With all due respect... to hell with al-Awlaki. I'm dealing with the concept on the macro level and you're piddling-around with the details of a specific case. This gets us nowhere.
With absolutely no respect at all, al Awliki is the macro level..."
Re: respect - noted for future reference - I will not make that mistake again.
Re: al-Awliki being the 'macro-level'... you clearly do not understand the distinction.
He is merely symptomatic of a broader issue.
The
broader issue is the
macro level.
The
symptom is the
micro level.
But, in your haste to counterpoint anything-and-everything being said by your opposites in the exchange, you either lost track of that or betrayed an ignorance of the distinction.
"...He is the end result..."
No, he is a single case... a single incident... he is merely one symptom or one symptomatic outbreak... detail... micro-level stuff.
"...of the policy that says the government can target people based on the criteria that they are enemy combatants and/or leaders of the people we are at war with..."
I have a newsflash for you, Sparky...
Governments
CAN "
target people based on the criteria that they are enemy combatants and/or leaders of the people we are at war with"
This has happened each and every time that Man has fought Man, since we climbed down out of the trees, and during virtually each and every conflict in recorded history.
And this holds JUST as true for legitimate wartime operations in asymmetrical or unconventional warfare as it does conventional warfare.
"...Unless you can demonstrate that al Awliki actually meets that criteria, you cannot argue that the criteria is the one we are using..."
I need demonstrate no such thing. I merely need to demonstrate that the Government is authorized to kill Enemy Combatants and Leaders as part of legitimate wartime operations.
"...Until you can do that you are defending a policy that allows the government to target people who are critical of the government."
Nope. Sheer sophistry, based upon the fallacy of the previous sentence in your narrative.
I do not defend a policy of targeting people who are critical of the government.
I acknowledge the existence of a policy of targeting people who are designated Enemy Combatants or Leaders.
That is exactly what I am doing, although I am happy to join you in watch-dogging them to ensure that they do their job properly.
No you aren't. If you were you would be demanding that they explain what evidence they had against al Awliki instead of trying to argue that you are looking at the big picture...
al-Awlaki is a flea... a sideshow issue... a mere symptom of the broader issue.
Your automatic gainsay ( "No you aren't" [willing to join you in watch-dogging the government in doing their job] ) means nothing.
We merely disagree on what the job of the Government is, in this narrow context.
If I believe that the US Government has abused its pre-existing power to kill Enemy Combatants and Leaders during wartime, then I will raise my own squawk.
I have yet to encounter anything leading me to believe that this has happened.
"...You are missing the point. I do not have to prove that he was wrongfully targeted, our entire legal system is based on the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty at trial. Unless the government is trying these people, and obtaining a legitimate conviction, they are wrong..."
Our entire legal system is based upon the premise that the safety of the American People is paramount - safety overpowers due process each and every time throughout history.
During many of our wars we have had American citizens turn-traitor and fight for the Enemy.
We have killed them right alongside their foreign counterparts without due process.
The case of al-Awalki is no different in this respect.
He had turned traitor and gone over to the Enemy and had become a trusted Planner and Leader of the Enemy.
Safety trumps due process and citizenship each and every time.
Although I am not a fan of Fearless Leader, he articulated this principle well.
Traitors are not afforded the protections of citizenship when they are engaged in active operations against the United States. At such times, they may be killed alongside other Enemies.
Which is exactly what happened.
And why folks who understand the practicalities of due process during wartime combat operations are running the country and not you. Thank God.
"...Have you seen any evidence that they are doing this? Did I miss it? How can you say you trust them to do their jobs when they are demonstrably not doing them?..."
Again, you and I differ as to (a) what their job is, and (b) whether they are doing it.
"...You keep missing the point. Until you provide evidence that he actually did something that justified him being killed you are no better than the people who looked the other way when Germany started shipping people off to concentration camps. How does it feel to be a fascist?"
I do not remember that the Jews were actively engaged in combat operations against the Reich when those Nazi bastards began to round them up and slaughter them.
Had the Jews been engaged in such combat operations we would not have called it a Holocaust.
Your sand-flea... al-Awlaki... WAS engaged against his own country on behalf of Radical Islamist Terror operations... on behalf of the Enemy... in a Planning and Leadership capacity, and, consequently, forfeited any protections that might otherwise have been extended to him... and, consequently, also forfeited his life, when he made the Kill List.
Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.
As to juvenile accusations of Fascist -like behaviors or sympathies or failure to become over-excited by the same stimuli which seem to agitate you so greatly...
Save your badly-rationalized, self-serving, amateur-hour maudlin theatrics for your local kabuki bar, Sparky.
