Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"Obama supporters (and the conservatives who not coincidentally support him only in his Bush-replicating approach to the war on terror) who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.
For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law."
To accept the word of the president - when he expressly offers no evidence and says it fact any evidence is legally blocked from being seen - on trust alone that someone is a terrorist is to ignore the fact that of of all the people held as terrorists at Gitmo over the last decade, over 70% were found to be not guilty of terrorism - the government's claims were found to be wrong when they had to stand up to even the most meager of judicial reviews - and released. The government has shown they are more often wrong than right when it comes to decreeing that someone is a terrorists, yet there is a considerable faction who, seemingly unaffected by external stimuli, continue to invest absolute trust and assume total accuracy every time the government makes that decree.
"If the president says he's a terrorist, he's a terrorist." Period, full stop, that's all you need. Revealingly, this level of childlike belief in the infallibility of the president only extends to when he wants to kill, imprison, or torture Muslims. When the president says something positive about the economy or health care or his new policy, we all correctly remain skeptical and want to see the evidence ourselves to determine its veracity. Regardless of our political biases, nearly everyone living has come to recognize that politicians often lie and are often wrong and what they say should not reflexively be taken at face value. For some reason though, for a considerable portion of people (authoritarians) this sensible skepticism does not apply to matters of defense, no matter how many times the facts eventually demonstrate the government is wrong as a matter of routine. These people are now willing to have someone murdered far from any battlefield or war zone and not engaged in any hostile actions, merely because the president in the tone of pure dictator or king, has decreed it. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" be damned. Invoke the word "terrorism" and they'll line up behind whatever you say or do, even while clinging to being self-professed "Constitutionalists."
A simple question for those who see no problem in vesting this power in a single man without any outside checks, verification, adjudication, or accountability: If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do?
^ FALSE POST, Quentin.
Anybody with a functioning brain can easily and readily see for themselves that Alawki HAS done exactly what it is claimed he has done --
because he has spread his filth on video and the videos are readily available.
Thus, CONTRARY to the article's meaningless and bogus contention that supporters support this effort "without having the slightest idea whether [the allegations about guys like Alawki] actually true . . ." all of us can know with certainty that they ARE true.
By the way, what the fuck do you imagine stops any President in our nation's history form doing some of these things in some irresponsible, willy-nilly fashion? This government has to invoke State Secret principles in Court precisely because it has zero capacity to keep secrets in the first place. Do you really (honestly?!?) think that if President Obama wanted to kill a political enemy for illegitimate reasons he wouldn't get ratted out within moments of trying to issue such an order?
Because we are a nation of laws, in your silly view of what that means, such an illegal CITIZEN combatant doesn't get killed like other "soldiers" would.
Illegal citizen combatant? More fun with names!
No no. According to your sophomoronic view of the world, the citizen-enemy who wages actual war against us is deserving of special treatment.
no, he is deserving of equal treatment....even if he's muslim!
not by God, by the constitution.
In fact, you evidently might be shocked to realize that spies and saboteurs have ALWAYS been subject to summary execution when caught in the act. In WWII, interestingly enough, several Nazi fucks were captured and given a summary Military Tribunal. The President reviewed the proceedings -- the "review" took about three days -- and, for some of them, old FDR signed off on their executions.
Interesting. So, they faced a military tribunal. So you support this guy facing a military tribunal? Oh wait, no you don't.
Guys like you have no ability to handle a simple truth.
"Guys" like you would sell your freedom like a cheap whore if it meant you could stop pissing yourself every time the government scared you. Do you have to wear a Depends when the threat level goes to Orange?
We elect him to follow the processes laid out in the constitution for making decisions.The president of course. That is why we elect him. TO MAKE DECISIONS.
So you don't mind handing the president the exclusive authority to call for the head of a US citizen?
You don't see how that authority might be extra-constitutional and easily abused? Lest we forget, the president may one day chose to target someone you like instead of someone you hate.
Yes I would mind him calling for the head of a Citizen. We are not talking about Citizens here.
You persist in stupidity. It's a most unbecoming trait. You need to smarten up. Maybe get some fish oil into your system or something.
No. He is deserving of ONLY the treatment an illegal enemy combatant deserves. And assholes like enemy spies and saboteurs have LONG been subject to summary execution.
