Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[High_Gravity]

and the penalties are as follows
sec. 2332. Criminal penalties

-statute-
(a) homicide. - whoever kills a national of the united states,
while such national is outside the united states, shall -
(1) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)),
be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for
any term of years or for life, or both;
(2) if the killing is a voluntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
(3) if the killing is an involuntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) attempt or conspiracy with respect to homicide. - whoever
outside the united states attempts to kill, or engages in a
conspiracy to kill, a national of the united states shall -
(1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a
murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to
commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111(a)
of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to
effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined
and so imprisoned.

(c) other conduct. - whoever outside the united states engages in
physical violence -
(1) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of
the united states; or
(2) with the result that serious bodily injury is caused to a
national of the united states;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(d) limitation on prosecution. - no prosecution for any offense
described in this section shall be undertaken by the united states
except on written certification of the attorney general or the
highest ranking subordinate of the attorney general with
responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of
the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce,
intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian
population.

so?

care to show where the penalty is death?

So?

 

[Liability]

And the penalties are as follows
Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties

-STATUTE-
(a) Homicide. - Whoever kills a national of the United States,
while such national is outside the United States, shall -
(1) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)),
be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for
any term of years or for life, or both;
(2) if the killing is a voluntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
(3) if the killing is an involuntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Attempt or Conspiracy With Respect to Homicide. - Whoever
outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a
conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States shall -
(1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a
murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to
commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111(a)
of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to
effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined
and so imprisoned.

(c) Other Conduct. - Whoever outside the United States engages in
physical violence -
(1) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of
the United States; or
(2) with the result that serious bodily injury is caused to a
national of the United States;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(d) Limitation on Prosecution. - No prosecution for any offense
described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States
except on written certification of the Attorney General or the
highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with
responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of
the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce,
intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian
population.

A crime comes with criminal penalties. I already acknowledged that it is a crime ALSO.

But by addressing that that crime comes with penalties, YOU are not addressing that it is ALSO an Act of War.

Accordingly, I'll repeat something:

Where the same conduct is BOTH a crime AND an Act of War, the Government's response is not necessarily limited to JUST the criminal law component. The government appears to be able (validly) to address the conduct EITHER as mere criminal behavior and then proceed accordingly (arrest, grand jury, indictment, lawyers, trial, etc.)

OR to go after the enemy combatant in the manner we often go after enemy combatants in time of war.

I guess I am failing to see why the government's response is or should be limited to "just" the more restrictive criminal law realm.

It didn't need to limit it to that. But it should have done that also. They could have gotten him without declaring him a target for assassination by targeting his companions while they dotted their criminal i's and dotted their criminal t's.

There were lots of ways to make him sweat - and to make him dead - without putting him on a formal death list when they didn't have the charges to back it up.

They should have worked on both - pursuing him and nailing down the best legal case they had. Instead they had to try extra hard to kill him not capture him because they knew they didn't have him on capital charges.

It is not AT ALL clear that we "could" have gotten al-Awlaki in any other way.

Nor is it at all clear that the cost to us of attempting to do so would have been justifiable.

It is also not at all clear that YOUR preference (i.e., that we "should" have used some OTHER method than the kill option that was chosen) is or ought to be binding on those who HAD the choice to make and who then MADE their selection.

 

[High_Gravity]

And the penalties are as follows
Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties

-STATUTE-
(a) Homicide. - Whoever kills a national of the United States,
while such national is outside the United States, shall -
(1) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)),
be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for
any term of years or for life, or both;
(2) if the killing is a voluntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
(3) if the killing is an involuntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Attempt or Conspiracy With Respect to Homicide. - Whoever
outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a
conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States shall -
(1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a
murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to
commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111(a)
of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to
effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined
and so imprisoned.

