So, now that the precendent for killing Americans abroad sans due process has been established

[MadHound]

How long before we start killing Americans at home without the benefit of due process? If you support al-Awlaki's murder abroad, will you also support killing Americans in the same manner at home?

[ixion]

1. already started

just not televised or reported... yet.

[harun]

2. But he had a beard, that makes it ok, right?

[bhikkhu]

79. He joined a terrorist militia, and dedicated his life to killing americans

"Don't consult with anybody in killing the Americans," al-Awlaki said in the 23-minute video, in which he appeared dressed in a white robe and turban, with a sheathed dagger tucked into his waistband.

"Fighting the devil does not require a fatwa, nor consultation nor prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of Satan and fighting them is the obligation of the time," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/anwar-alawlaki-yemeni-cle_n_780257.html

--------------------------

...it still sucks, but its absurd to suggest that he's the victim of unfairness or bigotry.

[Swede]

3. They can be arrested when in the US.

nt

[MadHound]

10. They can be arrested abroad as well,

A number of American citizens have been arrested abroad and returned to the US.

[Swede]

15. Well,we can send you to get the guy next time.

The Yemeni army couldn't,so you should volunteer. Sounds good to me.

[MadHound]

17. What about the American army, they couldn't get him? n/t

[Swede]

19. No,you should go.

Maybe bring a gun along.

[MadHound]

53. So government's job is not to uphold justice,

Every single service man is not sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. If one wants justice and the observation of our Constitutional rights, we must do it ourselves?

If that is the case, then our country is already lost, and Osama won.

[Swede]

61. No,you Madhound should go.

It's that simple. You want him arrested,go and get him. Put your money where your mouth is.

[MadHound]

65. LOL!

I see, you have no moral or ethical ground to stand on, so you resort to middle school taunts. Have a good night, thanks for admitting you have no ethical or moral ground to stand on, and go ahead, get the last childish word in. You aren't worth debating anymore on this issue.

[Swede]

66. You're willing to send others to get killed.

nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

92. And DU wouldn't be screaming just as loud if we'd sent in soldiers to get him?

Please - tons of people here screamed to high heaven about how we "violated" Pakistan's sovereignty by staging an offensive against OBL's compound. You really think there wouldn't be the same kind of outrage about an actual military incursion into Yemini territory? And when - as would most likely happen - al-Awlaki resists and the soldiers shoot him, there would be the same hue and cry about how we "invaded" Yemen and "assassinated" an American.

There are too many people here who really think we should just convene a grand jury, indict him for terrorism, send the indictment to the Yemeni authorities, and then sit impotent on our hands when Yemen refuses to extradite him. The facile dismissal of terrorists who have declared their intentions to support operations of violence against the US - even American citizen terrorists - as run-of-the-mill criminal defendants by DU is neither supported by the Constitution or the law as it stands now.

[MadHound]

100. And summarily executing American citizens is supported by the Constitution?

Please, point out the Article and Clause where that is stated.

Psst, we did invade Yemen and assassinate an American. We did so with a drone aircraft.

What do you have against due process, what do you have against Constitutional rights?

[WildEyedLiberal]

104. Article II authorizes the president to take necessary steps to protect America from threats

What do YOU have against the Constitution?

I notice you didn't bother to address my point about what we should have done. Send a subpoena to Yemen? Sit and around and kick the dirt and say "aw well shucks, we tried" when they summarily ignore any extradition orders?

[MadHound]

109. You know as well as I do that if we took your view of the Constitution,

Then McVeigh, Unibomber and others would have been shot on sight.

As far as your "point", we can do what we've done for decades now, employ the military or CIA. That is after all, one of the CIA's reasons for existence.

[WildEyedLiberal]

113. McVeigh, the Unabomber, and others surrendered on sight

Had Aulaki done so, I am sure he'd be in custody now and awaiting trial. He chose instead to travel to a country from which he would not be extradited and continue to plot acts of war against the US. Had McVeigh done that, I have a feeling he'd have met with the same fate.

[MadHound]

114. But al-Awlaki never got the chance to surrender

Hell, all he got was a missile launched from an anonymous drone controlled by somebody miles away.

