Wow.... where did all the Republican's go claiming that Obama was not tough on terrorism or national defense.... He is making Bush and Reagan look like Jimmy Carter.
What does "brought to justice" mean to you? I used to think "go to prison" because that's what we've accepted growing up as a society, but I remember reading many years ago that prison used to just be a temporary holding location until the proper form of punishment was decided. I'm not sure of what a just punishment is.
To me, it meant brought in front of a court of law and adjudicated by a jury of their peers according to our laws. If you're asking me what their sentencing should be, that's an entirely separate discussion, and I agree with you that the prison system needs revisiting and overhaul.
This thread is disturbing. I can't believe that people are so quick to justify criminal behavior in this sort of disgusting show of patriotic nationalism. We call ourselves a nation of laws, but completely disregard the government's lawless actions. And then we beg them to protect us from the rich who are destroying the middle class by rigging the financial system in their favor and profiteering from overseas wars. And people here are completely alright with it! Just so long as we're destroying the enemy they created for us to hate. A very sad state of affairs.
By the way, my family and friends who've died in terrorist attacks have been victim of them in Pakistan, and I'm not entirely sure the details of their justice system....
I don't have a problem with the assassination. Just spare me the farce of pretending to be a peaceful society. It's 4:30 and I'm still not a nationalist. I'll update you when the day is over.
Just read through this thread and unfortunately being overseas and not able to follow the news much this is the first I heard of Awlaki being killed. Some great post by Sam Fisher, Juan Valdez and Jeopardee. What I think a lot of you are mixing up is the police action versus military action and while these often overlap there is a distinction. For example a cop pursuing a suspect on a US street can't just shoot them while a soldier on a battlefield can shoot an enemy and is even expected to shoot the enemy. As others have noted there is a key distinction regarding where the events take place and who is carrying out the action. The underwear bomber was apprehended on US soil in a police action while Osama Bin Ladin was killed in a military action on foreign soil. Why those are different is because the US Congress has authorized military action against Al Qaeda. Awlaki as a member of Al Qaeda or ally of Al Qaeda, is a legitimate military target especially while acting on foreign soil. Regarding his US citizenship as others have pointed out that doesn't matter that much for two reasons. One, the due process protections of the Constitution are not so much rights granted to US citizens but limitations on the US government to all people. A foreigner caught on US soil breaking the law is entitled to those rights as much as a US citizen, conversely a US citizen caught breaking laws in another country are not granted those rights since the are limitations on the US government. Second, in the case of war a US citizen taking up arms in service of a declared enemy is still an enemy and will be treated as such. If I recall correctly there were a few cases in WWII of German Americans who fought for Nazi Germany and were treated as German soldiers not criminal US citizens. I agree this leads to a slippery slope regarding where and how you distinguish combatants versus criminals and we've been dealing with that for the last 10 years already but nothing that I have read so far convince me that assassinating Awlaki wasn't legal.
I am not sure how the assassination of Awlaki has much to do with protecting the middle class from the rich. Leaving that aside though I am curious since you have immediately branded this as criminal behavior in your opinion then is there any situation where assassination by the US government is legal?