(c) Other Conduct. - Whoever outside the United States engages in
physical violence -
(1) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of
the United States; or
(2) with the result that serious bodily injury is caused to a
national of the United States;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(d) Limitation on Prosecution. - No prosecution for any offense
described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States
except on written certification of the Attorney General or the
highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with
responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of
the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce,
intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian
population.

So?

Well one "so" is ....

so that is why he needed to be killed and not captured. Because the sentences for the things the government said he was guilty of didn't come close to justifying the government's de facto death sentence, so they never wanted him to be seen in a court where they would have had to formalize their accusations against him.

Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list he could have turned himself in for a trial.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course. But terrorism is not JUST a criminal act. It is also an act of war by (in this case) the declared enemy and it is happening IN Time of War.

And the penalties are as follows
Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties

-STATUTE-
(a) Homicide. - Whoever kills a national of the United States,
while such national is outside the United States, shall -
(1) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)),
be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for
any term of years or for life, or both;
(2) if the killing is a voluntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
(3) if the killing is an involuntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Attempt or Conspiracy With Respect to Homicide. - Whoever
outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a
conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States shall -
(1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a
murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to
commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111(a)
of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to
effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined
and so imprisoned.

(c) Other Conduct. - Whoever outside the United States engages in
physical violence -
(1) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of
the United States; or
(2) with the result that serious bodily injury is caused to a
national of the United States;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(d) Limitation on Prosecution. - No prosecution for any offense
described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States
except on written certification of the Attorney General or the
highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with
responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of
the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce,
intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian
population.

A crime comes with criminal penalties. I already acknowledged that it is a crime ALSO.

But by addressing that that crime comes with penalties, YOU are not addressing that it is ALSO an Act of War.

Accordingly, I'll repeat something:

Where the same conduct is BOTH a crime AND an Act of War, the Government's response is not necessarily limited to JUST the criminal law component. The government appears to be able (validly) to address the conduct EITHER as mere criminal behavior and then proceed accordingly (arrest, grand jury, indictment, lawyers, trial, etc.)

OR to go after the enemy combatant in the manner we often go after enemy combatants in time of war.

I guess I am failing to see why the government's response is or should be limited to "just" the more restrictive criminal law realm.

What war? We also have a war on drugs gangbanggers who deal with drugs are also terrorist
(iv) section 1010A of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (relating to narco-terrorism).
United States Code: Title 18,2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Liability]

So?

Well one "so" is ....

so that is why he needed to be killed and not captured. Because the sentences for the things the government said he was guilty of didn't come close to justifying the government's de facto death sentence, so they never wanted him to be seen in a court where they would have had to formalize their accusations against him.

Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list he could have turned himself in for a trial.

Moreover, the fact that the possible sanction for the CRIME of terrorism (involving murder) is limited to a possible LIFE sentence does not lead to the conclusion that for the Act of War the penalty is not properly termination.

 

[Amelia]

A crime comes with criminal penalties. I already acknowledged that it is a crime ALSO.

But by addressing that that crime comes with penalties, YOU are not addressing that it is ALSO an Act of War.

Accordingly, I'll repeat something:

Where the same conduct is BOTH a crime AND an Act of War, the Government's response is not necessarily limited to JUST the criminal law component. The government appears to be able (validly) to address the conduct EITHER as mere criminal behavior and then proceed accordingly (arrest, grand jury, indictment, lawyers, trial, etc.)

OR to go after the enemy combatant in the manner we often go after enemy combatants in time of war.

I guess I am failing to see why the government's response is or should be limited to "just" the more restrictive criminal law realm.

It didn't need to limit it to that. But it should have done that also. They could have gotten him without declaring him a target for assassination by targeting his companions while they dotted their criminal i's and dotted their criminal t's.

There were lots of ways to make him sweat - and to make him dead - without putting him on a formal death list when they didn't have the charges to back it up.

They should have worked on both - pursuing him and nailing down the best legal case they had. Instead they had to try extra hard to kill him not capture him because they knew they didn't have him on capital charges.

