I find any sympathy for al-Awlaki to be misplaced

[quinnox]

I mean, the guy was an inspiration for terrorists. Surely if you decide that plotting and inspiring terror attacks as your thing, then you will be a target. He might as well had a bullseye on his back. I don't think sympathy for this guy is warranted. My opinion.
I think if you decide terror is the way to go, don't expect a wonderful life, bottom line.

[gratuitous]

1. How about sympathy for our late Constitution

And whoever the next "inspiration for terrorists" is based solely on someone's say-so? I hope it's not me. And I hope it's not you.

[TheWraith]

6. You know that he repeatedly, publicly, declared his association with terrorist attacks, right?

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad."<134> Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies."<133> He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not."<133> On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."<133> In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against (American soldiers), and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."<134><135>

"Nidal Hassan is a hero.... The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism, which in reality is a war against Islam..... Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal."

Al-Awlaki said he "blessed the act (the Fort Hood shooting) because it was against a military target. And the soldiers who were killed were ... those who were trained and prepared to go to Iraq and Afghanistan".<26><141>

"(The Obama) administration tried to portray the operation of brother Nidal Hasan as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced to control on the leak of information concerning the operation, in order to cushion the reaction of the American public. Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk, the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same – another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al-Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation.<142>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[gratuitous]

9. So that's now a capital offense?

News to me, but I'm so old, I remember things like "evidence" and "due process" as being the deciding factors, rather than what some person posted on the Internets. The world has clearly passed me by, which probably means I'm now an inspiration to terrorists or worse.

[TheWraith]

15. A violent fugitive resisting arrest is likely to end up dead, either here or across the world.

That's reality, and it's been standard procedure for every law enforcement issue going back as long as there's been law enforcement.

[gratuitous]

18. So, driving in Yemen is now resisting arrest?

Interesting take. I hope bicycling in Portland isn't deemed to be "resisting arrest." Or standing on a street corner. Or relaxing at home in an easy chair. I guess I also missed whatever violence he was proved to have committed. Oops, there's that archaic "due process" thing again. Sorry.

[TheWraith]

108. Being a violent fugitive from justice, actively involved in multiple murders and attempted murders..

... Ask Bonnie and Clyde how that worked out.

If he wanted to take advantage of the legal system, he had years worth of opportunity to turn himself in.

[Cowpunk]

132. What "justice" was he a fugitive from?

The man has never been charged with a crime. Get your facts straight.

[sabrina 1]

36. Except he was not violent. He was here preaching in the US

non-violently until relatively recently.

There is no sympathy for him, but a whole lot of regret for the loss of respect for our laws at the highest levels of this government.

When did he resist arrest btw? No one in the US even tried to arrest him, which they could have done easily before they let him get on a plane and leave.

How did that happen? Where were the TSA when this, according to you, 'violent resister of arrest' apparently boarded a plane with no problem and simply left?

[msanthrope]

48. He left the US in 2002. What are you talking about? He's been in Yemen since 2004.

He was preaching here, non-violently, recently?????

Prove it.

[pnwmom]

89. He wasn't killed for preaching non-violently.

When did he surrender? When did he turn himself in? If he wanted due process, that's what he should have done.

[wellst0nev0ter]

122. Due Process Just Like Jose Padilla Received

Wake up, the America you're talking about only exists in your fantasies.

[TheWraith]

109. Again, you're repeating things which are completely false and made up.

And you evidently refused to read the page of text I showed you explaining how everything you just said is bullshit.

Let's try this again, simpler.

He left the US in 2002.

He's been actively engaged with terrorism since 2005.

2005 comes after 2002.

[pnwmom]

88. If he wanted due process, he should have surrendered and turned himself in.

He effectively renounced his citizenship and gave up his rights to due process when he began to wage war on us from the haven of another country.

[Warpy]

21. You do get the point of this, don't you?

Were he still in the US, he'd have been arrested, jailed, and tried. Since he'd fled to Yemen, he was eliminated the way bin Laden was, as a message to the rest of the bunch that no matter where they are, they are vulnerable.

