I'm fine with it. If you're working with people who are actively at war with the US, and you're on a field of battle, then you have to expect to get killed.

It would be a different story if they were holed up in the Motel 6 outside of Scranton.

Holder plans to argue that the killing of an American terrorist abroad is legal under the 2001 congressional authorization of the use of military force, according to an official briefed on the speech, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its details ahead of its formal release. This official also said Holder plans to say that the U.S. right to self-defense is not limited to traditional battlefields as the government pursues terrorists who present an imminent threat.

There goes Obama again, always blaming Bush.

Imokwiththis.jpg

Interesting. I just got a call from the Obama campaign, and had a 10 minute conversation with the rep on this very issue as to why they would not get another dime from me, ever.

After he lectured me that Al Awlaki was a traitor and that I just wanted to let innocent people die before we acted, and I reminded him how this was exactly the rationale George Bush used, he finally gave up and hung up on me. And that's too bad, as I hadn't even gotten to my feelings about deliberately targeting funerals and rescuers with drone strikes.

If you gave Obama money in 2008 you will get one of these calls, and I urge everyone who is likeminded to do the same. Maybe hitting him in the wallet will get the message across.

But be prepared. They are very aggressive and prepared for your arguments.

make me some tea: Holder plans to argue that the killing of an American terrorist abroad is legal under the 2001 congressional authorization of the use of military force, according to an official briefed on the speech, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its details ahead of its formal release. This official also said Holder plans to say that the U.S. right to self-defense is not limited to traditional battlefields as the government pursues terrorists who present an imminent threat.

There goes Obama again, always blaming turning into Bush.

hillbillypharmacist: I'm fine with it. If you're working with people who are actively at war with the US, and you're on a field of battle, then you have to expect to get killed.


Odd. Anwar Al-Awlaki was not actively at war with the US, nor was he on a battlefield. Yet still he received Death from Above, courtesy of his own country.

What? No trial?

Jake Havechek: Terrorists declare themselves 'outlaw', so they should not be granted the same rights given to soldiers during wartime.

OK.

How about granting them the same rights as outlaws?

No responses, eh?

Come on, guys. If we are going to say extrajudicial killing of US citizens anywhere in the world is a-okay, this should be an easy one.

So let me have it.

And of course the converse is that if the best you all have to offer is this weak sauce, then we are in a grave situation that requires serious reassessment of the path we are on.

Jake Havechek: Outlaws by nature don't deserve rights.

That's your opinion. It enjoys zero support under the US constitution.

You declare open war on your own country, you just signed your own death warrant.

Perhaps. After a trial where you get the chance to defend yourself against the most powerful nation on earth that is asserting that you are an enemy.

gilgigamesh: Odd. Anwar Al-Awlaki was not actively at war with the US, nor was he on a battlefield.

Really?

Now, whether or not he was on a battlefield is a more interesting question. But it seems foolish to say that someone who is actively trying to hurt the US for political or religious reasons must be allowed to escape justice because he's hiding somewhere that's not an official battlefield.

hillbillypharmacist: gilgigamesh: Odd. Anwar Al-Awlaki was not actively at war with the US, nor was he on a battlefield.

Really?

Now, whether or not he was on a battlefield is a more interesting question. But it seems foolish to say that someone who is actively trying to hurt the US for political or religious reasons must be allowed to escape justice because he's hiding somewhere that's not an official battlefield.

I would define "actively at war" as in the act of shooting at or trying to kill people when he is killed. If that's the case, no one will seriously contend that US forces need to attempt to apprehend him.

Otherwise he is just a suspected criminal who needs to be dealt with as such.

gilgigamesh: hillbillypharmacist: I'm fine with it. If you're working with people who are actively at war with the US, and you're on a field of battle, then you have to expect to get killed.


Odd. Anwar Al-Awlaki was not actively at war with the US, nor was he on a battlefield. Yet still he received Death from Above, courtesy of his own country.

He was head of external operations for Yemen Al quida and a propagandist. He was working for a group that has violently targeted people who do not share their beliefs.

He probably planned The missions that killed hundreds of civilians and military. In a war, you rarely get to capture the bad guys to put on trial.

Darth_Lukecash: He was head of external operations for Yemen Al quida and a propagandist. He was working for a group that has violently targeted people who do not share their beliefs.

He probably planned The missions that killed hundreds of civilians and military. In a war, you rarely get to capture the bad guys to put on trial.

These are accusations, not proof adduced in a court of law.

Also, we are not at war with or in Yemen.

The Wiki is an interesting read: Link (new window)

He went from being a moderate after 9/11, denouncing the act, to radical recruiter working for Al Qaeda.