In THIS Republic, after such a scumbag is captured, we accord them a military tribunal. That's nice. Not necessarily a requirement, but nice all the same. Do you happen to have personal knowledge of whether (or not) Alawki has already had his acts subjected to such a military review?
From the article linked in the OP:
Anwar al-Awlaki....
He's said to be on a U.S. list that approves death or capture of key terrorist suspects. The 39-year-old's placement on the list in April made him the first U.S. citizen to land on the CIA targeted kill list.
The lawsuit also aimed to block the assassination green light against al-Awlaki, and compel the U.S. government to disclose the guidelines for putting a U.S. citizen on such a list.
Well then I have a big problem with it.
Really? Why? An American citizen waging war against the United States is somehow entitled to a "trial" instead of being treated like an enemy soldier (of the illegal combatant variety or otherwise)? Let's go to a hypothetical scenario:
Person "A" has a nuclear weapon which he has somehow smuggled into the borders of mainland USA. "A" has a plan (replete with co-conspirators who are actively attempting to help him put the plan into prompt effect). His "plan" is to detonate the nuclear weapon in an American city in order to kill as many American civilians as possible in one "spectacular" terrorist act and in order to throw the entire Republic into chaos. But, through excellent intelligence and law enforcement work (including the use of the NSA Surveillance Program and various tools associated with the USA PATRIOT Act), and by virtue, too, of just a bit of good luck, the plot is uncovered in time. "A" is spotted with the nuclear device AS it is BEING armed by him!
Should our responding intelligence assets/military assets/law enforcement assets
(A) shoot the fucker immediately?
(B) risk the delay, and try to "arrest" him?
or
(C) seek the "permission" of a Court of law to do either (a) or (b)?
Now, here's the kicker. Does the ANSWER to that question depend upon whether or not "A" is a United States citizen? If so, why?
You persist in stupidity. It's a most unbecoming trait. You need to smarten up. Maybe get some fish oil into your system or something.
No. He is deserving of ONLY the treatment an illegal enemy combatant deserves. And assholes like enemy spies and saboteurs have LONG been subject to summary execution.
So does he deserve that military tribunal you speak of or not?
In THIS Republic, after such a scumbag is captured, we accord them a military tribunal. That's nice. Not necessarily a requirement, but nice all the same. Do you happen to have personal knowledge of whether (or not) Alawki has already had his acts subjected to such a military review?
No, it's top secret, remember!? Only the people who want the right to murder him are allowed to know what right they have to murder him.
"Obama supporters (and the conservatives who not coincidentally support him only in his Bush-replicating approach to the war on terror) who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.
For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law."
To accept the word of the president - when he expressly offers no evidence and says in fact any evidence is legally blocked from being seen - on trust alone that someone is a terrorist is to ignore the fact that of of all the people held as terrorists at Gitmo over the last decade, over 70% were found to be not guilty of terrorism - the government's claims were found to be wrong when they had to stand up to even the most meager of judicial reviews - and released. The government has shown they are more often wrong than right when it comes to decreeing that someone is a terrorist, yet there is a considerable faction who, seemingly unaffected by external stimuli and immune to learning from these mistakes, continue to invest absolute trust and assume total accuracy every time the government makes that decree.
"If the president says he's a terrorist, he's a terrorist." Period, full stop, that's all you need. Revealingly, this level of childlike belief in the infallibility of the president only extends to when he wants to kill, imprison, or torture Muslims. When the president says something positive about the economy or health care or his new policy, we all correctly remain skeptical and want to see the evidence ourselves to determine its veracity. Regardless of our political biases, nearly everyone living has come to recognize that politicians often lie and are often wrong and what they say should not reflexively be taken at face value. For some reason though, for a considerable portion of people (authoritarians) this sensible skepticism does not apply to matters of defense, no matter how many times the facts eventually demonstrate the government is wrong as a matter of routine. These people are now willing to have someone murdered far from any battlefield or war zone and not engaged in any hostile actions, merely because the president in the tone of pure dictator or king, has decreed it. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" be damned. Invoke the word "terrorism" and they'll line up behind whatever you say or do, even while clinging to being self-professed "Constitutionalists."