That's really the point, to get them so concerned with security and personal safety and protecting the leaders that they have little time left over to figure out how to murder us.

Capturing this guy and dragging him back here to face charges would likely have cost many lives, most of them Yemeni. Leaving him where he was is unconscionable since he presented a threat to much of the world.

While I find international assassination horrible and murder by remote control even more so, I get the point of why it's done this way.

And so should you, unless you want to add Yemen and Pakistan to the names of countries we've invaded and been stuck occupying.

[gratuitous]

24. As long as it was sufficiently inconvenient to follow our laws

Then, yes, jettison the law by all means! I'm still a little fuzzy on how our method of raining down death from above without warning is superior to the means used by the "terrorists," but I'm sure it will become clear once I'm sufficiently re-educated.

[Warpy]

25. Try reading the whole post then

Thanks.

[gratuitous]

31. Right; we're "sending a message"

And, since the message wasn't delivered with sufficient force at Kama Aido, or Dasht-i-Leili, or Abu Ghraib, or Guantanamo, or the execution of Osama bin Laden, then it had to be delivered again on Mr. Al-Alwaki. Do we have any candidates for the next recipient, or is that a surprise? Or do we need time to gin up a sufficient story to tick over the outrage meter for a still-credulous public?

Thanks.

[pnwmom]

90. How do you give due process to someone who is waging war on you

from a haven in another country? If he wanted due process, he should have arranged to turn himself in.

[coalition_unwilling]

47. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the history of our involvement

in Vietnam, ca. 1954-74, is aware of the Phoenix Program, a CIA-operated program to assassinate Vietcong cadre. The program is credited with the deaths of some 20,000 people. Some of them unquestionably VC. Others? According to historians and others who have studied the program, the Phoenix Program frequently became the method by which a local could get rid of a 'rival' merely by claiming the kival was VC cadre.

And that's really the point. What procedural safeguards are in place to make sure, among other issues, that we only target the guilty? And what is the threshhold for deetermining who shall be subject to such extra-judicial executions? Think about it this way - would you be OK with Iraq sending a hit squad into the U.S. to assassinate Bush b/c he had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity?

I don't think you would be. So if it's not OK for others to do it to us, then why is it OK for us to do it others? Until you can answer that question sincerely and plausibly, your position rests on a highly unstable foundation.

[Warpy]

54. I didn't say I liked it, I just said I got the point

which you would know if you'd read the whole thing.

I hate this. I also hate that it's the best we have right now in countries where the government controls a few cities and that's all. The alternative is invading them since the weak government is largely incapable of going after this organization, themselves. And I hate that even more.

Your parallel of an assassination plot against the leaders of an anticolonial movement in one single country to a multinational criminal enterprise responsible for thousands of murders around the world is moot, at best.

I would love to live in a world where all central governments are powerful enough to arrest criminals holed up in the countryside. I don't. Neither do you. Until we do, the rule of law will continue to take a beating and so will we.

[coalition_unwilling]

62. You have evaded the fundamental question: if it's not OK for other

entities to send hit squads to assassinate people on our soil, then how is it OK for us to do it on their soil?

Like I said earlier, until you can resolve that question (which I don't believe you can if you're being honest with yourself), your entire justification for extra-judicial executions seems to me but mere window dressing for atavistic and imperial might.

[Warpy]

70. So, Einstein, what would you do about him?

Your turn, let's hear the marvelous alternatives you've undoubtedly managed to come up with.

[coalition_unwilling]

112. Tut-tut. You realpolitikers always get so snarky when presented

with evidence of how blind you are to your own self-serving hypocrisy.

Here's a concise description of how due process works: indict upon probable cause, arrest and extradite, prosecute, sentence if guilty.

If you want to learn more about how these programs of extra-judicial execution can quickly go off the rails, I suggest you start by reading about the Phoenix Program. I assure you, many of the same rationales were used to justify its dubious accomplishments that you are using here.

[pnwmom]

41. I think he terminated his citizenship when he began waging an offshore war.

We don't need to wait for him to sign some official papers.

