Do I want them to attack and kill us? No. Is it going to happen? Yes. In their point of view is it justified? Yes. Its a cycle. And there are only a handful of people on this earth that can forgive crimes of that magnitude. Especially when it affects them personally. At this point its either us or them.
Again though you are looking at this as a court of law versus a military action. The rules of engagement are almost always lower for the military than they are for the police. Now in terms of should the US be more careful about taking this action I can agree with that and I think that is somewhat a side debate over whether assassinating Awlaki is legal. From my own point of view though I would say that there is enough info to consider Awlaki an enemy who is clearly out to attack the US. I don't know if that is enough to convict him in a court of law but in war if someone claims to be with the enemy then that makes them fair game. Whether the group exist as a single entity or not the authorization of force applies to anyone claiming to be Al Qaeda or in league with Al Qaeda. Its sort of similar to German laws regarding Nazis. The original Nazi Party doesn't exist but it is a crime to call yourself a Nazi in Germany. I agree this is a very slippery slope and one that I am personally very cautious about. That said though with someone like Awlaki I believe there is enough evidence to show that he is involved in regard to planning attacks against the US and US allied interests and would continue to do so. I think each of these situations have to be looked at as a case by case basis.
Presidents unfairly get the blame, and credit for, the economy. The truth is that the President alone can't do much to radically affect the economy.
He is one of many enemy combatants that have been killed. Being an American, doesn't give him a right to trial when he is at war with us. It just makes him a traitor.
So try him for treason in abstentia, strip his citizenship and then do this. We have legal processes for a reason, it really isn't that hard to use them.
He is at war with an army of terrorists. While he is shooting you, you don't walk up to him and put handcuffs on him. That's called suicide. You don't send a couple of cops in police cars to a warzone with thousands of enemy combatants and not shoot anybody but "arrest" them with handcuffs.
Just kill the guy, save all that wasting of time and money you are suggesting for people that deserve it and aren't enemy combatants. DD
I said abstentia for a reason. Obviously I dont expect to arrest him. But we have legal protections for a reason. It's like when Bush decided to ignore the FICA court for issuing wiretaps despite the fact that the FICA Court had never turned down a wiretap request before. This is ignoring legal process just because you can even when the legal system will rule your way.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q2HuzNwhXUg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We could have. I just don't think the Constitution says we have to. If we wanted to punish him for a crime, then yes. But, a conviction to precede a military attack? I don't see that his citizenship comes into play. I'm not sure if his guilt even matters if we're at war with him.
Interesting part below: It's strange to me that this party, and more specifically this president and AG, who so ardently advocated that terrorists such as KSM be tried on open court, who suggested ideas such as giving terrorists Miranda rights, now believes in the executive authority to execute an American citizen without even so much as an indictment, let alone a conviction. What is the threshold one must cross as an American before we lose our Constitutional right to not be executed without a trial? If I, as an American, go on vacation to Dubai and post a hateful message on youtube while there, does the president have the right to execute me just because I call him a racist name? I mean, if no evidence is required, no trial is required, no charges are required, etc. then the nature of the offense really doesn't matter either? Because technically the US government has not officially accused this American citizen that is now dead of anything as they never brought charges against him. Edit: And rep of course to Rhad for a rad article.
yeah, that's a great argument when you use terms like "execute" dude was killed on what has been defined as the field of battle.
What does the president have to do in order to be "at war" with an American citizen. If he doesn't have to prove anything, can any American citizen who is abroad be executed under the "at war" tagline with no right to scrutinize? If the president orders the execution of a private American contractor in Iraq, what recourse does his family have if the president simply says "we were at war with terror. We say this man is a terrorist and he was in a warzone. Drone strike is legal under these circumstances. We do not have to prove this to you." If this is the scope of executive power, enemies of presidents better watch where they travel.
obama never argued that drone attacks in countries where we are battling al quaida are unconstitutional. now if you want to argue if the war on terror should be strictly a law enforcement issue that's a different subject. but this is no different from killing bin laden.
Kill? Assassinate? Insert whatever word you want I guess. I didn't think "execute" added any bias personally. If you prefer kill, that works for me.
yeah, travel and umm you forgot, be leaders in a major terrorist organization whom we've been at war with for 10 years