A simple question for those who see no problem in vesting this power in a single man without any outside checks, verification, adjudication, or accountability: If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do?
Well then I have a big problem with it.
Really? Why? An American citizen waging war against the United States is somehow entitled to a "trial" instead of being treated like an enemy soldier (of the illegal combatant variety or otherwise)? Let's go to a hypothetical scenario:
Person "A" has a nuclear weapon which he has somehow smuggled into the borders of mainland USA. "A" has a plan (replete with co-conspirators who are actively attempting to help him put the plan into prompt effect). His "plan" is to detonate the nuclear weapon in an American city in order to kill as many American civilians as possible in one "spectacular" terrorist act and in order to throw the entire Republic into chaos. But, through excellent intelligence and law enforcement work (including the use of the NSA Surveillance Program and various tools associated with the USA PATRIOT Act), and by virtue, too, of just a bit of good luck, the plot is uncovered in time. "A" is spotted with the nuclear device AS it is BEING armed by him!
Should our responding intelligence assets/military assets/law enforcement assets
(A) shoot the fucker immediately?
(B) risk the delay, and try to "arrest" him?
or
(C) seek the "permission" of a Court of law to do either (a) or (b)?
Now, here's the kicker. Does the ANSWER to that question depend upon whether or not "A" is a United States citizen? If so, why?
You do not need any new power in the POTUS for this scenario, Liability. Any cop in the country could shoot to kill on these facts -- defense of another, self-defense, reasonable force, blah blah blah.
The scenario in which you need a new power is more like: Joe Terrorist, an Indianapolis resident and citizen of the US, has some old nuclear reactor fuel. On Tuesday, he'll be meeting Suzie Dictator to sell it. Suzie plans to use it to blow up Toledo.
Can the POTUS order the CIA to shoot to kill both Joe (the citizen) and Suzie (the non-citizen, possibly an enemy combatant -- certainly, an enemy)? What if they plan to meet in Toledo?
Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death. Those people cannot be trusted on anything in the future. And you know who these people are on this board. However i really do appreciate all those who were honest & consistent in their stands on this tough issue. We may not agree but at least you were honest. Thanks.
"Obama supporters (and the conservatives who not coincidentally support him only in his Bush-replicating approach to the war on terror) who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true. All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them. That's the authoritarian mind, by definition: if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.
For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution (the document which these same Obama supporters pretended to care about during the Bush years) provides that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Treason is a crime that the Constitution specifically requires be proven with due process in court, not by unilateral presidential decree. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the same document -- the Constitution -- expressly forbids the deprivation of life "without due process of law."
To accept the word of the president - when he expressly offers no evidence and says in fact any evidence is legally blocked from being seen - on trust alone that someone is a terrorist is to ignore the fact that of of all the people held as terrorists at Gitmo over the last decade, over 70% were found to be not guilty of terrorism - the government's claims were found to be wrong when they had to stand up to even the most meager of judicial reviews - and released. The government has shown they are more often wrong than right when it comes to decreeing that someone is a terrorist, yet there is a considerable faction who, seemingly unaffected by external stimuli and immune to learning from these mistakes, continue to invest absolute trust and assume total accuracy every time the government makes that decree.
"If the president says he's a terrorist, he's a terrorist." Period, full stop, that's all you need. Revealingly, this level of childlike belief in the infallibility of the president only extends to when he wants to kill, imprison, or torture Muslims. When the president says something positive about the economy or health care or his new policy, we all correctly remain skeptical and want to see the evidence ourselves to determine its veracity. Regardless of our political biases, nearly everyone living has come to recognize that politicians often lie and are often wrong and what they say should not reflexively be taken at face value. For some reason though, for a considerable portion of people (authoritarians) this sensible skepticism does not apply to matters of defense, no matter how many times the facts eventually demonstrate the government is wrong as a matter of routine. These people are now willing to have someone murdered far from any battlefield or war zone and not engaged in any hostile actions, merely because the president in the tone of pure dictator or king, has decreed it. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" be damned. Invoke the word "terrorism" and they'll line up behind whatever you say or do, even while clinging to being self-professed "Constitutionalists."
