It's getting silly in here.

[Robb]

The word "assassinate" does not apply to targeted strikes in a war. Unless you want to apply it to every time someone aims a rifle, which is silly, and will get you as far in the real world as calling all soldiers "murderers."

We're in a war at the moment. You can tell by the guys wearing body armor and little flag patches, and the ones wearing zippered rubber sacks. If you don't think we're at war, that's one thing. But it's a bit of a silly thing, because as I look around there's a lot of activity for us not to be.

There were votes in Congress and everything, only one person voted against AUMF, we all bitched about it but there it was. And while it may have been a bunch of bullshit when it was thrown together, frankly deciding that Anwar al-Awlaki is where you're drawing a line in the sand is absurd. Bruxism notwithstanding, aiming at someone during a war is altogether Constitutional. And being born in this country doesn't mean you don't get shot at when you stand on the other side.

[Richardo]

1. Thanks Robb

[tekisui]

2. More War on Terror bullshit.

No country is outside the reach of US missiles. If we decide you are a terrorist, we can pre-emptively kill you. The bush doctrine extending to the next logical step.

[TwilightGardener]

6. That's how it is. Of course, they pre-emptively killed some of us.

And all indications are, they will probably do so again. Now, I'd much rather have targeted strikes to take out terrorists on whom we have reliable intelligence, than war. I'd gladly take assassinations, airstrikes and drones aimed at carefully selected targets in exchange for large numbers of soldiers and a big US footprint. If we could reliably and effectively combat terrorism by targeting terrorists with sound intel, that's preferable to me than sending in the cavalry to kill and break things on a massive scale. Or helplessly waiting for one of these guys and their followers to strike again.

[Turbineguy]

40. That's what Clinton wanted to do

and the repubs howled with protest.

[ShortnFiery]

74. The vast majority of time "intelligence" data is murky. Without due process

we are allowing "our leaders" to play judge, jury and executioner. What happens when they get so powerful and rich they decide to turn that POWER on their own people? Yes, fellow American Citizens?

It's a slippery slope of DEATH that we should not permit ANY Executive Branch to use.

Power is a drug and it leads to seeking out even MORE POWER and ultimately --> Thug Tactics and Corrupt Police State will evolve.

[cliffordu]

36. No...I think if you've proven yourself a terrorist by overt acts

you get kilt.

No difference to you, though. Never is.

:shrug:

[spoony]

55. I don't even recognise this place.

This is the EXACT same shit DU has been making fun of in RWers and rightly criticising in the Bush years: We're at War! Rally round the Wartime President! Do what it takes to winnnnn! Kill 'em over there so they don't come over heeeeere!

Oh, and the best one: "Why are you supportin' terrarists?"

I'd be amused if this wasn't life or death for our democracy.

[tekisui]

61. We have truly fallen down the rabbit hole.

It isn't the same site I signed up to years ago.

[donco6]

66. And remember, Saddam was a terrorist with nukes.

Or, that's what we were told.

[IndianaGreen]

3. President Palin orders the assassination of Americans that support peasants in Latin America

that are opposing their lands being taken by transnational corporations. President Palin accuses the American activists of being aligned with global terrorism. NY Times publishes an article quoting unnamed sources that claim that there "may" be an Al-Qaeda connection.

How does the above scenario sound to you now? It is not that far fetched! Years ago, AFL-CIO organizers were murdered in Central America by a death squad led by a graduate of the School of the Americas, at Fort Benning.

[mikita]

4. +100 n/t

[tekisui]

5. Call them a terrorist, and bomb away!

[Moochy]

13. And hay presto and the conscience is eased!

The message to pipsqueak countries from Imperial America:

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS... quite reprehensibly bad when done in your own country, but it's OK when we do it in your country.
ps
america fuck yeah.

[treestar]

12. Palin isn't president

but in a nation that would have elected her? Yeah, they'd be fine with that.