It is not AT ALL clear that we "could" have gotten al-Awlaki in any other way.

Nor is it at all clear that the cost to us of attempting to do so would have been justifiable.

It is also not at all clear that YOUR preference (i.e., that we "should" have used some OTHER method than the kill option that was chosen) is or ought to be binding on those who HAD the choice to make and who then MADE their selection.

They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American. They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.

 

[Liability]

And the penalties are as follows
Sec. 2332. Criminal penalties

-STATUTE-
(a) Homicide. - Whoever kills a national of the United States,
while such national is outside the United States, shall -
(1) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)),
be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for
any term of years or for life, or both;
(2) if the killing is a voluntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
(3) if the killing is an involuntary manslaughter as defined in
section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Attempt or Conspiracy With Respect to Homicide. - Whoever
outside the United States attempts to kill, or engages in a
conspiracy to kill, a national of the United States shall -
(1) in the case of an attempt to commit a killing that is a
murder as defined in this chapter, be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(2) in the case of a conspiracy by two or more persons to
commit a killing that is a murder as defined in section 1111(a)
of this title, if one or more of such persons do any overt act to
effect the object of the conspiracy, be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both so fined
and so imprisoned.

(c) Other Conduct. - Whoever outside the United States engages in
physical violence -
(1) with intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of
the United States; or
(2) with the result that serious bodily injury is caused to a
national of the United States;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(d) Limitation on Prosecution. - No prosecution for any offense
described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States
except on written certification of the Attorney General or the
highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with
responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of
the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce,
intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian
population.

A crime comes with criminal penalties. I already acknowledged that it is a crime ALSO.

But by addressing that that crime comes with penalties, YOU are not addressing that it is ALSO an Act of War.

Accordingly, I'll repeat something:

Where the same conduct is BOTH a crime AND an Act of War, the Government's response is not necessarily limited to JUST the criminal law component. The government appears to be able (validly) to address the conduct EITHER as mere criminal behavior and then proceed accordingly (arrest, grand jury, indictment, lawyers, trial, etc.)

OR to go after the enemy combatant in the manner we often go after enemy combatants in time of war.

I guess I am failing to see why the government's response is or should be limited to "just" the more restrictive criminal law realm.

What war? We also have a war on drugs gangbanggers who deal with drugs are also terrorist
(iv) section 1010A of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (relating to narco-terrorism).
United States Code: Title 18,2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries | LII / Legal Information Institute

That's a tripe answer. The AUMF is a declaration of war. Lots of people "disagree" with that contention, but hat's also myopic crap, imho. Congress authorized the use of this Nation's military might. It's a damn declaration of war.

And the cheesy bullshit rhetoric that we sometimes use hyperbole to describe other social issues is quite unpersuasive. We have no ACTUAL war on poverty nor do we have an actual war on drugs. Our fighting forces have died in this war and lots and lots of our enemies have died, too.

There is no valid comparison between a war on poverty and a war against those responsible for the 9/11 2001 attacks.

 

[High_Gravity]

It didn't need to limit it to that. But it should have done that also. They could have gotten him without declaring him a target for assassination by targeting his companions while they dotted their criminal i's and dotted their criminal t's.

There were lots of ways to make him sweat - and to make him dead - without putting him on a formal death list when they didn't have the charges to back it up.

They should have worked on both - pursuing him and nailing down the best legal case they had. Instead they had to try extra hard to kill him not capture him because they knew they didn't have him on capital charges.

It is not AT ALL clear that we "could" have gotten al-Awlaki in any other way.

Nor is it at all clear that the cost to us of attempting to do so would have been justifiable.

It is also not at all clear that YOUR preference (i.e., that we "should" have used some OTHER method than the kill option that was chosen) is or ought to be binding on those who HAD the choice to make and who then MADE their selection.

They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American. They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.