[ellisonz]

68. I think the Constitution is pretty clear about this...

Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

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.

Judge Dismisses Targeted-Killing Suit

By EVAN PEREZ

------

The government, in its court arguments, didn't confirm plans to kill Mr. Awlaki. It argued that the cleric, as a U.S. citizen, could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or filing suit himself.

Judge Bates wrote that Mr. Awlaki had used the Internet in recent months to issue anti-American messages, while taking no action to indicate he wants the U.S. judicial system to hear his case. To the contrary, the judge wrote, Mr. Awlaki wrote an article in April asserting that Muslims "should not be forced to accept rulings of courts of law that are contrary to the law of Allah."

The judge heard arguments in the case last month on the day a jihadi website published the complete version of Mr. Awlaki's latest anti-American sermon.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the ruling "recognized that a leader of a foreign terrorist organization who rejects our system of justice cannot enjoy the protection of our courts while plotting strikes against Americans."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005391675065166.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[RetroLounge]

135. Just a piece of paper.

I mean, compared to Obama, who cares about a piece of paper?

RL

[closeupready]

2. al-Awlaki is irrelevant to objections about his killing.

This is not about al-Awlaki the person or what he stood for; it's about due process. It's about US and what values we wish to defend.

[TheWraith]

8. Due process doesn't protect a fugitive resisting arrest from getting killed by the cops. nt

[still_one]

10. If he was on U.S. soil that would be one thing, but he was involved in planning and implementing

attacks against Americans

[closeupready]

23. Do you recognize the circular reasoning you are employing here?

nt

[still_one]

124. Federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, identifies 7 categories to lose your citizenship

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

[pnwmom]

86. He forfeited due process. All he had to do was surrender and turn himself in.

Instead, he waged war on the U.S. from the haven of another country.

[Fool Count]

121. That's a load of crap. His surrender would have earned him only

"double-tap to the head" if he were lucky and the rest of his life in Guantanamo if he were not.
There is no way in hell any US court would have found him guilty of anything in a jury trial.

[Harmony Blue]

3. What about our justice system?

Can we show some sympathy for what many died fighting for?

[Puregonzo1188]

4. Do you understand the difference between "sympathy" for al-Awlaki and

concern over the very serious Constitutional issues involved when the President decides to target an American citizen for assassination off of a battlefield? I mean we're not at war in Yemen, are we?

Or do you think people's "sympathy" for those at Abu Ghraid, Guatanamo, and Bagraam are misplaced to? Were all the opponents of Bush's shredding of the Bill of Rights just terrorist sympathizers too?

[quinnox]

7. yes, but I'm not going to get too worked up

about al queda terrorists being targeted! This is an isolated case.

[AverageJoe90]

14. Agreed.

I can understand why some might be concerned, but the fact is, he was a known terrorist, and was traveling with an Al-Qaeda convoy for god-knows what reason.

[Tesha]

22. Perhaps folks will say that about you some day: He was just an "isolated case".

Perhaps that will make you feel better about your
extrajudicial execution.

Tesha

[quinnox]

33. wtf

I'm not running around with al queda and writing sermons on how glorious it would be to do terror attacks!

So I don't feel in any danger of being targeted by a drone attack, thank you very much.

[Tesha]

44. Al Queda today, some other group in the future.

Once you've crossed the Rubicon and decided it's okay
to assassinate Americans in direct opposition to our
Constitutional rights, it just becomes a question of
degree.

And everything is easier after the first (or second)
time...

Tesha

[Hydra]

129. You're posting on DU

Remember Senator McCarthy? You'll just be another "terrorist" if they decide it's useful to kill you, and no one will ever know differently, or care, because you'll have been branded "The Enemy"

Think it can't happen? It happens almost every day. Remember that funeral where they attacked ~200 civilians and claimed that they were "Taliban Militants"? You don't even have to be the flavor of the week to be called one.

[EFerrari]

28. Not all that isolated. He wasn't the only one killed in the attack.

Not even the only US citizen killed.