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. Fleeing to a country that is known to harbor terrorists is a clear communication of his intent

If he'd wanted to surrender, he could have hopped on the next plane to JFK and been arrested at customs, where he would currently be in a cell awaiting his trial. So yeah, he had plenty of chances. He chose not to take any of them. If McVeigh had fled to a country where he knew he wouldn't have been extradited, or barricaded himself in a fort and continued to plot insurrection, you bet the feds would've stormed his compound.

[Tesha]

35. You would think that the world's most expensive military might have been able to do...

...something more subtle than blow him to smithereens.
Any old two-dollar terrorist with a bomb could have
blown him up.

Tesha

[ProSense]

4. American Exceptionalism

"So, now that the precendent for killing Americans abroad sans due process has been established"

I mean, this outrage is all about American Exceptionalism: He's not a terrorist, he's an American. All the other terrorists being killed every day don't warrant a thread about their lack of due process.

What else would inspire you to identify with a terrorist: He's an American!

Anwar al-Awlaki was, in fact, a terrorist.

Remember how upset everyone was when people were making fun of the number of times the same terrorists were being killed by Bush?

I didn't shed a tear for the terrorists Bush killed, and I'm not about to start.

This is bullshit opportunistic outrage!

[MadHound]

11. No, this is about our Constitutional and Civil rights,

And no matter how much bullshit you blow, the fact of the matter is that the Obama administration performed an extralegal execution. Whether it was a "terrorist" or a drug dealer or whatever, it doesn't matter. Due process applies to all. That is what makes, or used to make, America exceptional.

[ProSense]

14. No

"And no matter how much bullshit you blow, the fact of the matter is that the Obama administration performed an extralegal execution."

....this is about distortion: American person on American soil going about there lawful business = American who joined foreign terrorist organization and is actively engaged in its mission on foreign soil.

[MadHound]

16. American citizen, not posing an imminent threat, is killed in cold blood, without trial

Gee, should we have killed the OKC bomber without a trial, just shot him down in cold blood by the side of the road. Drop a bomb on the Unibomber's shack? Is that OK with you as well?

[ProSense]

20. Terrorist is killed. Period n/t

[frylock]

25. ends justify the means..

got it.

[ProSense]

27. A terrorist is a terrorist. n/t

[Tesha]

36. One man's terrorist is another man's "Freedom Fighter". Or even member of the military.

That moral high ground is getting harder and harder
to hold.

Tesha

[MedicalAdmin]

44. Were the sandanistas terrorists or freedom fighters?

Just wondering because there seems to be a few differing opinions about them.

[girl gone mad]

69. hmmmm..

who gets to decide? A lot of people on the right say Obama is a terrorist. If one of them wins the Presidency, he or she gets to make that call?

[frylock]

70. and what is a constitutional scholar?

[MadHound]

48. No gray in your world is there, terrorist or friend, black or white, with us or against us,

Live or die.

The world is what lies in between.

[treestar]

33. Suppose the OKC bomber would have refused to give up

and go into custody?

Suppose he kept up with bombings?

Say Andrew Cuananon had not killed himself and was continuing on his spree killing. And would not give up when the cops finally closed in on him?

[MadHound]

51. If they are an imminent threat, they die.

But was al-Awlaki an imminent threat? He died by a drone, not in a gun battle.

[paland99]

56. We should have sent them to Texas

Texas, Where 257 American citizens have been executed since Rick Perry's been Governor. And if you don't have evidence, they can have the cops "convince" witnesses into saying whatever they want them to say. And if they recant, the courts wont listen.

Merca, fuck yeah!

[polmaven]

95. He was INDEED

a terrorist and he, for all intents a purposes, stopped being an American citizen a long time ago when he became a member of al Queda, an organization of terrorists which has declared war on us.

[MadHound]

101. Except for the simple fact that he was an American citizen

What, we should have summarily executed the man who killed George Tiller? Summarily executed the OKC bomber or the Unibomber? American citizenship entitles you to certain unalienable rights, among them, due process.

