner has become the first U.S. citizen added to a list of suspected terrorists the CIA is authorized to kill, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, who resides in Yemen, was previously placed on a target list maintained by the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations Command and has survived at least one strike carried out by Yemeni forces with U.S. assistance against a gathering of suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.

"He's in everybody's sights," said the U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the topic's sensitivity.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."

>snip<

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html

[babylonsister]

1. He's a major dirt bag. Here's another thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8109042

[MUAD_DIB]

3. Who is: Obama or Aulaqi?

[MUAD_DIB]

2. Aulaqi should step forward as soon as possible to clear all this up. Right?

If he hasn't done anything wrong then he should clear his name.


I would. Would you?

[Fumesucker]

4. It is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative..

In most cases it is impossible.

How many of those we tortured in Gitmo have turned out to be completely innocent?

Would you *really* trust the government with your life in a similar situation?

[MUAD_DIB]

9. Are you suggesting that he should remain in hiding?

Are you suggesting that if he turned himself in that Obama would have him tortured?


As I see it DU has done the usual. On one hand Obama is bad and Aulaqi is apparently somehow good.

Aulaqi should remain in hiding because he is innocent...or at least until proven guilty...or give the chance to do something bad that gets people killed...allegedly.

[EFerrari]

13. What evidence can you cite that our torture programs are shut down?

[MUAD_DIB]

16. Do you have some evidence that they are still running?

Ah, yes... Here comes the "Obama is the same as George Bush" meme.

[Fumesucker]

15. I asked you first..

Would you trust *your* life to our government in a similar situation?

If you were indeed innocent, how would you go about proving it?

[MUAD_DIB]

19. If I was working for Al Quaida I would not trust the country that I was

attempting to attack.

If I was innocent I would do what all innocent, or guilty, Americans can do: Hire a lawyer and let them do the work for me.


I find it increasingly humorous that some DUers will fall all over themselves to support the rights of an alleged terrorist...an American citizen... by somehow condoning his right to remain at large.

[Fumesucker]

25. Would you turn yourself in and trust the goverment to not abuse you?

Keep in mind that many "alleged terrorists" that have been grievously abused have turned out to be completely innocent.

And even if they weren't innocent it still does not excuse deliberately setting out to drive someone insane, as was done with some alleged terrorists.

[MUAD_DIB]

30. I could easily seek representation without turning myself in to resolve

matters. I won't hold my breath that he'll do the same.

[Fumesucker]

45. So you wouldn't turn yourself in then apparently..

It seems that you don't really trust the government not to abuse you as much as you would like the rest of us to believe.

[MUAD_DIB]

52. It appears that you like to jump to conclusions.

Poor you.

[Fumesucker]

53. I asked a straightforward question which you dodged..

Clearly you weren't comfortable with the answer you would have to give.

The government has tortured innocent people to death and tortured some to the point of insanity, turning oneself in to the government in such a situation would be foolhardy in the extreme.

[MUAD_DIB]

57. Again, you're wrong. Nice try, sweetheart.

The question is not that I have to turn myself in, but you want to make it about me.

The question is if Anwar al-Awlaki should turn himself in.

He should. Barring that he should have a lawyer represent him to clear this whole mess up. I'll bet that he won't do either.


So...

Don't cry to me about torture or what the Bush administration did.

Don't cry to me that Anwar al-Awlaki should not have to turn himself in.

Don't cry to me that he is an okay guy.


He should either turn himself in, get a lawyer to represent him or get his affairs in order.

[EFerrari]

10. With what expectation? Sami al Haj didn't do anything either

and the US government tortured him for years. Same with Binyam Mohamed. He was the one whose penis was sliced over and over again. He hadn't committed any crime either.

Maher Arar was grabbed at the airport and sent to Syria to be entombed alive for years. His crime? There was no crime.

Just like most of the grandfathers, bakers, journalists, tourists and children imprisoned at Gitmo.

The US government has a globally known horrible human rights record with innocent people, particularly with Muslim men.

[defendandprotect]

5. Right wing chewed up all the laws and spit them out --!!!

[stray cat]

6. Who gets to decide the laws? There are laws against murder but it still happens

[SpartanDem]

7. I don't buy the slippery slope argument

we're talking about a very narrow matter that being engaged in terrorism overseas as US citizen. If this guy joined an army opposing the US and perform the same actions as he did with AQ summarily killing him and any of it members would be ok. His citizenship would not matter. But because he does it as member of a stateless terrorist organization we have to haul him in individually and give him a trial? I just seem completely illogical

[EFerrari]

12. HIs citizenship absolutley matters because he derives his rights

from the same place you do -- from your citizenship.

If you were accused of everything and the kitchen sink, wouldn't you like someone in, say, a courtroom to check it out before you were killed?

[MUAD_DIB]

21. Great. He should hire a lawyer then to prove his innocence.

I somehow don't believe that he will do that though.