And of course, civilians' death by drone have gone way up under Obama.

[sad sally]

39. Once again, the US has said f___you to international laws.

The targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, without due process, violates the gold standard of international law set by the Nuremberg trials – and defies the US Constitution. Our government's action - in our name - as prosecutor, judge and executioner condems this Country to that of a rogue nation, out of control.

The Nuremberg standard

At the close of World War II, when the question arose of what to do with Nazi leaders. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill proposed shooting them. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin agreed, but the United States advocated a trial. It argued, and eventually persuaded, both British and Soviet governments that the proper path was not blind retaliation, but the rule of law. A lawful procedure required a finding of individual guilt before punishment could be implemented. The US argued that leaders of the German and Japanese government and military should be tried in a court of law for having waged an aggressive war and for crimes against humanity. Only if they were found guilty after a trial, at which they would have the right to defend themselves and present evidence, could they be punished.
---
By allegedly authorizing the assassination of Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen, the current administration shows that American policy has not yet returned to the Nuremberg standard. The key fact in the administration’s decision seems to be that Awlaki resides in Yemen. If the citizen resided in Chicago, the administration would not be suggesting that he be assassinated. He would be arrested, charged with an offense, tried, and if found guilty, sentenced, and imprisoned. The situation would presumably be the same if he were residing in France, England, or Germany. He could be arrested and tried or extradited. The fact that Yemen is a chaotic nation complicates the matter, but the issue would be the same if he were in Iran or Syria – how to justify assassination.
---
Extrajudicial killing may meet mafia standards, but it does not meet the due process requirements of the US Constitution’s 5th Amendment or the 6th Amendment’s right to a jury trial and to confront witnesses. Even apart from a citizen’s constitutional rights, it is deeply troubling that the US government claims the right to kill anyone it decides to put on a hit list.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. The U.S. is now truly an 'outlaw' nation. Bush and Obama between

them have taken us back to pre-Peace of Westphalia norms. Nuremberg is just a pipe dream.

[pnwmom]

43. You're assuming he's still an American citizen. I say that he renounced

his citizenship when he started waging war from the safety of another country.

True, he didn't sign any official papers. Why would he? Why comply with the laws of the country he'd grown to hate?

Actions speak louder than words. He effectively gave up his citizenship when he started plotting against us from offshore.

[TheKentuckian]

74. Where is this clause? Hell, where is the proof he was waging war?

Summary judgment based off of accusation, accusation so light on facts that we don't even have an indictment in a nation that famously can indict a ham sandwich? A country that executes the mentally disabled and innocent people?

Get the fuck outta here. What you are clapping for now will be used to disappear anyone those with the power decide.

[still_one]

125. U.S.C. 1481 He more than satisfied the requirements

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

[provis99]

5. should Obama assassinate Deryl Dedmon, too?

After all, Dedmon has actually personally killed a loyal American citizen, while al-Awlaki hadn't.

[Autumn]

16. If he chooses to, I think they claim the right

to target and assassinate any American citizen and while I haven't a clue who Dedmon is, the word is ANY.

[provis99]

17. yes, you have heard of Deryl Dedmon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/mississippi-teen-deryl-dedmon-hate-crime-video_n_922357.html

He has been in the news for 2 months.

[Autumn]

20. you are right, I recognize it now

thank you

[yodermon]

11. I have as much sympathy for al-Awlaki as I did for Timothy McVeigh.

And while I disagree with capital punishment on principle, at least due process was followed in TM's case.

[Amonester]

97. Yeah, but after he destroyed how many babies again??

Personally, I wish he would have BRAGGED about planning for it long before he did it...

Just sayin...

[Taverner]

12. No one's crying any tears for al-Awlaki

It's this whole "due process" we're upset about

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Nobody is sympathizing with him specifically

People just want due process for American citizens. Assassinating American citizens without trial because the US govt brands them as terrorists is not OK.