Bullshit, even if they had done that you could still be here crying and complaining about as if Mother Teresa had died.

 

[Liability]

It didn't need to limit it to that. But it should have done that also. They could have gotten him without declaring him a target for assassination by targeting his companions while they dotted their criminal i's and dotted their criminal t's.

There were lots of ways to make him sweat - and to make him dead - without putting him on a formal death list when they didn't have the charges to back it up.

They should have worked on both - pursuing him and nailing down the best legal case they had. Instead they had to try extra hard to kill him not capture him because they knew they didn't have him on capital charges.

It is not AT ALL clear that we "could" have gotten al-Awlaki in any other way.

Nor is it at all clear that the cost to us of attempting to do so would have been justifiable.

It is also not at all clear that YOUR preference (i.e., that we "should" have used some OTHER method than the kill option that was chosen) is or ought to be binding on those who HAD the choice to make and who then MADE their selection.

They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American. They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.

They could have hopped on one leg. So what?

They were confronted with the potential for sanctioning a leader of our enemy in time of war. They made that call.

He brought it down on his own fucking head.

That YOU would have preferred the legal system is ok. But it's not controlling.

 

[Amelia]

So?

Well one "so" is ....

so that is why he needed to be killed and not captured. Because the sentences for the things the government said he was guilty of didn't come close to justifying the government's de facto death sentence, so they never wanted him to be seen in a court where they would have had to formalize their accusations against him.

Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list he could have turned himself in for a trial.

He was on an extermination list which was secret until someone in the media found out about it and leaked it.

There were no charges filed against him. Why would he turn himself over for trial if he didn't know about the list? and then later when he did know about the list but didn't know what the charges would be? and when he had no reason whatsoever to trust his life in the hands of someone who would put him on a secret hit list when in spite of them not having anything on him which would merit more than a few years in jail.

The U.S. gov't wanted him dead and that was that. Why would he turn himself over to such a gov't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A crime comes with criminal penalties. I already acknowledged that it is a crime ALSO.

But by addressing that that crime comes with penalties, YOU are not addressing that it is ALSO an Act of War.

Accordingly, I'll repeat something:

Where the same conduct is BOTH a crime AND an Act of War, the Government's response is not necessarily limited to JUST the criminal law component. The government appears to be able (validly) to address the conduct EITHER as mere criminal behavior and then proceed accordingly (arrest, grand jury, indictment, lawyers, trial, etc.)

OR to go after the enemy combatant in the manner we often go after enemy combatants in time of war.

I guess I am failing to see why the government's response is or should be limited to "just" the more restrictive criminal law realm.

What war? We also have a war on drugs gangbanggers who deal with drugs are also terrorist
(iv) section 1010A of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (relating to narco-terrorism).
United States Code: Title 18,2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries | LII / Legal Information Institute

That's a tripe answer. The AUMF is a declaration of war. Lots of people "disagree" with that contention, but hat's also myopic crap, imho. Congress authorized the use of this Nation's military might. It's a damn declaration of war.

And the cheesy bullshit rhetoric that we sometimes use hyperbole to describe other social issues is quite unpersuasive. We have no ACTUAL war on poverty nor do we have an actual war on drugs. Our fighting forces have died in this war and lots and lots of our enemies have died, too.

There is no valid comparison between a war on poverty and a war against those responsible for the 9/11 2001 attacks.

We have no congressional declearation of war. We haven't had one since World War 2

 

[Liability]

Well one "so" is ....

so that is why he needed to be killed and not captured. Because the sentences for the things the government said he was guilty of didn't come close to justifying the government's de facto death sentence, so they never wanted him to be seen in a court where they would have had to formalize their accusations against him.

Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list he could have turned himself in for a trial.

He was on an extermination list which was secret until someone in the media found out about it and leaked it.

There were no charges filed against him. Why would he turn himself over for trial if he didn't know about the list? and then later when he did know about the list but didn't know what the charges would be? and when he had no reason whatsoever to trust his life in the hands of someone who would put him on a secret hit list when in spite of them not having anything on him which would merit more than a few years in jail.