[EFerrari]

27. He can't hire a lawyer if he's dead. That's the point.

[MUAD_DIB]

29. He's actually not dead and very much alive. That is the point.

He could find representation fairly easily if he was/is a law abiding American...or citizen of the world.


It is curious that you don't see that. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

32. As the order now stands, he could be killed in his lawyer's office.

And that runs counter to American tradition of trying someone before the state kills them.

Curious that you don't see that.

[MUAD_DIB]

35. Why do you keep streching your argument so thin as to exempt this guy

from any attempt to play by the rule of law that you say is being broken?

If he is innocent then let somebody represent him: in the US or in Yemem.

Do you really believe that the American tradition of "rule of law" applies to unrepentant terrorists: intent on launching more attacks to kill innocent civilians?

I do believe that the first course of action should be to capture him. If that is not a possibility then other options should be put on the table.


I'm not going to go the NeoCon route and talk abut a smoking gun and mushroom cloud...but

It should be clear to all. Al Quaida will at some point attempt another attack somewhere and innocent people will likely die.

If this guy is involved how will you find comfort in that? What will you say as justification?

[EFerrari]

37. You don't seem to understand what has been ordered.

He can be killed anywhere and at any time. There is no "let someone represent him". That you believe he should be captured is not pertinent. His death has been approved.

[MUAD_DIB]

40. I'm calling you on your nonsense. He can always hire somebody to represent him.

How absurd is it that you flagrantly disregard any responsibility of this guy to come forward or be represented if he is indeed innocent. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[EFerrari]

43. Excuse me? We turn ourselves into the government because we're innocent?

:wtf:

Why don't you go read what the UN Special Rapporteur says about this. His area is extra-judicial executions.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/is_the_cia_assassination_order_of

[MUAD_DIB]

51. You're excused...

If he is innocent, and has done nothing wrong, then he should clear up the matter immediately.

Strange how you continue to have issues with that.

[arcadian]

31. This is another case of if Bush did it, it would be horrible.

But since Obama is doing it everything is hunky-dory.

[EFerrari]

33. This is what the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions

said about this order this morning.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/is_the_cia_assassination_order_of

If Chavez put out such an order, this board would erupt.

[Dr Morbius]

46. Actually, this is a case where Bush's excesses have caused

extensive mistrust of government, period. Because Bush tortured and crapped all over the Constitution, any deviation from perfection by Obama is seen as more of the same.

This is not an easy case, in my view. I prefer to consider people innocent until proven guilty, but what do you do with a guy whom you believe is responsible for killing Americans, and you cannot try him? I understand and appreciate the majority view here, that it is better to err on the side of protecting the innocent, better to preserve the rule of law. But if the rule of law allows innocent people to be killed, the law should be changed. Shouldn't it?

[EFerrari]

48. How perfect do you have to be to avoid constituting death squads?

[treestar]

61. Those rights come from being a human being, and apply to anyone

If an illegal alien is accused of a crime here, he has all those rights, because he is a person.

If this guy has a right to a trial from where he now stands, so do all of his colleagues.

It's not a matter of accusation of crime. If they shot Mohammed Atta while he was still abroad, it would be OK just because he is not a US citizen, but had had happened to have been born in the US yet did the same thing, we'd have had to let him carry out his attack first?

[tekisui]

20. Citizenship guaratees rights.

You use an if first. That if did not happen.

Are you saying membership of an organization can be grounds for extrajudicial execution, even for US citizens?

Who gets to chose which organizations are kill-worthy?

[MUAD_DIB]

22. Who gets to chose which organizations are kill-worthy...

Seeing how Al Quaida was seemingly behind the 9/11 attacks I would suggest that they are at war with the USA.

But I am sure that you understand that. ;)

That makes them all pretty much "kill worthy" unless they wish to surrender or at the very least disband forever.

[tekisui]

23. Let me get this straight.

You are okay with killing anyone affiliated or a member of AQ?

Are there any other organizations that you advocate killing?

What about home-grown groups that are labeled terrorists? Kill them all?

How would you feel if some political organizations became targets? This is dangerous ground.

[MUAD_DIB]

24. Al Quaida is at war with the USA. Yes or no, sweetheart? Yes or no?

I knew people that died on 9/11. Who do they talk to about justice?

Are you going to claim that Al Quaida is inherently innocent?


Your defense of terrorists is noted. :eyes:

[tekisui]

36. Answer my questions.

I am not afraid of AQ. Sorry.

I defend the rule of law and the US Constitution. Sorry you can't see that.

[MUAD_DIB]

41. That's great that you can thump your chest and be unafraid.

:eyes:

How many people have been killed by Al Quaida?

[tekisui]

42. How many people have been killed by the US military?

You still haven't answered my questions.

[MUAD_DIB]

44. Keep on thumping your chest, sweetheart. You're really good at it.

You say citizenship guarantees rights.

Does it guarantee the right of treason?