[saras]

29. You're right. The whole "sympathy" thing is an argument in bad faith

[coalition_unwilling]

51. I want 'due process' for everyone, not just American citizens. Due process

is a fundamental human right, recognized as such by numerous human rights organizations and charters (even including the U.N.'s if I'm not mistaken).

[JVS]

19. What upsets me is that this guy is considered more important than our constitution being followed.

[MadHound]

26. This isn't about sympathy, this is about due process and upholding our Constitutional rights,

Do you care about those?

[lunatica]

27. Who has sympathy for him here?

Whether it's OK that he was taken out with a drone or not has nothing to do with sympathy.

[AngkorWot]

30. It's not really sympathy for Al Qaeda.

Or the Constitution.

Just another half-assed attack against Obama. And from the same usual clowns: Greenwald, Ron Paul, etc.

[Proles]

32. I agree. I find it laughable that so many people

are defending this guy.

[dtexdem]

34. I don't think it's a matter of sympathy for AaA, rather concern for how it was done.

But I'm not too troubled by that, either.

[markpkessinger]

35. I don't think what you're seeing here is sympathy for al-Awlaki ...

... but rather other folks' legitimate concerns over the precedent the action against him sets, and the longer-term ramifications for the constitutional rights and protections that are supposed to be afforded to all of us. Allowing a president -- ANY president -- to act as judge, jury and executioner for an American citizen who has committed a crime, irrespective of how heinous that crime may be, is a very dangerous precedent. As I said in another thread, while perhaps some of us may be perfectly comfortable with trusting President Obama with that kind of power (personally, I think it is naive to entrust any individual with that kind of authority, no matter how honorable he or she may be), what happens in the future if, say, a Rick Perry (God forbid!) were to be elected. Would you want someone like him to be entrusted with this kind of absolute authority? I sure wouldn't!

For me, opposition to this kind of extra-judicial killing is very much like my opposition to the death penalty. Do I lose sleep when someone like, say, a Ted Bundy gets the needle? No. But I do lose sleep over those cases such as Troy Davis', where there was or at least may have been reasonable doubt about his guilt, yet he was still executed. I lose sleep over a system that I believe will never be either accurate enough in determinations of criminal guilt, nor fair enough in application, to justify a government using the ultimate punishment -- one which leaves no avenue of correction in the event of error -- against anyone. And I lose sleep over what has become our society's casual comfort with the machinery of death says about us all.

Similarly, although I am not particularly troubled that al-Awlaki is dead. But I am profoundly troubled that a U.S. president, for the first time in our history, has claimed for himself the right to act as judge, jury and executioner, thereby depriving a U.S. citizen of his life, solely on the basis of the President's order, absent any of the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and in direct contravention of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. I am deeply disturbed that a president who campaigned in part on restoring the rule of law (following the Bush administration's utter flouting of it), has not only continued many of the very practices and policies he condemned as a candidate, but has even expanded upon them, and in this case has set a very dangerous precedent for future administrations.

Arguments about extra-judicial killing, or even capital punishment, that proceed primarily from a discussion of what a terrorist or convicted murdere deserves are fundamentally emotional arguments. Emotions are fine and perfectly valid and authentic as expressions of how people feel about a given situation. But emotions -- as any despot or propaganda wizard well knows -- are easily tricked, fooled and manipulated, and often blind people to seeing the larger picture. And they are a positively shitty as a basis for either the administration of justice or the preservation of constitutionally-guaranteed rights and protections.

[msanthrope]

45. Your critique is fundamentally flawed because you aren't analyzing the statute that gives Obama the

authority to do what he did.

The AUMF of September 18, 2001, authorized the President of the US to combat AL-Qaeda. Court after court has upheld pursuit under the AUMF as a military action. We are legally at war with Al-Q, and thus, the statutes that apply, and the due process that is afforded to said member of Al-Q is what the Congress passed. This does not mean there's no judicial review of certain actions--but it does mean that the process afforded a designated military target is different from the process afforded an American citizen who is not in Al-Q.



The thing is, 10 years ago, our bipartisan Congress told the President to go hunt these fuckers down. Now, imagine if Bush had done just that--hunted down Al-Q and not gone to war in Iraq? Imagine if he had targeted OBL in 2001? It would have been legal, and frankly, better.