A simple question for those who see no problem in vesting this power in a single man without any outside checks, verification, adjudication, or accountability: If the President has the power to order American citizens killed with no due process, and to do so in such complete secrecy that no courts can even review his decisions, then what doesn't he have the power to do?
Quentin, why couldn't there be a judicial or legislative hearing after the execution? If the POTUS abused his power, impeach him/convict him of murder/whatnot. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than nothing.
Once the danger has passed, what further need is there for secrecy?
Alice in Wonderland said:"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterward."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
Liability, your examples are markedly, tellingly, different than this case.
Spies who landed on US soil and were captured and given a military tribunal, or someone caught in the act of arming a nuclear weapon, are not remotely similar to this case where only "secret evidence" the government claims no one, not even a judge, can ever see establish that someone is committing violent terrorist acts. All that is known about Awlaki based on evidence provided is that he's a religious figure preaching radicalism, which is neither a crime nor something that can legally justify murder.
If he were killed on any battlefield or while engaged in any violence against Americans, there is no doubt the government has a right to kill him then, as they have the right to kill anyone doing the same in the same.
This situation is one of killing him very far from any battlefield, while sleeping in his home or traveling or wherever it is the government can track him down and assassinating him based on the claim that he's engaged in those acts and the only evidence that supports that claim is being hidden. The Germans killed in WWII were not killed based on an unknown secret nor would your absurd 24 cliche terrorist mastermind example, in this case Awlaki would be and it requires a blind faith in the government whose only assertion of proof is "trust us" which for some reason you're willing to do.
Yes this is a very dangerous and controversial decision. I just find it sad that so many here who would be ripping DA BOOOOOSH or any Republican 24/7 over this kind of decision,are now so quick to cheerlead for their guy's decision to target an American Citizen for death. Those people cannot be trusted on anything in the future. And you know who these people are on this board. However i really do appreciate all those who were honest & consistent in their stands on this tough issue. We may not agree but at least you were honest. Thanks.
Blah blah blah...find a post of mine where I criticize Bush for any such acts and we can talk. Besides, nobody thinks Obama will be POTUS forever. Do you think we lack the wits to imagine a president from a different party?
You strike me as completely hypocritical, LibocalypseNow. I'd be willing to bet you're a blood-thirsty fuck but you just could not pass up an opportunity to play the partisan hack on this (or any other) thread.
White House invokes state secrets privilege to block targeted killings suit - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Pretty interesting and controversial issue. This White House has targeted known Terrorist and U.S. Citizen Anwar Awlaki for death or capture. This policy is now being challenged in court. So how do you feel about this White House targeting an American Citizen for death? I'm interested in hearing what people think about this. Thanks.
You persist in stupidity. It's a most unbecoming trait. You need to smarten up. Maybe get some fish oil into your system or something.
No. He is deserving of ONLY the treatment an illegal enemy combatant deserves. And assholes like enemy spies and saboteurs have LONG been subject to summary execution.
So does he deserve that military tribunal you speak of or not?
In THIS Republic, after such a scumbag is captured, we accord them a military tribunal. That's nice. Not necessarily a requirement, but nice all the same. Do you happen to have personal knowledge of whether (or not) Alawki has already had his acts subjected to such a military review?
No, it's top secret, remember!? Only the people who want the right to murder him are allowed to know what right they have to murder him.
Ah. So the difference is merely one of timing to you?
For if a military tribunal were held AFTER a shitheel is captured and sentenced to be executed, that too would be a secret.
Liability, your examples are markedly, tellingly, different than this case.
Spies who landed on US soil and were captured and given a military tribunal, or someone caught in the act of arming a nuclear weapon, are not remotely similar to this case where only "secret evidence" the government claims no one, not even a judge, can ever see establish that someone is committing violent terrorist acts. All that is known about Awlaki based on evidence provided is that he's a religious figure preaching radicalism, which is neither a crime nor something that can legally justify murder.
If he were killed on any battlefield or while engaged in any violence against Americans, there is no doubt the government has a right to kill him then, as they have the right to kill anyone doing the same in the same.
This situation is one of killing him very far from any battlefield, while sleeping in his home or traveling or wherever it is the government can track him down and assassinating him based on the claim that he's engaged in those acts and the only evidence that supports that claim is being hidden. The Germans killed in WWII were not killed based on an unknown secret nor would your absurd 24 cliche terrorist mastermind example, in this case Awlaki would be and it requires a blind faith in the government whose only assertion of proof is "trust us" which for some reason you're willing to do.