You are okay with killing anyone affiliated or a member of AQ?

Yes. Al Quaida is currently at war with us. With all your chest thumping you may have missed that they have killed a lot of people.

Are there any other organizations that you advocate killing?

Anybody that takes up arms against the United States.

What about home-grown groups that are labeled terrorists? Kill them all?

Anybody that takes up arms against the United States.

How would you feel if some political organizations became targets? This is dangerous ground.

None have here so stop crying.

[tekisui]

47. Thanks.

That wasn't so hard, doll fart.

[MUAD_DIB]

50. You're certainly welcome, sweetheart.

Don't fall all over yourself defending the next hit by Al Quaida too fast now. You might get dizzy.

Just pace yourself, show feigned sympathy for the dead and their families then you can stand up proud and free for the alleged terrorists that allegedly blew the alleged victims to high heaven. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

34. Those are al Qaida's rules of engagement.

So far, they haven't been ours.

[tekisui]

39. WHo makes that distinction, and are there any more on your kill list?

[existentialist]

8. Good post.

And, some of the thoughts that you have posted here support my theory that Congress should make a formal declaration of war against Al Quiada. I realize that it would require a bit of a difficulty because Al Quaida is not a nation state, but I think the circumstances justify it/

Among other things (1) this would provide a legal framework to hunt and capture or kill dangerous individuals associate with Al Quaida. (2) It would provide a legal framework for holding them--with protections against torture and indeed with all the protections accorded prisoners of war, including Red Cross (or Red Crescent) visits for as long as there remains a conflict with Al Quaida. (3) It would more honestly deal with the actual state of affairs than the tortured legal and diplomatic theories presently used to explain and justify the present international circumstances, and our behavior in response to those circumstances.

[ibegurpard]

11. wherever your team says it is

rah rah

[galileoreloaded]

14. SOOOO 2009. This is a brave new world, baby!! n/t

[Mari333]

17. agreed. this is PR for the right wing votes

I dont have any idea which moron is advising Obama but they might as well take the Constitution and Bill of Rights and wipe their asses with them.

[Echo In Light]

18. The world knows there is ZERO accountability for any high-up US official

So, in what's ostensibly supposed to be a rep democracy, even a blatantly phony one like ours, that fact alone speaks volumes re who the laws apply to

[Odin2005]

26. Even treasonous bastards like this fucker deserve rights. Period.

[The2ndWheel]

28. The line is as arbitrary as the law, because humans are involved

It's not like these things are set in stone.

[branders seine]

38. there was a line in 2000

another in 1980
one in 1972
one in 1963
another back in 1945

[cbdo2007]

49. He is the one propagating a "lawless society" because he knows he is seen

as a threat to others and won't turn himself in to be tried.

These arguments are really stupid. You are only allowed to partake in the lawful society if you follow the law.

[Fumesucker]

54. The government has tortured quite a few people who have subsequently been found innocent..

Would you turn yourself in to the government given that incontrovertible fact?

[cbdo2007]

55. How many people have been found innocent have also been let go by the govt?

I'm guessing all of them.

The government must investigate the risk of tens of thousands of people every year, 99.9% of whom are NOT tortured/killed and are probably even set free.

Not turning yourself in to them is greatly increasing your risk of being one of the remaining .1%

[Fumesucker]

56. Would you turn yourself in to be tortured?

Even if you knew you would eventually be released?

And keep in mind that you really have no way of knowing if you would be released or not.

And indeed, there are people the government plans on imprisoning indefinitely who have not been found guilty of anything.

[MUAD_DIB]

58. Does the Obama administration presently torture prisoners?

Please show me evidence of that.

[Fumesucker]

59. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior..

The US government has tortured in the past, why should anyone believe they are not torturing now and will not torture in the future?

Are known torturers being indicted and tried for torturing?

Would you turn yourself in to be tortured?

[cbdo2007]

62. Yes, if the govt was going to arrest me, I would call up a lawyer and meet

them down at the courthouse.

If you run, you are writing your own death sentence.

Are you honestly saying you would run if the govt was after you and you were innocent?

[MUAD_DIB]

64. Thanks. That's the nugget right there.

I find it laughable that this logic escapes some people.:eyes:

It is almost as if they are being obtuse on purpose.

[MUAD_DIB]

63. So your answer is no. Thank you, sweetheart!

[treestar]

60. There is something magical about being born on US soil

Then you have "rights" that other people don't? So all of this guy's co-conspirators can be killed, but he cannot. Gee, all they have to do is stay by him.

What are we to do when citizens join up with the enemy? Wait until the conspiracy is able to kill some of us, then catch him and try him?

Don't give the Republicans grounds to snidely and smugly declare that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

We may never catch him, as with bin Laden, but his being born on US soil does not mean he gets a shot at us and is able to let Al Qaeda get a shot at us because of his supposedly superior "rights" over the others doing the same damn thing.