[markpkessinger]

64. Statutes cannot trump the Constitution n/t

[ellisonz]

69. Except when the Constitution authorizes Congress to make statutes..

Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

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.

Don't like - take it to the Courts.

[markpkessinger]

77. We aren't discussing the definition of treason...

... and btw, where it says, "No person shall be convicted...", indicates a trial, not a presidential determination of guilt. Yes, the Constitution defines treason; it also defines a standard for conviction of that crime. A "conviction" is an outcome of a trial where guilt has been determined (in other words, "due process").

And in any case, you are wrong when you say that there is an exception when the Constitution authorizes Congress to make statutes. ALL statues must be in conformity with the Constitution -- that is the entire basis for the judicial branch's prerogative of judicial review (i.e., to determine whether a particular law is constitutional, meaning, in compliance with the terms of the Constitution). The only way a provision of the Constitution can be overridden is by Constitutional Amendment. Statutes can be overridden by other statues, or by the Constitution. But they cannot override the Constitution itself. That is a fundamental principal of Constitutional law, my friend.

[ellisonz]

80. They don't need to - Authorization of Military Force has been granted.

You misread my use of the word - except. Congress clearly has powers to make laws such as these and it is consistent with the intent of the Constitution.

Well then take it to the Courts buddy!:7

[bvar22]

37. Would you please point out some threads ...

...where anyone expressed sympathy for al-Awlaki?
Otherwise, all you have done is produced a crude Strawman.

It IS possible to oppose Extra Judicial Assassinations and a Unitary Executive without crying for a terrorist.

Were you FOR the Unitary Executive when Bush-the-Lesser claimed those powers?

[druidity33]

38. Then you don't "get it". nt.

[Matariki]

40. It's not a question of sympathy for an individual. It's whether we are a nation of laws

or just a fucking dictatorship where a president can order execution of citizens without a trial.

But you knew that.

[pnwmom]

42. He revoked his own citizenship when he began waging war from another country.

We don't have to wait for him to draw up legal papers.

[Tesha]

61. Where exactly in our Constitution does it say this? (NT)

[pnwmom]

65. The Constitution doesn't have a clause for every particular contingency.

This is a matter of common sense.

[Tesha]

73. No, but it does have rather-explicit language about...

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

I realize that's a quaint idea these days...

Tesha

[pnwmom]

78. What state did anything to him? n/t

[Tesha]

103. Are you being deliberately obtuse? "The state" in this case refers to the political...

...organization ordained by our Federal Constitution.

Tesha

[ellisonz]

72. Article III, Section 3.

Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

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.

Congress has authorized the use of force per the Constitution:

Introduction

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[Tesha]

75. So what court provided this conviction? What defense was the defendant afforded(NT)

[ellisonz]

76. Doesn't have too.

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

The decision to add Aulaqi to the CIA target list reflects the view among agency analysts that a man previously regarded mainly as a militant preacher has taken on an expanded role in al-Qaeda's Yemen-based offshoot.

"He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." The official stressed that there are "careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens."

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

The father tried to get him removed from the list - but didn't have standing - if Anwar al-Aulaqi wanted to mount a legal defense he could have returned to the United States where he would assuredly have faced charges. He knew - he just didn't want to face facts.

[pnwmom]

79. Where does it say anything about a court? n/t

[Matariki]

102. Sure. And maybe the next president can up it a notch

and take out someone like Julian Assange. Or anyone else they deem a terrorist or aiding terrorists.

It really saddens me to see people who should know better arguing against the rule of law.

[neverforget]

134. That and a Democrat did this so it's all cool. If a Republican had done

or does this in the future, I wonder if they'll be singing a different tune?

[msanthrope]

46. We passed a law allowing the President to do this. It's too bad Bush didn't do it to OBL.

It might have stopped us from going to Iraq.

[WinkyDink]

57. Really? Because that argument held no sway with Liberals in the 1950's South, did it now?

P.S. Osama was not a US citizen.