But there is a point where war is war. If you fight for the other side, against the U.S., you'll get shot at by the U.S., just like the U.S. soldiers get shot at by the other side.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Every recent President has expanded on powers his predecessor usurped

We are supposed to be a federal republic, not a banana republic, but a banana republic is what we have become.

[MUAD_DIB]

25. When given factuals why resort to hypotheticals?

[roguevalley]

30. Agreed. This is a precedent for killing americans that any future

asshole can use to justify killing people in Omaha because they are protesting something the asshole doesn't like. This is wrong as hell.

[Clio the Leo]

7. And speaking of Confederate history month....

... a nutcase on the right declares a month to honor a organization that everyone agrees (lol, I think) engaged in treason against the US government and then some of us on the left are defending a man who certainly isn't denying that he's engaging in treason.

I think we may have torn a hole in the political universe tonight.

As a matter of fact the US government killed at least 258,000 American citizens, without trial, between the years 1861 - 1865.

Maybe next month McDonald will declare it to be Al Qaeda history month.

[Moochy]

28. great, more false equivalence

please don't spread that idea around that the far left and far right are just the same thing!

[Clio the Leo]

31. Not what I said.

The right and the left are not the same thing and no one could ever make that claim.

I just think it's ironic that we're having this debate ... claiming that the US has never fired on its own citizenry before ... on the same day we're lampooning McDonald for honoring a treasonous organization that attacked the armed forces of the United States.

[Moochy]

32. thanks for clarifying

I'm not living in some rosy world where I think that this is the first time Americans have been targeted. I'm far too cynical to feign surprise in this instance. Remember though, Its OK if Obama Does It.

[Clio the Leo]

33. It's also ok if Abe Lincoln does it.

And I guess we can put a check mark by yet another category where they are similar.

..... except, of course, for the minor point that Barack Obama hasn't actually done it.

Darn that Abe Lincoln! He's Bush-lite! lol

[Moochy]

34. Americah

fuck yeah

[tekisui]

48. Lincoln put AMericans on the CIA kill list?

[Clio the Leo]

52. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=262812&mesg_id=262835

[tekisui]

60. Big difference.

Active war on US soil vs. CIA assassination in foreign lands.

[Hekate]

37. And 362,000 American citizens were killed by the Confederates. It was brother against brother....

etc etc etc. Clio, I'm missing your point here? Civil War deaths are estimated at 620,000 -- there was a LOT of killing. It was a WAR, of course there was no trial.

Are you trying to say the fault was all on one side, that of the Union? (I think you mean to reference the Union when you say "the US government") I'm confused.

Hekate

[Clio the Leo]

51. Are we not at war now?

Congress is certainly funding it like we are.

I'm not seeing a lot of difference between treason by al-Alawi and treason by the Confederacy.

You wanna break it down for me?

(aside from the obvious difference that we've romanticized the Confederacy to the point where we no longer consider what they did treason.)

[Zomby Woof]

59. Federal law differs with you

Confederate veterans, by federal law, are full U.S. veterans, given the exact same status as all other veterans of U.S. wars. That means their graves and memorials are accorded the EXACT SAME protection and status as ALL OTHER graves and memorials for U.S. war veterans. President Obama knew this (as president, he must faithfully execute the laws of the U.S.) when he observed the tradition of sending a wreath to the Confederate memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. What's that? Why yes, Arlington NATIONAL Cemetery. By your definition of "traitor", not only is a federal cemetery harboring the corpses of traitors, but our president is a traitor by honoring their memory.

This law was not enacted to 'romanticize' the Confederacy. It was done in the spirit of reconciliation (which is what Lincoln called for in his second inaugural address), and because quite simply, they were Americans.