I would say this sort of stuff put him square on the shiat list:

In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the U.S. to attack their country of residence. In the video, he stated:

To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim.[28][114]
In July 2010, a Seattle cartoonist was warned by the FBI of a death threat issued by al-Awlaki in the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire. Eight other cartoonists, journalists, and writers from Britain, Sweden and Holland were also threatened with death. "The prophet is the pinnacle of Jihad", al-Awlaki wrote. "It is better to support the prophet by attacking those who slander him than it is to travel to land of Jihad like Iraq or Afghanistan."[115]

One needs to look beyond this one instance to what this precedent means for the Rule of Law.

As it stands, it is now okey dokey for the executive to brand someone a traitor and summarily execute him wherever the executive determines the "battlefield" in the war on terrorism to be.

Think beyond your love of Obama. Think of the precedent set for the guy 20 years down the road looking to exploit a crisis to eliminate enemies.

gilgigamesh: I would define "actively at war" as in the act of shooting at or trying to kill people when he is killed. If that's the case, no one will seriously contend that US forces need to attempt to apprehend him.

I'd say 'actively at war' means that he coordinated attacks on the US, and has intent to do more of the same. You don't have to be holding a gun to be actively at war. Hitler never shot at an American, either.

Alright, this is pretty weak so far, and I have shiat to do.

I will check back later to see where the thread goes.

gilgigamesh: Alright, this is pretty weak so far, and I have shiat to do.

Well, I'd say your attempts to convince me have been pretty weak, too.

hillbillypharmacist: I'd say 'actively at war' means that he coordinated attacks on the US, and has intent to do more of the same. You don't have to be holding a gun to be actively at war. Hitler never shot at an American, either.

Uh, Hitler committed suicide.

Also, your definition is dangerous. Intent to do the same? Think about it: you are saying it is ok to execute people summarily for planning attacks.

Whether or not they should be brought to justice is beside the point. They should. I am arguing against the method which involves giving the executive what has always been a judicial power.

gilgigamesh: If you gave Obama money in 2008 you will get one of these calls, and I urge everyone who is likeminded to do the same. Maybe hitting him in the wallet will get the message across.

No, I'm going to spend my phone call badgering the guy on why Obama has allowed the DEA to raid medicinal marijuana dispensaries.

The war on drugs in this country is a more important issue to me than a dead terrorist in another country.

Jake Havechek: gilgigamesh:
Think beyond your love of Obama. .

By the way, it was Bush who started this shiat.

And Obama expanded it.

hillbillypharmacist: gilgigamesh: Alright, this is pretty weak so far, and I have shiat to do.

Well, I'd say your attempts to convince me have been pretty weak, too.

Of course you do. You are an apologist for Obama.

gilgigamesh: Also, your definition is dangerous. Intent to do the same? Think about it: you are saying it is ok to execute people summarily for planning attacks.

Yes! You've got it! If you've planned and executed attacks, and you're going to do it some more, then you get summarily executed.

This is the right and proper thing to do.

what_now: No, I'm going to spend my phone call badgering the guy on why Obama has allowed the DEA to raid medicinal marijuana dispensaries.

I hadn't thought of that one. Fair enough; if they call back I will do the same. I would also recommend you bring up the IRS disallowing tax deductions for their business expenses.

Incidentally, I generally have better things to do than argue with the Obama campaign, but they have been calling me 2 or 3 times a day for weeks. "Not interested" wasn't cutting it, so I decided to finally sit down and tell them why.

gilgigamesh: Think beyond your love of Obama.

Stop it. Just. Stop. You sound like a concern troll telling us we love Fartbama because we aren't denouncing his mustard choice.

Get down off your moral high horse and take a look at what you're saying. You don't want the President of the United States to ever make a call you don't agree with?

Do you *honestly* think this is the first time this has happened? Really? That kind of naivety is surprising.

Powerful people destroy their enemies if they can. This has always happened. This will always happen. Focus on the things you CAN change, not on human nature.

hillbillypharmacist: Yes! You've got it! If you've planned and executed attacks, and you're going to do it some more, then you get summarily executed.

This is the right and proper thing to do.

I strongly disagree that summary executions are right or proper. Its banana republic politics.

Its a matter of principal you and I will not agree on. Let's leave it at that.

gilgigamesh: Incidentally, I generally have better things to do than argue with the Obama campaign,


I spend a lot of time arguing with You People, so I have no problem arguing with the political people who call me.

The DCCC got a ringing earful from me.

gilgigamesh: I strongly disagree that summary executions are right or proper.

Well, it depends on whether or not it's practical to capture. I don't mean to say that execution is the only option here (even though it looks like I said that).

But like I said at the top of the thread, t would be a different story if they were holed up in the Motel 6 outside of Scranton.

gilgigamesh: hillbillypharmacist: gilgigamesh: Odd. Anwar Al-Awlaki was not actively at war with the US, nor was he on a battlefield.

Really?

Now, whether or not he was on a battlefield is a more interesting question. But it seems foolish to say that someone who is actively trying to hurt the US for political or religious reasons must be allowed to escape justice because he's hiding somewhere that's not an official battlefield.

I would define "actively at war" as in the act of shooting at or trying to kill people when he is killed. If that's the case, no one will seriously contend that US forces need to attempt to apprehend him.