[Hydra]

130. Bush cared about stopping OBL?

:rofl:

Stop it! You're killing me! Next thing you know, you'll tell me we're leaving Afghanistan this winter!

[treestar]

49. It's within the law

This is the problem with using this type of issue to bash the President. The bashers don't really understand the law. They use a knee jerk and uninformed reaction and take it away as if it had backing in the law.

[EFerrari]

50. ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights disagree with you and with Obama. nt

[treestar]

52. They can be wrong

And likely are in this case. Just because they say something does not mean they are right about it.

[pnwmom]

66. Until the Supreme Court disagrees, it doesn't matter who else does. n/t

[ellisonz]

81. FTW.

[still_one]

126. Title1481

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_33_00001481----000-.html

[coalition_unwilling]

53. So I take it you wouldn't have a problem if the Iraqis sent a hit

squad to the U.S. to assassinate Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity? After all, what's good for the goose . . .

[pnwmom]

67. No one is saying that his host country might not object.

It's up to them how they will respond.

[treestar]

85. that would be war, pretty much

In Yemen they are not complaining, because they wanted the guy too. He failed to show up for their judicial process.

But if they did that here it's not like we'd sit around and demand a trial for the people who did it, would you? You would prefer that to the military scrambling to kill them?

[coalition_unwilling]

113. If who did what where? Sorry, not understanding your question so

not sure I'm responding to the question you're asking me.

[WinkyDink]

59. Did you like "Jim Crow" laws, too? Now, now; too late for you to make a "distinction."

[treestar]

83. Well that was uncalled for

You challenge them in the courts. That terrorist could have done so had he turned himself in for a hearing.

Cite the case law his survivors could use to argue that the laws allowing the president to do what he did are unconstitutional then take it up in the courts.

At least then it would be based on something other than your misunderstanding of the law. Nothing like the assumption you know all about something when you don't.

[Tesha]

63. *ALL* of our law is subservient to our Constitution.

Do you really think you'll find support for
extrajudicial assassination there?

Tesha

[treestar]

84. It is not extrajudicial assassination

Legal concepts have meaning based on precedent, not just on what you think it sounds like and how you think it should be applied.

[pnwmom]

87. If he had surrendered and turned himself in, he would have gotten due process.

But he was working to attack us from offshore, and we're justified in defending ourselves.

[Tesha]

104. There's nothing in the Constitution about a need to turn yourself in.

Your rights are *NOT* (well, "were not") contingent upon
any such thing.

Tesha

[WinkyDink]

56. "Sympathy" is not the issue. Lady Justice demands fairness to all.

[Rex]

58. Bottom line, there is no such thing as due process for

certain individuals. Even prisoners of war are given certain rights. I guess terrorists are in the grey area between warfare and criminal activity.

[WinkyDink]

60. No; American citizens are in the very clear zone called "American citizen."

[Rex]

71. Some are it seems. Like GWB and Dick Cheney.

They are in a clear zone of immunity for war crimes.

[pnwmom]

82. Not when they renounce their citizenship. By word or by deed.

His treasonous acts from an offshore haven were as clear a renouncement of citizenship as any paper he might have signed.

[Harmony Blue]

92. If the United States had overwhelming evidence

of his treasonous ways then why wasn't he caught while living in the U.S. and why was he even allowed to leave the country? I believe the United States did not have a strong enough case to pursue him through our legal system.

[markpkessinger]

98. It still requires a conviction in court of the crime of treason . . .

. . . before such treason may be deemed a renunciation of citizenship. What's more, an individual whose renunciation has been declared by the government has A FULL YEAR to appeal that determination in court. There must be a conviction of the crime of treason before that treason may be used as a basis to strip an individual's citizenship. That's a matter of law.

[pnwmom]

101. If he wanted due process, he could have gotten it.

All he had to do was surrender and turn himself in. Instead, he chose to plot attacks on us from offshore.

[treestar]

93. FAIL for valuing American citizens over other in questions of human rights

If you're going to say this guy's human rights were validated, then say it about Osama bin Laden, too. People aren't less human just for not being Americans.