The U.S. gov't wanted him dead and that was that. Why would he turn himself over to such a gov't.

He was a leader of the enemy at war with us. He made that choice. Why shouldn't he have been one of the enemies we seek to terminate in war?

 

[Amelia]

It is not AT ALL clear that we "could" have gotten al-Awlaki in any other way.

Nor is it at all clear that the cost to us of attempting to do so would have been justifiable.

It is also not at all clear that YOUR preference (i.e., that we "should" have used some OTHER method than the kill option that was chosen) is or ought to be binding on those who HAD the choice to make and who then MADE their selection.

They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American. They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.

They could have hopped on one leg. So what?

They were confronted with the potential for sanctioning a leader of our enemy in time of war. They made that call.

He brought it down on his own fucking head.

That YOU would have preferred the legal system is ok. But it's not controlling.

I didn't prefer the legal system. I want both. As an American citizen he was entitled to due process and he did not get it.

Our government took the easy way out because they didn't have anything they could pin on him but they wanted him dead.




Okay ... I knew this would happen.


I'm really really really done with this. I have to be. Gonna walk away until I can control my impulse to jump in and express my disgust with people who are okay with our gov't killing its citizens when they don't have charges to bring against them.

 

[Liability]

What war? We also have a war on drugs gangbanggers who deal with drugs are also terrorist
(iv) section 1010A of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (relating to narco-terrorism).
United States Code: Title 18,2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries | LII / Legal Information Institute

That's a tripe answer. The AUMF is a declaration of war. Lots of people "disagree" with that contention, but hat's also myopic crap, imho. Congress authorized the use of this Nation's military might. It's a damn declaration of war.

And the cheesy bullshit rhetoric that we sometimes use hyperbole to describe other social issues is quite unpersuasive. We have no ACTUAL war on poverty nor do we have an actual war on drugs. Our fighting forces have died in this war and lots and lots of our enemies have died, too.

There is no valid comparison between a war on poverty and a war against those responsible for the 9/11 2001 attacks.

We have no congressional declearation of war. We haven't had one since World War 2

NONSENSE.

The AUMF is a declaration of war.

The Constitution does not prescribe any particular phraseology. What it COMMANDS is that it must be Congress that authorizes the use of the nation's military might. Congress did so.

YOU might prefer that it say "We hereby Declare War." But the Constitution doesn't require that your preference be satisfied.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well one "so" is ....

so that is why he needed to be killed and not captured. Because the sentences for the things the government said he was guilty of didn't come close to justifying the government's de facto death sentence, so they never wanted him to be seen in a court where they would have had to formalize their accusations against him.

Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list he could have turned himself in for a trial.

He was on an extermination list which was secret until someone in the media found out about it and leaked it.

There were no charges filed against him. Why would he turn himself over for trial if he didn't know about the list? and then later when he did know about the list but didn't know what the charges would be? and when he had no reason whatsoever to trust his life in the hands of someone who would put him on a secret hit list when in spite of them not having anything on him which would merit more than a few years in jail.

The U.S. gov't wanted him dead and that was that. Why would he turn himself over to such a gov't.

Rubbish he was on the most wanted list, he could have turned himself in.

 

[High_Gravity]

They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American. They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.

They could have hopped on one leg. So what?

They were confronted with the potential for sanctioning a leader of our enemy in time of war. They made that call.

He brought it down on his own fucking head.

That YOU would have preferred the legal system is ok. But it's not controlling.

I didn't prefer the legal system. I want both. As an American citizen he was entitled to due process and he did not get it.

Our government took the easy way out because they didn't have anything they could pin on him but they wanted him dead.




Okay ... I knew this would happen.


I'm really really really done with this. I have to be. Gonna walk away until I can control my impulse to jump in and express my disgust with people who are okay with our gov't killing its citizens when they don't have charges to bring against them.