Actually, Quent, the hypothetical I offered was designed to explore the basic principle. We can always get down and dirty on the individual facts of any case (and they will ALL be different) once we have an agreement on the basic principles involved.
But until that time, there can be no actual communication. For example, there's no point in having any discussion with you about the "death penalty" if you happen to be an absolutist in your opposition to any death penalty. No example, no principle will ever suffice to bridge the gap between you absolutist opposition and my arguably nuanced agreement with the idea of lawful execution.
As to the order authorizing the "hit" on Alawki, if you are absolutely opposed to any such governmental activity, then it will not really matter what specific examples I offer. The real world case or my hypothetical example or the Nazi saboteurs' case. You'd always land on the same conclusion: "I'm against it!"
So does he deserve that military tribunal you speak of or not?
No, it's top secret, remember!? Only the people who want the right to murder him are allowed to know what right they have to murder him.
Ah. So the difference is merely one of timing to you?
Wrong again.
For if a military tribunal were held AFTER a shitheel is captured and sentenced to be executed, that too would be a secret.
There is no requirement that a military tribunal be secret....
and he can't be sentenced to be executed until after that tribunal. I'd strongly prefer a regular court process, but at least a tribunal is a step closer to justice.
Liability, your examples are markedly, tellingly, different than this case.
Spies who landed on US soil and were captured and given a military tribunal, or someone caught in the act of arming a nuclear weapon, are not remotely similar to this case where only "secret evidence" the government claims no one, not even a judge, can ever see establish that someone is committing violent terrorist acts. All that is known about Awlaki based on evidence provided is that he's a religious figure preaching radicalism, which is neither a crime nor something that can legally justify murder.
If he were killed on any battlefield or while engaged in any violence against Americans, there is no doubt the government has a right to kill him then, as they have the right to kill anyone doing the same in the same.
This situation is one of killing him very far from any battlefield, while sleeping in his home or traveling or wherever it is the government can track him down and assassinating him based on the claim that he's engaged in those acts and the only evidence that supports that claim is being hidden. The Germans killed in WWII were not killed based on an unknown secret nor would your absurd 24 cliche terrorist mastermind example, in this case Awlaki would be and it requires a blind faith in the government whose only assertion of proof is "trust us" which for some reason you're willing to do.
Actually, Quent, the hypothetical I offered was designed to explore the basic principle. We can always get down and dirty on the individual facts of any case (and they will ALL be different) once we have an agreement on the basic principles involved.
But until that time, there can be no actual communication. For example, there's no point in having any discussion with you about the "death penalty" if you happen to be an absolutist in your opposition to any death penalty. No example, no principle will ever suffice to bridge the gap between you absolutist opposition and my arguably nuanced agreement with the idea of lawful execution.
As to the order authorizing the "hit" on Alawki, if you are absolutely opposed to any such governmental activity, then it will not really matter what specific examples I offer. The real world case or my hypothetical example or the Nazi saboteurs' case. You'd always land on the same conclusion: "I'm against it!"
But because the cases are very different, not just in details but in substance, they don't demonstrate this.
One could totally rationally and reasonably and consistently agree with the government's right to kill those German spies on legal grounds. They were captured in the act, they were wearing uniforms, given a military tribunal commensurate with their status as foreign soldiers acting on orders of a foreign government as spies, found guilty in that military court proceeding, and then executed as that's the sentence for such a conviction.
That same person could totally rationally and reasonably and consistently disagree with the government's right to kill Awlaki (it's al-Awlaki by the way, not Alawki) because he has not been captured in any act, not tried by any court (military tribunal would be inappropriate for him because he's not military, but even that would be something), not found guilty or even been charged with any crime, and they're trying to execute him without sentence or conviction, merely on the president's imperial and secrets-based decree.
It's not the same basic principle at work because it's not just a different of a few details, the cases aren't anything alike. In one, the established process of law was followed, in the other it's being circumvented entirely.
I also did not say that a military tribunal HAS to be secret. But it sure as hell CAN be.