[Harmony Blue]

95. OBL should have been tried as well

most people have been consistent on this issue.

[treestar]

91. Yes, unfortunately that is not clear any more

A big challenge to us.

[Angry Dragon]

94. So it is okay with you to kill Americans that have not

been convicted of any crimes??

I have a load od elected officials that are working towards the destruction of this country
should they be put on the list also??

[Throd]

96. Doing what he did? Sure.

If I were to do something similar I would expect to be killed as well.

[Angry Dragon]

106. I saw no proof, I saw no trial

I guess I missed that
The administration said that all their information was top secret

So I will ask you to point me to the links that prove that he was a terrorist and deserved to die

[MineralMan]

99. We agree on this. Not on a lot of other things, but on this

we agree.

[whatchamacallit]

100. How do you know he was what was claimed? n/t

[proud patriot]

105. agreed

[mike_c]

107. rather than sympathy for al-Alwaki, I have RESPECT for the Constitution...

...and the PRINCIPLES it stands for. Obama has trampled on the Constitution he swore to defend.

[MadMaddie]

110. He denounced his citizenship that was his decision

He joined a Terrorist group and was a Leader, that was his decision.

I have no sympathy for him either.

[YellowCosmicSun]

111. Some dislike Obama so much, they will side with a terrorist. That's a fucking shame.

[EFerrari]

116. I dislike attacks on our constitution, no matter who commits them.

[AverageJoe90]

118. I disagree with that quite strongly.

I can see shitloads of Rethugs and Teabaggers doing that kind of shit, but here?

I think most are merely concerned about the possible breach of the Constitution here; although a few may believe this guy may not be guilty of anything.

[MrSlayer]

114. Exactly. Fuck that guy.

And his buddies that went with him. nice job by President Obama and the team.

[AverageJoe90]

119. I'm kinda glad they're gone, too, but...........

However, I found myself asking why this guy hadn't been apprehended beforehand? If Bush and co. had been so eager to capture ALL the terrorists they probably could have done so. But given that Sabrina 1 RIGHTLY pointed out that Al-Awlaki had been dining at the Pentagon, well.......you can probably figure out the rest.

I believe an arrest, investigation & trial would have been the best & most just option in this case, given how both of them had probably been known for years before their deaths yesterday.

[still_one]

127. bush and company were incompetent. Not heeding the warnings of 9/11 were an example of that /nt

[AverageJoe90]

137. Exactly so! nt

[JoeyT]

115. Yep, there it is.

The "Terrorist sympathizer!" label fired at people that are concerned with due process.

And now we should all wonder why everyone keeps saying both parties are exactly the same on civil liberties.

[EFerrari]

117. The other day, I thought Turley was over the top

when he said Obama was a disaster on civil liberties. Today, I'm thinking I was wrong.

[eridani]

120. It has fuck-all to do with what he is. It is about who WE are n/t

[Bonobo]

123. Because it isn't sympathy for al-Awlaki, nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

128. I have no sympathy for al-Alawki. I have a great deal of sympathy for the rule of law

I find it stunning that so many of you are perfectly fine with killing folks that say or write things that are detestable and inspire violence. Will we now segregate words and ideas between acceptable and your a dead man? Who decides?

Also, if al-Alawki was such a clear and present danger would it not have been extremely easy to get an indictment prior to killing him?

[Cowpunk]

131. This OP is disgraceful. Shame on you!

You are accusing those who demand that the rule of law be upheld of being terrorist sympathizers. Disgraceful.

[DireStrike]

133. Not being a fan of extra-judicial assassinations does not mean you sympathize with the victim.

[booley]

136. What sympathy?

I might have missed it. Granted there are hundreds of posts here every hour it seems.

But so far none of the arguments against allowing a president to assassinate American citizens are based on legal and moral grounds.

Sorry but this sounds suspiciously like when anyone opposed to the Iraq war was defending Saddam.

I didn't buy that fallacy then. Why would i now?