[polmaven]

108. Well, the editorial page

of the Boston Globe disagrees with you:

THE TARGETING and killing of American-born radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen could prove as consequential as any covert operation in America’s history. Yet it also marks the first time since 2001 that the United States has deliberately killed an American citizen in this way. This is an extraordinary power, and critics have raised the threat of a government going after its own without any pretense of due process. But in this case, the decision was right and lawful, and the mission set an exceptionally high standard for any potential use of force against a US citizen in the future.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2011/09/30/rare-act-killing-awlaki-accords-with-sound-legal-rules/Mb2u5glEkmrLWxOUaqDdTO/story.xml

The text of the editorial sets forth the reasons the killing was indeed legal.

[MadHound]

110. Well, the Boston Globe is a newspaper, not the Constitution. n/t

[polmaven]

112. It is a newspaper

that has set forth the reasons why the action taken was legal.

[MadHound]

115. It is an editorial, an opinion. You know what they say about opinions. n/t

[polmaven]

118. It is an opinion

which lays out the FACTS used to come to that opinion.

[teddy51]

5. I just can't see how any American can go along with this. How does this make

him any different to Bush, who didn't give a shit about our laws?

[lunatica]

6. Do you think you're going to force people to think differently?

The police kill people who aren't even criminals all the time and get away with it.

[WinkyDink]

8. Since when is an attempt at persuasive argument "force"?

[MadHound]

12. And when they do, it is usually because of an imminent threat,

A threat such as a person pointing a gun at them.

When they do kill somebody who isn't an imminent threat, then their actions are reviewed and if necessary, they are taken to court.

[jberryhill]

28. Who went to court over John Dillinger or Bonnie & Clyde

Name them.

Dillinger had killed a slew of folks in a multi state bank robbery spree.

He was deadly and at large.

He was not robbing a bank when he was shot, he was going to the movies.

Why have you not brought the injustice of John Dillinger's death to our attention before?

[frylock]

71. just wow

[polmaven]

96. And how do you know he wasn't

an "imminent threat"? Do you have access to the same information the president has?

[WinkyDink]

7. Been there many times before. "Four Dead in Ohio."

[treestar]

9. Why is this said to be starting now?

It was happening during the Clinton Administration. It is not starting now.

We do kill Americans at home without benefit of due process on occasion. If they are shooting back at the cops and won't give themselves up - see Bonnie and Clyde. Or should they have been allowed to kill as many officers as possible before being taken in for trial? You know, as much as they had ammunition for?

[MadHound]

13. And yes, there are legal procedures for doing such things,

But al-Awlaki wasn't an imminent threat now, wasn't pointing a gun.

And just because others did this doesn't make it right now. In fact it is the precedents of past administrations that has enabled this travesty of justice to not only occur, but to be celebrated in certain, twisted circles.

[jberryhill]

23. Dillinger was going to a movie

[Hassin Bin Sober]

40. I thought he was coming out of a movie.

[Bake]

43. Bonnie and Clyde just drove into an ambush.

I don't think there was any attempt to arrest them. And they were not exactly "nice" people ...

Bake

[treestar]

31. Do we know this?

We do know Al Qaeda plans suicide attacks. It is doubtful he was going to give himself up. In fact, he was going to trial in Yemen but didn't show up.

I don't know why we should put soldiers at risk to arrest Al Qaeda terrorists. What if a soldier gets killed? They are willing to die in order to kill us. Check out 911.

Suppose there'd been a chance to kill Atta first?

[MadHound]

47. And that's what our justice system is here to protect us from,

The dangers of that word, "suppose." People have supposed a lot of things about a lot of people over the course of our history. The Salem witch trials, all the suppositions about African Americans and Native Americans and on and on. The suppositions about Communists and Socialists and liberals and. . .

You start to follow down that road of suppositions and nobody is safe, not you, not me, not anybody. That is what our justice system is supposed to raise a barrier against, that word "suppose."

[MedicalAdmin]

49. Wait a minute. Maybe the proponents of shoot first have a point.

Could we use this abrogation of law to "bring to justice" other Americans who foment violence?

Let's make a little (enemies) list.

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. I wonder how Dennis Kucinich is going to weigh in on this one.

[mmonk]

21. Yes. It's why I took the pledge from Obama to the American Freedom

Campaign at his word and at that point decided to throw my primary support to him both financially and actively. It's why now I can't take him at his word anymore.

