Greenwald was incorrect. It's not the president, but a "secret panel" that authorizes these jury-judge-executioner decisions. How comforting. Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'
I don't understand why some people are saying that he needed a trial. Anwar al Awlaki was a citizen who chose to join and take part in an organization militarily opposed to the United States. The United States took a military action to take out one of the operatives of the organization militarily opposed to the US. If I thought it was purely criminal I could see the outrage. But it wasn't purely criminal as there is an ongoing military conflict with the group Al-Awlaki was a part of.
It doesn't have to be proven. His own work for that group proves it. As has been pointed out American born citizens who were working as soldiers of Germany during WWII were treated as combatants against the US at the time. It didn't have to be proven that they were serving with the military enemy of the US. Though their actions did prove that.
What work? I mean, this is the crux of the issue. The secret council and the Obama admin are basically saying that we have "proof of this work" (weird juxtaposition intentional inasmuch as it shows where your logic train is running off the rails) but are not divulging any of it. Yemen experts doubt his direct involvement, US officials have acknowledged it's "patchy" intelligence - at best we have some nasty sermonizing in a video. Now, there may be more there, and the killing may have been perfectly reasonable per Jeh Johnson's argument regarding AUMF 107-40, but the thing is that we'll never know. Public accountability for misuse of such a powerful tool becomes impossible. Not knowing the particulars of any American working for the German army in WWII, I am loathe to comment on the potential for analog. But going off the "for sure" facts regarding Awlaki, virtually anybody who advocates killing Americans could be up for the council - Joseph Jay better watch out. That bolded bit about the death penalty is particularly golden.
I swear to God, it's like you are too dumb to function yet here you are, still alive and kicking after all these years. It's a marvel. Your idea of representative government is so out of whack I don't even know what to say about it. Why do we even have a court system in this hypothetical "representative government" that you seem to think we live in? Why doesn't the government just imprison or execute whoever they want since "nobody has to prove anything." I mean damn. When Franchise, Rockets, pgabriel, Deckard, et al, make points I read them and ponder them. Some of them I haven't responded to yet because I'm still pondering them. Then there is you. Every one of your posts on this subject further enhances my own belief that I'm right. You are like Sarah Palin. Whatever side of the argument you are on looks worse just because you keep typing.
Franchise, this point keeps being made and I am pondering how to react to it. It is an interesting point. My first reaction is that there is a difference between a soldier in a Nazi uniform carrying a gun and shooting at American troops and ultimately being killed and a hypothetical American in war time Germany who moves to, let's say, Poland and offers recruiting videos for the German military having a bomb dropped on him in an intentional act. I believe that the hypothetical character would be indicted for treason. Like I said though, I'm still pondering it. I don't know 100% where I ultimately stand on all this, but I am uncomfortable with the expanding executive powers under Bush and Obama. I am uncomfortable where this country's government is going and I am uncomfortable with the defenses offered by both administrations to inquiries, both informal and by courts. Edit: I feel this issue is not necessarily cut and dry and I respect the disagreeing sides here except for the asinine "you can't question your executives in our NOT A DEMOCRACY government!" being offered by DD. It's like he just read an article titled "We are a Republic, not a Democracy" feels smart because of it and thinks that if he just spews it in every post everyone will think he's cool.
Reminds me of FFB. I think I agree with you that there is a grey area in the "legality" portion of it. However, I think it's pretty black and white that the evidence presented is well beyond weak, and that accordingly the power being wielded is perturbing.
I understand it's not a cut and dry issue. Right now I lean more to the position I've stated before. I am open to the idea that the guy was not a combatant. However, I haven't seen any real evidence to point in that direction. I do believe that Obama has overstepped his power with warrantless wiretapping and imprisonment with regards to gitmo. I also believe that a person does not have to be an American citizen to be afforded trial by jury. That right is not reserved for American citizens. Anytime the US is carrying out criminal matters they are required to follow the constitution whether defendants are citizens or not. However, the US carrying out military operations may do so whether the combatants are US citizens or not. I disagree with DD in some of what he's said, but was unable to follow his argument. So I just bowed out.
Not sure what you hope to accomplish by calling some one dumb. If you are hoping to sway an argument, you lose your audience right after that statement. I will ignore it for a moment and try to explain what I am saying for better clarity for the "Ehem" intelligent folks out there. We are a representative government, there is accountability, and if we don't like what they are doing we have recourse, impeachment, prosecution, vote them out.....all options at our disposal. However, while they are in power, they are making the decisions, they do NOT HAVE TO CHECK WITH YOU OR ME on any of those decisions. That is what they are elected to do. That is a weakness in you my friend, you don't like reading others thoughts, or get pissed because you don't have clarity of understanding what is being said etc, so it makes you angry, and peeved, it is a weakness, don't worry about it if you don't like it. This is an internet message board. Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters, nothing really matters to........me......... DD
As I said before the only legal question in my mind is whether Awlaki was actually a member of Al Qaeda. That said military standards are not the same as criminal standards and the decision to go after Awlaki was a military issue. In regard to if Awlaki is just a cheerleader my understanding is that any aid given to Al Qaeda and other organizations deemed terrorist organizations is a crime under US law. If Awlaki's through his sermons can be shown to have given material support for Al Qaeda then he would be culpable whether he was a member or not. Again those are criminal standards so under that reasoning I can see how the military would still deem him a target even if direct membership couldn't be proved.
What standards are you referring to? Again, this is all being secretly conducted. Alluding to standards and laws and whatnot is essentially moot; we have no idea what evidence was presented or what criteria he was deemed to have met accordingly. That's the issue here, as far as I'm concerned.
We are at war with Al-Queda, he was on their side. Therefore he is a target. Not sure what is so hard for some of you to understand here. I get that you are all afraid of the government targeting US citizens, but stop leaping to that, as that is not what is happening. The guy joined the enemy - it was a military operation, we took out some of the enemy. This happens in war every single day.......there is nothing wrong or illegal about it. DD
Military standards are different than criminal standards and most people in this thread and elsewhere seem to be arguing along the lines of criminal standards. As far as laws we do have the authorization of force as passed by congress to pursue Al Qaeda which makes military action permitted. Thus the only real legal issue is was Awlaki a member of Al Qaeda, or at least giving them material support. As far as secrecy yes that is troubling but again the military operates with much less transparency than law enforcement. I am not saying that is a good thing that is simply a fact. As I said before though with a case like Awlaki I personally don't find it too troubling given what evidence we know about him to me indicates he was in league with Al Qaeda. Now if I was sitting in a juror would I convict him of that, I don't know but again this is a military decision. I am not going to say we simply trust the President but as I said earlier I am looking at this case by case.
i will meet the opposite side of the argument halfway and say yeah, its shaky. but i will also say that's the problem in dealing with terrorism. first of all, the enemy isn't a country with a standing army and a definite chain of command and a record keeping system of its ranks. i admit that it looks hypocritical criticizing the bush administration for their handling of capturing suspect terrorist and then suuporting this "military" action. and lastly i was one of the people immediately after 9-11 saying its best to deal with terrorism as a law enforcement issue instead of a military issue. however, we know in these countries that we have been fighting terrorism through military action. these terrorists are from everywhere, this person happens to be an american citizen. therefore i think the easiest way to deal with concerns about this is to accept if this person is kiiled in the battlefield where we have military operations.
Wow! What a drastic change in policy for Obama. He went from wanting to give non-citizen terrorist trials even though they are not protected by the Constitution to killing citizens who are protected by the Constitution. I won't shed a tear over this guy however this scares me because it could set a dangerous precedent.
the people who are questioning this killing are probably the same ones who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