Otherwise he is just a suspected criminal who needs to be dealt with as such.

Generals are rarely actively fighting-but they are valid war targets.

What is your actual objection? The guy ran a branch of a terrorist group that declared war on us first. Being American does nt grant him privillageonion a war.
If he wanted a trial, he should have turned himself in when the authorities were searching for him. Or maybe not hang around Yemen.

what_now: gilgigamesh: Think beyond your love of Obama.

Stop it. Just. Stop. You sound like a concern troll telling us we love Fartbama because we aren't denouncing his mustard choice.

Fair enough. This looks like blind allegiance to me, the same kind as we saw under Bush. But anyway.

Get down off your moral high horse and take a look at what you're saying. You don't want the President of the United States to ever make a call you don't agree with?

I'm surprised at you. That's a ridiculous strawman. There are lots of issues I will give him a pass on; I could list them if you like.

While I am not a single issue voter, I will say this issue is very important to me. I voted for Obama because I expected he had a unique understanding of civil liberties issues. Instead we've got someone who is out-Bushing Bush on the issue I care most dearly about.

If you call that a moral high horse so be it. I will stay here where I am most comfortable, thanks.

Do you *honestly* think this is the first time this has happened? Really? That kind of naivety is surprising.

Rank speculation. It probably has happened, but if you can point to when it has been official US policy openly defended by the administration feel free to educate me.

That is the part I am concerned about in case that isn't clear. Its the precedent set.

Powerful people destroy their enemies if they can. This has always happened. This will always happen. Focus on the things you CAN change, not on human nature.

what_now: I spend a lot of time arguing with You People, so I have no problem arguing with the political people who call me.

The DCCC got a ringing earful from me.

You people?? I assume that's not a racial thing.

hillbillypharmacist: Well, it depends on whether or not it's practical to capture. I don't mean to say that execution is the only option here (even though it looks like I said that).

I agree. Sometimes it isn't practical to capture, and in such a circumstance, tough cookies for the offender. That's true with bank robbers and terrorists alike, and I don't quibble with that.

I am quibbling with the policy: now it is perfectly acceptable to blow US citizens up as a first option, not the last.

But like I said at the top of the thread, t would be a different story if they were holed up in the Motel 6 outside of Scranton.

I am not so sure your caveat is shared by the government, which if you recall just passed hr 1540.

gilgigamesh: Uh, Hitler committed suicide.

And just so this doesn't go unanswered: of course Hitler committed suicide. That's not the point.

He planned and executed attacks, and had intent to do more of the same. And he never fired a gun at any American. Americans didn't kill him, but that's simply a matter of practicality, and not because we didn't have a right to try.

Darth_Lukecash: What is your actual objection? The guy ran a branch of a terrorist group that declared war on us first. Being American does nt grant him privillageonion a war.

No, it doesn't. My objection is partially that the US has now taken on official policy that what should be essentially treated as criminal acts are treated as acts of war. The other part is the summary declaration of US citizens as terrorists for poorly defined and nebulous reasons and leaving them without a country to defend their interests.

I guess also the continuation of the (not so) gradual shift of power from the legislature and the courts to the executive. That Obama is continuing this "unitary executive" policy that set my teeth on edge under Bush.

hillbillypharmacist: gilgigamesh: Uh, Hitler committed suicide.

And just so this doesn't go unanswered: of course Hitler committed suicide. That's not the point.

Well, I know you know that, I just wanted to point out that was a bad example.

He planned and executed attacks, and had intent to do more of the same. And he never fired a gun at any American. Americans didn't kill him, but that's simply a matter of practicality, and not because we didn't have a right to try.

He was also the citizen and head of a nation that declared war on the US, and was a legitimate military target. Again, bad example.

Al Awlaki was a man who was de facto (but importantly, not de jure) without a country killed in some nebulous, perpetual war on terror that people now use to justify the president killing whoever is deemed a "terrorist" for as long as our war on an emotion takes to win.

gilgigamesh: Darth_Lukecash: He was head of external operations for Yemen Al quida and a propagandist. He was working for a group that has violently targeted people who do not share their beliefs.

He probably planned The missions that killed hundreds of civilians and military. In a war, you rarely get to capture the bad guys to put on trial.

These are accusations, not proof adduced in a court of law.

Also, we are not at war with or in Yemen.

Actually, we are in Yemen. The president of Yemen is allowing the CIA and small group of Special forces to operate against terrorist.

So if the government of Yemen are okay with this- then one of your arguments is invalid.

Now you have to explain why didn't he just turn himself in to face a trial?

Ok. really got to go. I will try and check back later.

If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Darth_Lukecash: Now you have to explain why didn't he just turn himself in to face a trial?

If the most powerful nation on earth -- which you also perceive as the greatest force of evil on earth - had signed your death warrant, would you turn yourself in?

Again, it isn't about him. Its about us, and the rule of law.