[jberryhill]

22. Does the name Charles Whitman or John Dillinger ring a bell?

You have NEVER heard of an at-large dangerous criminal refusing to surrender and being shot?

Do you live under a rock?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

26. Hate to break it to you

But there are people here at DU who would still claim the guy was "murdered in cold blood", even if he mowed down 15 American soldiers before the bullet was put through his head.

[jberryhill]

29. It's fine to debate what happened here

But weird that people have never apparently asked themselves why police forces have trained snipers.

[polmaven]

98. Very good point!

[Harmony Blue]

37. Really?

Who? As far as I can see, all we want is the rule of law to lead our country.

[joshcryer]

45. Pretty much.

Look at the Great Bin Laden Farce.

[bvar22]

34. In the case of John Dillinger,

....arrest warrants were issued by a US Court.

Charles Whitman was current engaged in a serious crime,
and refused to surrender to the authorities on the scene.
He had the option.

[joshcryer]

46. Anwar al-Awlaki didn't have the option? He could've quiet easily surrendered to Yemeni authorities.

[Harmony Blue]

50. He was in the U.S. in 2002

and was allowed to leave, and at one point WAS in Yemenese custody. Is the U.S. this incompetent, or do they have flimsy evidence that wouldn't hold up in a court of law?

[joshcryer]

He didn't start doing stuff until after 2004, after he got out of custody in Yemen.

[Harmony Blue]

93. He had ties to 9/11 hijackers

This was well before 2004.

[pnwmom]

24. He renounced his citizenship,

by deed if not by word. If he had been interested in due process, all he had to do was turn himself in. Instead, he chose to wage war on us from the haven of another country.

[treestar]

32. Yep, as an American citizen he would have known that he

could have a fair trial if he wanted to. He could have sent negotiators to deal with the US and get taken into custody.

Some people are acting as if Al Qaeda terrorists care. Like they want to be tried - no, they want to kill Americans. They will die to do that.

[MedicalAdmin]

52. And so the answer is to adopt the terrorist high moral standards as our own.

Way to set the bar high.

[treestar]

94. Since you deserve an equal riposte

Your answer is to let them kill as many people as they can in the interim to catching them to get them tried - when we know they are willing to kill themselves first.

To all those dead in the attacks he would have planned and carried out, you'd be comfortable saying "that's the price of the moral high ground."

So had Bush been competent, and had a chance to kill OBL, but said, no, wait until we can try him and in the meantime 911 happened, it would just be the price we had to pay.

Taking this position means you can't criticize Bush for not doing anything in spite of the warnings he had - OBL had not committed any crime as of then.

[MadHound]

57. He renounced his citizenship? Proof? Link?

Sorry, but word, the legal word, counts more than deed. Otherwise if one based such matters on the simple deed, then many, many people would be dead without resorting matters with the law.

[COLGATE4]

85. You can't renounce your citizenship by deed.

[polmaven]

99. Exactly!

[Recovered Repug]

30. Are you willing to go arrest him?

Or are you just willing to risk the life of someone else in the attempt?

[MadHound]

58. How do we pursue justice in this country?

An officer of the law, of the government, is sent to take the citizen into custody. I have no standing in law enforcement and thus I would be acting as a vigilante, another serious breech of our Constitution.

Trying to shame me about risking the life of another is a strawman. Law enforcement, the military, risk their lives everyday to uphold justice and the Constitution. That is what they are there for, that is their duty. But what you are trying to do is obvious, impugn my courage, imply that I'm willing to sacrifice others instead of myself.

Let me ask you one time. How many times have you run into a burning building while everybody else is running away?

Duty and courage come in many, many ways.

[YellowCosmicSun]

38. Do you think al_Awlaki was an innocent man, or do you just have the principles of a Demi-god?

[EFerrari]

39. So now our constitutional rule requires divinity to be observed?

LOL

[YellowCosmicSun]

41. Our Constitution provides means for dealing with those who declare War on the Country.

Why do you ignore this?

[EFerrari]

74. Because it was bullshit when Bush's corrupt DoJ came up with it

and it's still bullshit today?