Rubbish, he was on the most wanted list, he could have turned himself in to the US Embassy in Yemen and recieved due process.

 

[NoNukes]

They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American. They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.

They could have hopped on one leg. So what?

They were confronted with the potential for sanctioning a leader of our enemy in time of war. They made that call.

He brought it down on his own fucking head.

That YOU would have preferred the legal system is ok. But it's not controlling.

I didn't prefer the legal system. I want both. As an American citizen he was entitled to due process and he did not get it.

Our government took the easy way out because they didn't have anything they could pin on him but they wanted him dead.




Okay ... I knew this would happen.


I'm really really really done with this. I have to be. Gonna walk away until I can control my impulse to jump in and express my disgust with people who are okay with our gov't killing its citizens when they don't have charges to bring against them.

How would they have gone about bringing him back for trial?

 

[High_Gravity]

They could have hopped on one leg. So what?

They were confronted with the potential for sanctioning a leader of our enemy in time of war. They made that call.

He brought it down on his own fucking head.

That YOU would have preferred the legal system is ok. But it's not controlling.

I didn't prefer the legal system. I want both. As an American citizen he was entitled to due process and he did not get it.

Our government took the easy way out because they didn't have anything they could pin on him but they wanted him dead.




Okay ... I knew this would happen.


I'm really really really done with this. I have to be. Gonna walk away until I can control my impulse to jump in and express my disgust with people who are okay with our gov't killing its citizens when they don't have charges to bring against them.

How would they have gone about bringing him back for trial?

I would like to know the answer to this myself, people make it sound so easy.

 

[NoNukes]

I didn't prefer the legal system. I want both. As an American citizen he was entitled to due process and he did not get it.

Our government took the easy way out because they didn't have anything they could pin on him but they wanted him dead.




Okay ... I knew this would happen.


I'm really really really done with this. I have to be. Gonna walk away until I can control my impulse to jump in and express my disgust with people who are okay with our gov't killing its citizens when they don't have charges to bring against them.

How would they have gone about bringing him back for trial?

I would like to know the answer to this myself, people make it sound so easy.

If they could have captured him, they probably would have brought him back for trial.

 

[Liability]

They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for his companion - the one who wasn't an American. They could have put the drone strike on his car and said it was for a high value target.

They could have done this without explicitly declaring him an assassination target without having evidence that he committed anything worse than exercising his right to free speech.


My preference is that they have to answer for this in court to put the fear of We the People into the next official who would put an American citizen on a hitlist without having any significant charges to bring against him.



Ergo my hope that the ACLU and Awlaki's father will continue to pursue this.

They could have hopped on one leg. So what?

They were confronted with the potential for sanctioning a leader of our enemy in time of war. They made that call.

He brought it down on his own fucking head.

That YOU would have preferred the legal system is ok. But it's not controlling.

I didn't prefer the legal system. I want both. As an American citizen he was entitled to due process and he did not get it.

Our government took the easy way out because they didn't have anything they could pin on him but they wanted him dead.




Okay ... I knew this would happen.


I'm really really really done with this. I have to be. Gonna walk away until I can control my impulse to jump in and express my disgust with people who are okay with our gov't killing its citizens when they don't have charges to bring against them.

No no. Don't waffle on it now. You stated your preference. And that ex[pressed preference was for the legal system option.

Again, terrorist behavior is BOTH a crime and an Act of War. This presents the Government with a CHOICE. They MAY if they are so advised treat it as (exclusively or mostly) a criminal act worthy of criminal prosecution.

Alternatively, they can treat it as the act of war it (also) is.

If they made the choice to treat his case as primarily constituting the waging of war against us in time of war, then their decision is a military choice or a national security choice or both.

They MADE that choice and you cannot state a single solitary principled reason why they should not have been permitted to make that choice or to make the decision in the very way they ultimately did.