As for being "traitors", keep in mind our country was founded by "traitors" - to the British crown, that is. Were the colonists not secessionists too? The Tories sneered and looked down on them the same way you are doing with the Confederates. Likewise, the Confederates were not seeking to overthrow the U.S. government, but rather, they were seeking independence. If they were striving for the former, then calling them traitors would have some validity. Instead, calling them traitors is just shrill, emotionally-charged rhetoric caused by years of being indoctrinated with bad history. Could you imagine a contemporary British citizen calling colonial Americans "traitors" 234 years after the fact? It seems to me that southerners are not the only ones keeping the Civil War alive and current. :crazy:

[phleshdef]

8. The silliness stems from people making this whole thing out to be something that its not.

No one has ordered anyone to be assassinated. An authorization is not an order. Its allows an option if circumstances deem that option necessary. I don't see how this really sets any precedent.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Or gives permission for someone else ... oh, like say the Yemeni government ... to do it.

Thank you.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Our pal in Yemen, Saleh, has close ties to Al Qaeda

We sleep with every tyrant that is willing to take our money, regardless of who else they sleep with.

[phleshdef]

16. My wife might be willing to take my money, but she is certainly not a tyrant.

[IndianaGreen]

19. I suggest you do some background reading on Yemen

You will be amazed as to the mess in which we have gotten ourselves involved, just because the Saudis are fearful of the Shia across the border from them in Yemen, and the separatists that always opposed North Yemen taking over South Yemen.

[phleshdef]

21. Wow.

[Clio the Leo]

23. Close enough that he was able to kill at least three of their leaders since January...

... they must have owed him some money.

[Oregone]

24. Yah mean like pretending criminal activity is a "war"?

:rofl:

[SpartanDem]

26. Criminal activity?

robbing a bank is criminal activity. This is guy is part of an orgranzation that enaged in acts of war against this country. If he joined the other in other war he'd killed without question, but now we have to try him?

[Oregone]

29. "acts of war"?

:rofl:

I wish theyd spend half as much on the War on Lunacy as they do on the War on Terrorism.

[Cleobulus]

41. Uhm, "organizations"(outside of government) cannot perpetuate acts of war...

they either commit crimes or they don't. Did you fail in logic in Grade School?

[SpartanDem]

68. Did you?

because logic tells me what they did was an act of war. Whether it legally meets the definition or not. Hell must freezing over, a liberal strict constructionist if were not for the fact that you're defending a terrorist you'd make Scalia proud.

[tekisui]

49. What acts of war?

God, everyone just adopted the bush speak.

[chollybocker]

10. (ctrl-z)

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Easiest Rec' Evah

[grantcart]

17. committment to a rule of law is not an invitation to suicide

It is appropriate to be concerned and there needs to be accountability and a review and it should be used only in the extreme.

For those who think that taking out somebody when that is the only possible option I simply give you one name:

Pol Pot.

[vaberella]

27. Yeah but for some people here the whole thing is him being a US citizen.

Pol Pot wasn't, so it doesn't matter----well it seems that way to some.

[boppers]

18. Killing is unfortunate, but still necessary.

I think a great deal of opposition is coming from those who are pacifistic in nature, and wish all killing to end.

I certainly agree with their idealism.

[skeptical cynic]

20. The history that is being written now

will document this period as an era of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Resort to legal arguments and appeals to fear all we want, history will judge the right-or-wrong of what we're doing, not whether the our actions around the globe comply with self-serving national legislation and legal definitions.

The CIA drone pilots sitting safety at consoles sipping Starbucks while they kill innocenent people thousands of miles away are every bit as much terrorists as the 9/11 hijackers. Obama has embraced the wars started by Bush/Cheney--they are his now.

[Oregone]

22. We all should be careful to not become involved in the War on Idiocy

[mudplanet]

35. We're in a war in which the other side can't shoot back, for all practical purposes, which means

that we're not in a war at all but engaged in wholesale murder. SOP

[Enrique]

38. you realize you're making a legal argument, don't you?

it's not like hey guys, just think about it, it's obviously ok. No, the administration will have to defend this against the applicable laws.

