Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[High_Gravity]

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.

Yes and got all kinds of juicy information from him.

 

[Liability]

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.

Yes and got all kinds of juicy information from him.

Well, not really. Once he got his Miranda warnings, and his lawyer, you can be pretty damn sure he'd invoke his "right to remain silent."

 

[NoNukes]

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.

Yes and got all kinds of juicy information from him.

Yeah, they could have tortured him live on the FOX Network.

 

[High_Gravity]

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

Yes and got all kinds of juicy information from him.

Well, not really. Once he got his Miranda warnings, and his lawyer, you can be pretty damn sure he'd invoke his "right to remain silent."

You never know, he might ***** out and try to make a deal. This guy did solicite prostitutes in San Diego twice.

 

[Liability]

Yes and got all kinds of juicy information from him.

Well, not really. Once he got his Miranda warnings, and his lawyer, you can be pretty damn sure he'd invoke his "right to remain silent."

You never know, he might ***** out and try to make a deal. This guy did solicite prostitutes in San Diego twice.

Yeah. But to make a deal, he'd have to go all snitch at the trials of all the other guys we'd have to be prosecuting.

What kind of credibility would a snitch have under THOSE circumstances?

Upon further reflection, I think we'd have to all agree: he's better off dead.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well, not really. Once he got his Miranda warnings, and his lawyer, you can be pretty damn sure he'd invoke his "right to remain silent."

You never know, he might ***** out and try to make a deal. This guy did solicite prostitutes in San Diego twice.

Yeah. But to make a deal, he'd have to go all snitch at the trials of all the other guys we'd have to be prosecuting.

What kind of credibility would a snitch have under THOSE circumstances?

Upon further reflection, I think we'd have to all agree: he's better off dead.

I agree, **** him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

It's not a declaration of war but it does give the president the authority to kill anyone he chooses to

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.


Here he has the approval to act as he so chooses, and now we are at another cross road to say it's ok Mr. President you can have any American killed at your whime, just as long as you declear them a terrorist. We gave away our due process because of an emotional out burst due to the fact we were attacked, let's not allow this to happen again. Time to repeal this shit.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

It's not a declaration of was but it does give the president the authority to kill anyone he chooses to

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.


Here he has the approval to act as he so chooses, and now we are at another cross road to say it's ok Mr. President you can have any American killed at your whime, just as long as you declear them a terrorist. We gave away our due process because of an emotional out burst due to the fact we were attacked, let's not allow this to happen again. Time to repeal this shit.

So?

 

[Liability]

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.

It's not a declaration of war but it does give the president the authority to kill anyone he chooses to

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.


Here he has the approval to act as he so chooses, and now we are at another cross road to say it's ok Mr. President you can have any American killed at your whime, just as long as you declear them a terrorist. We gave away our due process because of an emotional out burst due to the fact we were attacked, let's not allow this to happen again. Time to repeal this shit.

No. It is a declaration of war.

 

[Ravi]

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 ******* 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.

I believe you've worked hard enough and deserve the title of Martyr of the Year.

 

[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 ******* 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.

I believe you've worked hard enough and deserve the title of Martyr of the Year.

Yes, Anwar would be so proud of his boyfriend for sticking up for him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

it's not a declaration of was but it does give the president the authority to kill anyone he chooses to

authorization for use of military force
september 18, 2001

public law 107-40 [s. J. Res. 23]


107th congress




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



joint resolution

to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states.

Whereas, on september 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the united states and its citizens; and

whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the united states exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect united states citizens both at home and abroad; and

whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states posed by these grave acts of violence; and

whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states; and

whereas, the president has authority under the constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the united states: Now, therefore, be it

resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america in congress assembled,

section 1. Short title.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `authorization for use of military force'.

Sec. 2. Authorization for use of united states armed forces.

(a) in general- that the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) war powers resolution requirements-
(1) specific statutory authorization- consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the war powers resolution, the congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the war powers resolution.
(2) applicability of other requirements- nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the war powers resolution.

Approved september 18, 2001.


Here he has the approval to act as he so chooses, and now we are at another cross road to say it's ok mr. President you can have any american killed at your whime, just as long as you declear them a terrorist. We gave away our due process because of an emotional out burst due to the fact we were attacked, let's not allow this to happen again. Time to repeal this shit.

so?

so? Wtf?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I believe you've worked hard enough and deserve the title of Martyr of the Year.

Yes, Anwar would be so proud of his boyfriend for sticking up for him.

You are a total ass up and down ass.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Now some people know what its like to be the ALCU when they fight in court for something on principal like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religoin, anti-discrimination - even when the person they are defending is (or was) a total scum bag.



>>>>

 

[High_Gravity]

I believe you've worked hard enough and deserve the title of Martyr of the Year.

Yes, Anwar would be so proud of his boyfriend for sticking up for him.

You are a total ass up and down ass.

What? you like upside down ass?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

>


Now some people know what its like to be the ALCU when they fight in court for something on principal like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religoin, anti-discrimination - even when the person they are defending is (or was) a total scum bag.



>>>>

No one that I know in this discussion was defending the person. they were and are defending his rights. which most if not should have been doing that

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Now some people know what its like to be the ALCU when they fight in court for something on principal like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religoin, anti-discrimination - even when the person they are defending is (or was) a total scum bag.



>>>>

No one that I know in this discussion was defending the person. they were and are defending his rights.

Yep, just like the ACLU defending a persons rights and not defending a person.

which most if not should have been doing that

I stand fully in support of Awlaki having his due process rights protected, if he had turned himself in and been detained for trial - fully support that.

However this was not a criminal case is was military action as part of an ongoing war with actions authorized under the Constitution Article I Section 8.



>>>>

 

[Liability]

>


Now some people know what its like to be the ALCU when they fight in court for something on principal like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religoin, anti-discrimination - even when the person they are defending is (or was) a total scum bag.



>>>>

No one that I know in this discussion was defending the person. they were and are defending his rights. which most if not should have been doing that

Having CHOSEN to become a leader of our enemy in time of war, al-Awlaki had the absolute right to be made dead. I am gladdened that we vindicated that right.

 

[idb]

I think most people would have felt better if the legal route was taken.
But war is messy and shitty and sometimes the opportunities have to be taken when they present themselves.
Obviously the WH and their advisors felt that they were on defendable ground with their actions and that the greater good was served by the suspension of any notion of due process for this guy.
If they had filed a charge against him then he would most likely have been able to carry on his activities for ever as he would have been unlikely to be captured and he would have been immune from a strike.
The government's first priority is to keep it's citizens safe.

 

[chesapeakeguy]

What a stupid question. It is not about 'assassinating American citizens', it IS all about defending the nation. Period. This 'American citizen' declared war on his own country, and actively worked for this nation's enemy to render harm upon us. Taking out the enemy's military leaders is an ACCEPTED action. Generals and admirals of the opposing sides were routinely targeted in WWII and conflicts afterwards. Gen. Schwarzkopf had round-the-clock protection to prevent enemies from hurting or capturing him during the First Gulf War. This clown was an enemy combatant. he was fair game, just like Bin Laden was! Good riddance, and good shooting people!

Here's a relevant question I have: why is the 'underwear bomber' not at Gitmo? Why is he being tried in a civilian court?