[Harmony Blue]

55. We will never find out because

there wasn't a trial.

[MadHound]

60. It doesn't matter whether al-Awlaki was innocent or guilty.

What matters is that he was an American citizen, and guilty or innocent he was entitled to certain Constitutional right. I know that the Constitution has been and is being shredded and that paying attention to Constitutional niceties might be a novelty to some, but it is what this country is based upon and if we give it up, then our country is well and truly fucked.

[mikekohr]

42. When You Dedicate Your Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children

you should not be surprized when we fly an un-manned aircraft filled with explosives through your windshield.

[MadHound]

62. Ah, so what do we do when you dedicate your life to bombing academics,

Like the Unibomber? Or carrying out vengeance against the government, like McVeigh? What is the difference? Do we toss out the rule book when the citizen is overseas, or of a different religion?

[mikekohr]

76. When a mass murderer hides in a foreign country, cowers behind women and children,

and continues to threaten, plot, incite, and murder innocents, that person is a grave risk to the security of the United States of America, the world community and an affront to all that is good and decent.

When a person hides behind the law to wage endless mass murder and ceaseless destruction of life and property that person has declared war on the United States. This mass murderer and those that perished with him did not care how many hundreds or thousands had to suffer and die to fulfill his wish of martyrdom. We obliged his death wish and spared thousands the torment that was his twisted vision of paradise on Earth. It is a far better place without him.

Let his name never be repeated. May his ashes drift with the wind in desolate lands and may God have mercy on his soul.

[COLGATE4]

86. Swell Old Testament verbiage. Not at all relevant to the point.

[mikekohr]

116. double post deleted by author

[mikekohr]

117. Live by explosives, die by explosives.

[UTUSN]

54. Oh, so an American can declare murder on Americans, O.K. n/t

[MadHound]

63. Americans murder Americans all the time,

For reasons of passion, greed and even, yes terrorism, such as the Unibomber, McVeigh, or the murderer of George Tiller.

They all got trials, so where is the difference?

[bhikkhu]

81. If they join terrorist militias, dedicate their lives to killing americans,

surround themselves with heavily armed guards, cooperate in various successful and unsuccessful bomb plots, happily kill civilians - and so on and so forth.

The circumstances do suck, but that's about what you you have to do to get blown up in Yemen by a Hellfire missile. Now that we know, we can all do the little things we need to do to avoid it.

[MadHound]

102. So terrorists here at home get a trial,

But a citizen abroad gets a Hellfire missile. Hmmm.

[bhikkhu]

107. There are laws about the use of the military within our own borders

...so without some fancy exceptions, that would probably be the case.

[MadHound]

111. Way to dodge the point I'm making,

Don't forget, major metropolitan police forces do have missiles and other heavy weapons.

[TheKentuckian]

120. What ensures that we know that is the case? How would we correct abuse of this power?

How would we verify our intelligence and its interpretation? What prevents expansion of the current definition of terrorist or threat? What eliminates or even reduces error?

Granting your point, what checks and means for appeal are there to make sure we are getting the correct people every time? How is it in just these matters that we are infallible, incorruptible, accurate, and incontrovertibly well intentioned?

Think system rather than individual participants of the moment and get back to me.

Understanding people's concern here takes no more imagination than it does to accept human fallibility of almost any sort.
Is it absurd to think maybe this process needs judicial review and some sort of congressional oversight or perhaps more limited language with some sort of avenue for oversight to make sure the law is being used as intended? Is that somehow unreasonable? After all, we aren't talking active battles here and asking soldiers to get a review before shooting back or police being resisted but rather a much more precession and long term process.

Why wouldn't we want some kind of oversight and some form of check on such power?

[paland99]

59. Ever hear of Gitmo? Or Texas?

Texas killed a man last week who apparently was railroaded. And they do this often. 257 killed since Rick Perry's been Governor. And many of those have good reasons why they were innocent.

And although those at Gitmo arent American Citizens, they still have rights. Did we give any of them due process? Why is a man who wants to kill Americans more sacred than 257 people in Texas?

[MadHound]

64. It isn't a matter of "sacredness" it is a matter of justice

I will grant you, more than willingly, that our justice system is fucked up in far too many ways. But we do further damage to it with acts such as this.

