We (the people) don't know anything. We're being told to just "trust and obey" that state-sponsored assassinations are "necessary". That's really disconcerting.
Everytime you post in this thread I am hitting that rep button only to get the message that I need to spread the rep.
I'm sure Bomberman95 on the Al-Queda BBS is saying the same thing about Joel Shrum, with probably about the same level of cognition as to what he's supporting.
I think once one actively plots the destruction America, one throws away their citizenship. If OBL was American-born, would people really have a problem with the Navy Seals taking him out? If so, good for them for having that opinion, I just disagree. I understand it's not a perfect situation and the preferrable one would be to capture if possible, but some seem to think the entire world works in black and white with no streaks of gray. Supporting the killing of this person in no way means I'm supporting this type of action in all cases. Guess who said that? I don't care who ordered him dead - Bush, Obama, your mom - I'm happy he's no longer a threat to America. Rhad, et al would be better served finding a more sympathetic figure to hang this argument on. I'm disturbed by a few things this administration has continued or expanded, but this sure as hell ain't one of them.
The problem is you allow the administration to make the argument about this one man. I won't debate whether Al-Awlaki deserves to be alive today. He's not the point. The point is the power the administration just created for itself. The point is the defense of this power that Eric Holder has offered, a defense that runs counter to what I believe in and what this country has claimed to believe in for years. Due process is no longer anything more than the President deciding you deserve to die. No court can challenge him on it. He's not responsible to prove it to anyone. I would say the executive branch now believes it has the right to be the judge/jury/executioner, but according to Holder you aren't even granted the right to the first two.
Let's look at that quote again and alter the bolding: Now tell me, which is the most obvious and rational conclusion to draw from this? 1) American foreign policy is the root problem and is creating a new generation of anti-american muslims and should be altered accordingly. OR 2) Muslims who hate american foreign policy and react accordingly should simply be killed as "militants" without any form of due process? George Orwell's Notes on Nationalism would fit in really well here. That's a reasonable argument (kind of, at least it's better than "I don't care") - now show me the proof before you implement the punishment.
I'd try picking a better representative of your cause then. Show us that baseball-loving, apple-pie eating, non-jihad participating American that Obama ordered dead. I'm stepping out of this discussion now, I'd rather go back to lurking since I forgot about Rhad's "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron" style of posting. Enjoy!
I see what you are saying and agree that it is not unproblematic. But due process isn't the same in war as in peace, right? And didn't Awlaki basically declare war on the United States?
A splendid argument. "Well, no one I think is undeserving has been killed yet, so this is a good program." Whatever. I refuted each of your points without calling you names or otherwise insulting you. If you don't want to feel like a moron, I'd suggest coming up with arguments more substantial than "I don't care".
A standard debate technique intended to reveal that the opponents argument is only rational inasmuch as it is applied only in the way he envisions. In short, someone who has not thought the argument through, i.e., who does not realize the implications, or...who is not cognizant of the impact. Now to be more frank... You argued "I don't care who I make proud, I'm happy that Anwar al-Awlaki is dead." That's bigtexxx-worthy ridiculousness. It's not an argument or anything, it's just blather.
That was in response to this wonderful and well thought out argument: I see your bigtexxx-worthy and raise you a Hightop.
It is well thought out (although I also dislike the association with hightop...) Maybe you should read the rest of that post. Your argument is that the legal aspect does not matter to you: that "might makes right" and what is "right" does not need to be proven to you beyond someone in authority saying so. That's...authoritarian.
It doesn't matter what rationale he uses for taking up military action against the U.S., the fact is that he joined a group actively engaged against the U.S. government miltarily. During the civil war, should union troops not have killed confederate soldiers without there having been a trial first? Those Americans who were fighting for the South were citizens by birth.
I've stated this before earlier in the thread but there is a lot of evidence out there that does link Awlaki to the underwear bomber particularly that in the convoy he was killed in the person who likely designed the underwear bomb was riding in it. I suspect that he might've been the primary target. Now you can choose not to believe that but at the same time then why should Greenwald be believed more. As far as the legal argument that has been hashed out that US citizens who take up arms or ally themselves with an enemy that has been determined by Congressional authorization are treated as enemies on a battlefield. I will fully agree this is ridiculously nebulous and not just a slippery slope but one that has been coated with WD-40. In the case of Awlaki though just from what is known out there publicly he qualifies.
Whether our foreign policy is effective or not is a different argument. If society creates a murderer, we may look at ourselves and see what needs to change - but that doesn't mean we absolve the murderer of his crimes. I'm not sure that his motives for becoming an enemy of the state is really relevant to our actions related to the fact that he IS an an enemy of the state. I would say a few things here: 1. Isn't it universally accepted and publicly stated by him that he's an enemy of the US? From my understanding, he's openly a member of Al Qaeda and he posted a video (or multiple videos?) encouraging war on the US. That seems to be pretty conclusive evidence - just as it was with OBL, who never went through due process before we determined him to be an enemy, and which no one seems to have a problem with it. 2. Assuming #1 is correct (and I may be wrong there), then the issue stems from him being an American citizen. I'm not sure this is a particularly new issue, though. If an American citizen was an advisor to Hitler or had joined the German army and we found him on the battlefield, I don't think the goal would have been to capture him and provide him due process to determine if he was really an enemy. He would be considered an enemy just as any other German soldier. So in that respect, this has been US policy pretty much forever - and I would suggest its probably the same for every other country in the world. 3. One distinction from the German example is whether we're technically at war, and if not, how the rules may apply differently. I think this is probably the strongest argument against the administration having this power - but here, we're talking about a legal argument as opposed to a moral one. As RM95 pointed out, his concern is more on the moral side, relating to this one individual rather than a broader legal argument. 4. Another distinction is the nature of the attack: a targeted assassination. I think this is problematic because the nature of the war on terror - most of our targets are assassinations because we're fighting individuals rather than armies on a battlefield. It would be akin to identifying where Hitler's American advisor was and bombing that building. I don't think most people would have have had issues with that. Much of this stems from the fact that the nature of war has changed, the aim of reducing collateral damage, the lack of traditional battlefields, etc. But I would argue that in 1942, no one would have blinked an eye at this type of action. That doesn't make it acceptable - we did lots of unacceptable things back then. But the idea that it's a new overreach of the government doesn't seem to fit - I think we've always done this type of thing. The way we look at it now is simply different because of the way that war is conducted.
A good post Major but elaborating on one point. I don't think there is an argument that we are at war against Al Qaeda and its allies the real problem is defining where is the battlefield and as such what jurisdiction / law applies. For instance Abdulmutallab was captured on US soil and tried through the criminal system. Padilla was captured on US soil and treated as an enemy combatant. Walker was captured literally on the field of battle, initially treated as an enemy combatant but then submitted to criminal law. The problem is where do we define where is the battlefield and where isn't? Could the government use drone strikes in the US if an Al Qaeda target was found in America?
Agreed, except that Greenwald lays out additional rationale for his concerns regarding the evidence, and they rely on the government's own characterization of said evidence: It's not really about Awlaki. It's about the lack of any coherent legal standard or equivalent procedure such that the citizenry can limit/monitor the use of this sort of broad and very powerful executive "tool". It's just too damn dangerous to let this breed under the secrecy umbrella unmonitored.