The laws that need to be addressed are the Constitution, the anti-assassination statutes, and international law.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. So are the people who are complaining about the fact that the guy was a US citizen

The OP's point is that the people arguing "It's okay to be over there killing people but I draw the line when it's a US Citizen" is ridiculous. Either we're at war and peacetime judicial rules don't apply or we're not at war and peacetime judicial rules do apply in which case pretty much everything we're doing over there is illegal.

[tekisui]

50. If you accept the war on terror as a legitimate war.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Again, that's the OP's point

Either you accept the war on terror as a legitimate war or you don't. The OP is saying that it's weak to argue that this latest incident was over the line but that the war on terror is legitimate.

[Cleobulus]

39. We are not at war, that's the problem...

Where is the declaration by Congress? Who is the Army we are fighting?

[impik]

42. Yea, let the guy continue plan terror attacks and send terrorists here

and don't touch him because he's an "American". This gives him immunity, even if he is no different than Bin Laden. Talking about living in la-la-land.

[Cleobulus]

43. Who the fuck is arguing that?

Seriously, put up or shut up.

[lamp_shade]

45. Great post. Thanks.

[eridani]

46. Actually, we are not at war. At least the country as a whole is not.

The only people at war are members of the military and their families, plus an equal number of mercenaries.

[rug]

47. Discussing homicide is so silly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. Don't bother, man.

War doesn't exactly bring out the logician in people. It goes for both sides.

[zulchzulu]

54. Stop on by to see Anwar al-Awlaki and he'll have some fellas come over to chat

...kind of like this...

[GeorgeGist]

56. But you see Robb ...

calling it WAR when you really meant AUMF, is also silly.

[Zomby Woof]

58. "getting" silly?

It has been silly in here for years. :D

[kickysnana]

62. When did Congress declare war and didn't Bush say it was over in 2005?

[Phx_Dem]

63. This sentence . . .

sums it up for me!

"And being born in this country doesn't mean you don't get shot at when you stand on the other side."


:fistbump:

[fan of the arts]

64. We're not at war, no war has been declared only presidential actions.

How is it possible that so many people support assassination and will use any twisted and false logic to justify it?

[Dr Morbius]

65. Begging your pardon.

Twisted and false logic?

Here's my defense: it appears to me that this jerk al-Awlaki has actively been working with people and sending them to America to kill people. He has been connected to both the underpants bomber and the Army base shooter. All credible intelligence we have - and American intelligence is now being more properly used - indicates this guy is an active terrorist focused on harming his own native people.

I consider the first function of any government is protecting her people. And thus, logically, it's not "twisted" or "false" to suggest the rule of law is inadequate here, and regrettably America has to find a different way to prevent this guy from killing her citizens.

Now, if you feel the first function of government is protecting the rule of law, then you are disagreeing with my precepts, not my logic!

[neverforget]

67. When the President swears his oath on Inauguration day it's this

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It says nothing about protecting the People but the Constitution. If you've been paying attention, intelligence is often wrong. I know this as I've had to use it in my job. Intel is only as good as its source and interpretation.

"American intelligence is now being more properly used" and when the next president like Bush doesn't use it properly, will you defend it then?

[Orsino]

69. "Assassination" is certainly the term for targeting ranking civilians for murder. n/t

[Robb]

70. Why do you promote the fiction that al-Awlaki is a civilian?

What particularly overbroad definition for civilian do you subscribe to?

[Orsino]

71. If you have evidence that he's a military commander...

...then I'd support treating him as a military target.

edit: in the abstract, at least. I still don't think that this is a "war" that we should be fighting.

[Enrique]

72. it's also assassination if it's a military target

I don't think you want to hang your argument on the definition of assassination. I think you might want to say assassination is justified and legal in wartime.

[ShortnFiery]

73. Yes, and it must STOP lest they consider some Americans "TERRORISTS"

Who gets to decide who lives and who dies?

I guarantee that it won't be you, me or anyone who gives a damn about us and our families. :scared:

[Rage Inc.]

75. We are NOT in a War!

We are engaging in Cowardice by Congress!