Even though I disagree, this is really an excellent post and makes the argument for assassinating Awlaki as strong as any post I've read in this thread. That said, I do have a few objections to the argument laid out, namely: -There's a difference between guaranteeing someone his rights and affording it to them as a standard. In your analogy, the mass murderer was resisting arrest which required additional uses of force; it is for this reason that I dont critique Bin Laden's killing the same way I do Awlaki's, as Bin Laden was reportedly armed and fighting at the time of his killing. Awlaki, on the other hand, was reportedly driving in a car. If Awlaki was fighting or on the battlefield, I think you'd find few to no opponents. -The fundamental issue here is the power of the president to label individuals as enemy combatants and order assassinations on them irrespective of their activities or due process. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, our intelligence has been questionable on many occasions, and has contributed to major decisions that we've later come to regret (see Iraq). Many prisoners detained in Gitmo were later released without charges while others were accused, and the power of the legal system and the rule of law in this society is a large part of what defines us as a nation, and what separates civil society from vigilante justice. That we've grown so accustomed to vigilante justice as a form of retribution speaks volumes about who we've become. -I cant help but wonder to what extent this same behavior would be tolerated in the hands of a republican presidency. Would you trust George Bush to label US Citizens as enemy combatants and to assassinate them wherever they're found, no matter what they're doing? -I doubt there would be any sovereignty issues, especially when the Yemeni president has already granted the US unrestricted access to prosecute the war on terror on their soil. Not only has the US regularly exercised extra-territorial rights, but we absolutely have an interest in protecting his rights, if for nothing else than the fact that they're rights we hold value in. -At some point we're going to have to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask who we've become over the last ten years. We've accepted illegal wiretapping, torture, extraordinary renditioning, Guantanamo bay, numerous violations of civil rights and civil liberties (the ACLU recently did a ten year report on this very topic), a military industry that grows virtually unchecked and now a president who orders assassinations on US Citizens suspected of militancy. In the war on terror, hundreds of thousands have been killed, and there doesnt appear to be a long term objective beyond more fighting and killing.... It's been 10 years since 9/11. In those ten years, there have been approximately 140,000 murders committed in the US. Of them, less than three dozen have been victim of Islamist terrorism. The WHO reports that 150,000 people die worldwide daily, and of those fatalities, Islamist militants account for less than 50 a day, and the bulk of their activity remains in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Outside of those three countries they account for less than 10 murders a day. Dont get me wrong- terrorism is real, and is a concern that the government should take seriously. But at some point we have to move on, begin to invest more in humanitarian aid and less in foreign military expeditions, the 'battle of hearts and minds' has to be more than simple sloganeering, and at some point, yes, we have to return to the rule of law.
Let's see.....how many civilian casualties have we inflicted upon all the countries we "visited" recently again? I guess you are perfectly cool with the family and friends of those victims exacting revenge on American troops and civilians?
I'm not going to argue if killing him was justified or not but wouldn't it be beneficial to the US if they captured the guy instead? I don't know all the details if he was not able to be taken into custody and had to be killed on the spot, but I would think we could squeeze a bit more information out of him regarding his extremist buddies and their whereabouts along with any future planned attacks if we had him alive.
I can understand this reasoning. But I have a few issues with it. Firstly, there is only circumstantial evidence against this guy (based on what has been released to the public). He exchanged some emails with the Ft. Hood shooter, but he was never found to be the planner of that attack. Also, the New York bomber Shazad said he was inspired by Anwar Awlaki but again he wasn't found to be the planner. The underwear bomber was said to be a 'student' of this guy, but what does that mean (does watching youtube videos of Anwar mean you are a student)? Don't get it wrong, this guy is no angel, I believe he called the Ft. Hood shooter a hero and has spewed a lot of violent rhetoric. Now I don't think there is an actual group called Al-Queida, its an ideology. So given this, should every person who spews this rhetoric be killed as an enemy combatant of the US? Go to any rally in Pakistan or even some in Britain they have some elements of this crap. Should a drone bomb kill these people? Secondly, once you've opened these can of worms, when someone like Republican president hopeful Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann gets elected, how will they treat this license to kill.
I would seriously consider voting Obama if he can turn the economy around. He has not pandered to far left ideology on gun rights or security. He is making decisions more like a Truman and less like a Carter...I like that a bunch..I have never truly disliked Obama, but he has got to help the economy turn tho - that wil be his downfall if anything.
That is a monumental task, the economy needs serious cuts in spending from the goverment, primarily defense. DD
Somewhere back in 2008 I posted that Democrat presidents have never failed to kill their fair share of brown people. If anything they do it so as not to appear internationally soft. Also since this is a reply to Roxran, The Daily show had a piece on last week (and for some reason it is not posted to the site) showing the head of the NRA saying that Obama is conspiring against gun owners by laying off gun control (actually getting straight F's from the Brady Campaign) until he gets re-elected and then taking all their guns away. It was hilarious and should be posted in the Republican Nuttery thread... but I couldn't find it.