[MicaelS]

67. Those who are demanding due process

Would be the first ones protesting if he got due process and was sentenced to death right here in the US. And yes I support the death penalty for certain crimes, terrorism among them. I don't give a damn what the rest of the world does or doesn't do regarding capital punishment.

[MadHound]

68. I would rather he get due process and a death penalty

Than a summary execution without due process.

The morality of the death penalty as a part of due process is an entirely separate argument. What happened today was the simple lack of due process, the abrogation of a citizen's Constitutional rights.

[MicaelS]

72. I agree with you n/t

[BeHereNow]

73. As DefendandProtect said- Today was house cleaning day.

The guy knew too much.
Only logical explanation.
I think the same is true of Bin Laden.

I heard an analyst on the radio the other night
breaking down the same scenario about Bin Laden
and his points were air tight, I must say.

BHN

[COLGATE4]

88. Absolutely not. If he were sentenced to death by a court of competent

jurisdiction here in the US I'd be cheering his execution. But he wasn't.

[The Northerner]

75. K&R n/t

[TBF]

77. Recommend. nt

[kentuck]

78. Especially if you live in Yemen or Pakistan....

and associate with characters planning on killing other Americans...

[MadHound]

103. So you give up your Constitutional rights once you cross the US border?

Somehow I don't think that is the case.

[Gormy Cuss]

80. From now on when someone murders a group of people we should round up the preachers.

And "preachers" would include not only clerics but public pontificators who host radio or television shows or hold court in other media. Hell, we should round up the preachers even when someone just plots to murder a bunch of people.
If those preachers ever suggested that people like those murdered should be stopped, the preachers get taken out by drones.

That'll teach them.
:sarcasm:

[bhikkhu]

83. He wasn't targeted for being a preacher

and he wasn't targeted for anything he did while he was in the US before 2002. He was targeted for working directly with terrorist organizations in Yemen in several bombings. I don't think anyone who reads of what he had done and been a part of could argue with the decision, or imagine that it was taken lightly.

[Gormy Cuss]

87. Why is there so much emphasis on his imam status?

There is an ongoing attempt in our media to link religion to terror but only when the religion is Islam.

I'm not commenting on his "bad guy" status, BTW.

[hobbit709]

82. "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."

Once the rule of law is suspended in one case, it becomes an easy step to the next and the next.

[COLGATE4]

89. We've now progressed from the supposed right of any sitting

US President to order the illimited detention of a U.S. citizen without charges or indictment (Padilla) to the supposed right of the President to order the exection of a U.S. citizen without regard to Constitutional Due Process. What's the next 'slight adjustment' we will make because we're "fitin' that war on terraism"?

[judy]

91. Well said, hobbit...

And whether or not he was an American Citizen, killing someone from the air with missiles without any kind of trial, is like lifting the lid of Pandora's Box, or letting the worms out of the can.
Kind of like saying "bring'em on!"
It made me sick to hear Obama bragging about it...what a disappointment...

[L. Coyote]

84. People abroad will feel all the more justified about killing Americans. Just what we wanted, right?

Mission accomplished? By throwing due process out the window, Americans can no longer complain when they are victims of attack without due process. It's the new global politics, kill whoever you want for your own reasons.

[yurbud]

90. yes, but the people who deserve it won't be on the receiving end.

[Safetykitten]

97. It will be more like this documentary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmh-abe-1_U&feature=related

[indepat]

105. Government kills people softly by each decree allowing pollution or curbing

benefits for the old, frail, and poor mostly so the uber-wealthy and large corporation can continue their rapacious sucking at the public welfare teat. The number of projected deaths that will result from each killing-softly decree can be and is usually estimated with remarkable precision for such an inexact science. And the media ignore and most people just yawn and sigh "so what else is new?" :patriot:

Edited for verb tense

[dipsydoodle]

106. .When the President does it its not illegal

Richard M Nixon.

[librechik]

119. drone strikes are the global future, foreign and domestic

it's easier when you don't have to look people in the eyes.

[akbacchus_BC]

122. Waste of fucking time trying to say otherwise. USA must be the best!