Eliminating The Confusion Americans Have About al-Awlaki

[CT9]

It's a slippery slope isn't it, to kill someone who might be plotting mass violence on Americans anywhere in the world. It should give us pause to consider the ramifications of allowing our gov't to determine who lives and dies without the benefit of a trial. Where does that trail lead us?

I'm all for preventing mass casualties, but I don't know of alternatives to prevent atrocities. If capture and trial are really not feasible, should we not have at least covert congressional approval before somebody is targeted? Seems to me that the individual's citizenship takes a back seat to the loss of life that inactivity could result in, American citizenship shouldn't be used as a defense against detection and elimination of a serious terrorist threat.

How do we balance individual rights and freedoms against lives lost? It may well be that Iran develops nuclear weapons int he next few years, and they or the North Koreans or somebody else sells them to some nutjob group of fanatics. What if a hundreds of thouands of lives are at stake, is it better to be safe than sorry? Does it really matter what nationality those nutjobs are?

I agree, I'm fine with taking someone out who has and will kill people. With that said, granted I'm not going into deep research because I have more important things to take care of but the only things I can find him accused of is "radicalizing" the underwear bomber and others. I'm not sure if that constitutes to deserving to be killed, I haven't read any thing of his but I don't recall KKK members and other people who spew insanity being killed. Nor am I sure do they deserve that fate until they begin to act on carrying out harm on others, not waiting until they do so, but until it is known they are moving in that direction.

It is a slippery slope argument I'm making but at the same time it has its merit. All I would have wanted is that we go through the proceedings... The Judge should have heard this and made the government making a case. His nationality is important when he can be looked to as a precedent for you, me or other citizens facing the same thing. This is a concern to me and I have every right to be concerned over it. It is a horrible precedent we have set...

I'm not saying it's a problem now, but you do realize now the president can throw anybody on to a terrorist list, and once you are on that you are open season. It is now because of this judge, not open to appeal. You are on the kill list or you are not and it all comes down to one man. This is ridiculous and this isn't how the country was framed, if you are fine with trampling over all of that for "security" I suggest you read up on those who founded the country.

Nothing happens over night... Look at the growth in powers of the Federal government, it happened slowly but surely and now look at where we are at. Look at the growth of power in the executive branch, executive orders now can declare war pretty much. Whether you think it is for better or worse these changes happened, the fact that changes have happened slowly over time is undeniable. This didn't happen yesterday, it didn't just happen under Bush, it is a path. You need to look past what is going to happen tomorrow because we can't bring al awlaki back and say oh we didn't mean all that. The President owns that power now, whether we like it or not.

I just don't understand how one could say the man wasn't denied due process in the most drastic form. The difference between him and other terrorist is he is an American citizen and what happens with his citizenship affects all of ours. It is not the fact that we killed him that bothers a lot of people, but the manner in which it came to fruition.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's a slippery slope isn't it, to kill someone who might be plotting mass violence on Americans anywhere in the world. It should give us pause to consider the ramifications of allowing our gov't to determine who lives and dies without the benefit of a trial. Where does that trail lead us?

I'm all for preventing mass casualties, but I don't know of alternatives to prevent atrocities. If capture and trial are really not feasible, should we not have at least covert congressional approval before somebody is targeted? Seems to me that the individual's citizenship takes a back seat to the loss of life that inactivity could result in, American citizenship shouldn't be used as a defense against detection and elimination of a serious terrorist threat.

How do we balance individual rights and freedoms against lives lost? It may well be that Iran develops nuclear weapons int he next few years, and they or the North Koreans or somebody else sells them to some nutjob group of fanatics. What if a hundreds of thouands of lives are at stake, is it better to be safe than sorry? Does it really matter what nationality those nutjobs are?

Update:

Apparently there is a secret panel of senior gov't officials who make the call for who gets put on the "kill" list. No laws are in place to say who makes up the panel or how they decide who gets killed, nor is Congress kept in the loop as far as I know.

Why shouldn't such actions be authorized by law, and with some Congressional knowledge if not approval? I don't have a problem with targeting known terrorist camps with drone missiles, but a license to kill ala 007 maybe should be controlled more than it is now.


Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' - Yahoo! News

 

[Oddball]

How Orwellian.