Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

[Agent-X-]

I just cannot condone it... I have trouble accepting this is right. What do you guys think of the implications?

Read the article (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations).

[Chris_Moderato]

The implications are disturbing, and the authorization is illegal, unethical, and extremely disappointing.

[The Rap]

I agree if one views it from an overly simplistic point of view. One question that keeps bothering me is what are we supposed to do? These targets are almost impossible to get because they are like gangs not soldiers. Truth is they are cowards. This ashole keps recruting people to give up their lives for the cause. I wonder if any of the recruits ever ask him if it so good then how come you haven't tried it? Persoanlly I had no problem with this idea even when Bush was POTUS simply bacause of the unique situation it really is.

[Chris_Moderato]

I agree if one views it from an overly simplistic point of view. One question that keeps bothering me is what are we supposed to do? These targets are almost impossible to get because they are like gangs not soldiers. Truth is they are cowards. This ashole keps recruting people to give up their lives for the cause. I wonder if any of the recruits ever ask him if it so good then how come you haven't tried it? Persoanlly I had no problem with this idea even when Bush was POTUS simply bacause of the unique situation it really is.

It's not about assassinating terrorists, Michael. It's about the Executive branch approving and orchestrating the murder of American citizens. That's abhorrent. Sorry.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

I think what we have here is the acknowledgement of something that's probably been green-lighted on the DL for a century or longer. I don't think it's anything new, it's just something that an enemy of this administration came up with and someone admitted in a meeting. I think it's probably a standard practice of men in charge of the nation. It's just one of many disturbing facets of governing that this age of information has uncovered.
While the notion of the prez okaying the killing of an American citizen is disturbing, I don't see it as an assassination. That suggests to me they are killing someone of high significance. This traitor and others like him are always targets, though usually of clandestine and black op groups. If he's the scumbag the report suggests he is, take him out! I see no reason to fret over where he is, he decided to turn on this nation, he gets what he deserves.

[Chris_Moderato]

I think what we have here is the acknowledgement of something that's probably been green-lighted on the DL for a century or longer. I don't think it's anything new, it's just something that an enemy of this administration came up with and someone admitted in a meeting. I think it's probably a standard practice of men in charge of the nation. It's just one of many disturbing facets of governing that this age of information has uncovered.
While the notion of the prez okaying the killing of an American citizen is disturbing, I don't see it as an assassination. That suggests to me they are killing someone of high significance. This traitor and others like him are always targets, though usually of clandestine and black op groups. If he's the scumbag the report suggests he is, take him out! I see no reason to fret over where he is, he decided to turn on this nation, he gets what he deserves.

Well, let's just hope that one day, the people in charge don't decide it's time for you (or I) to "get what [we] deserve,".

[The Rap]

That's ridiculous because they didn't just pick out an "American citizen" as this giy is obviously a traitor intent on killing Americans. To compare him to youreself Chris m,akes no sense at all.

[Chris_Moderato]

That's ridiculous because they didn't just pick out an "American citizen" as this giy is obviously a traitor intent on killing Americans. To compare him to youreself Chris m,akes no sense at all.

Every American citizen has the right to trial by jury. If there is evidence that this guy is involved in what they believe he is involved in, then they should capture his ass, bring him here, and put him in front of his peers for judgement. To do otherwise is a violation of the law, and an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

[KB 34]

So under Obama the conservative beliefs of what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge would have been perfectly fine? Incredible. As much as I want terrorists brought to justice there should be some reasonable roles. Have whatever forces go after these people and bring them to justice peacefully. If they refuse to cooperate then oh well, they lost their right to live to see a fair trial. In many cases a military tribunal will be proper and correct. None of the parading prisoners around NY City garbage. No predetermination of guilt and slobbering over what will happen to the poll numbers when a jury of New Yorkers find them guilty.

[bravos4evr]

Hmmmmm..... well, I guess one can consider that the biggest problem with this is that it got out..... Cuz, honestly any terroist is considered a potential military target and hence not subject to legal protection..... And seriously, if we go raid some camp or "safe house" or something with CIA black ops people or Seals or something, they aren't going to ask whether or not there are any USA citizens there... They are going to eliminate the targets.

This kinda stuff happens all the time.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

It's obvious you know what I was talkin' about, Nick. As for all the legal mumbo-jumbo, anyone actively working against this nation in wartime is the enemy. If they have the goods on these guys, think of it as the miscreants getting what qualifies as a trial in today's "microwave society." Traitors forfeit the legal defense this nation offers when they abandon her and go to work against her.

[Chris_Moderato]

The precedent this sets is the disturbing part. Freddy, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying- at least, that's what I gather from your response.

The issue isn't about sending in a black ops team to raid a stronghold and capture or kill the people there. This is about the US government issuing orders to kill an American citizen anywhere in the world that he is found, be that on the battlefield or in his backyard.

Your assertion that he is a "traitor" who has "forfeit[ed] the legal defense this nation offers" is based on what, exactly? Where is your evidence? Are we supporting the targeted assassination of fellow citizens now based of conjecture and accusation?

This activity is extra-constitutional, illegal and, regardless of whether it has been going on without our knowledge, just straight up wrong.

[Agent-X-]

The precedent this sets is the disturbing part. Freddy, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying- at least, that's what I gather from your response.

The issue isn't about sending in a black ops team to raid a stronghold and capture or kill the people there. This is about the US government issuing orders to kill an American citizen anywhere in the world that he is found, be that on the battlefield or in his backyard.

Your assertion that he is a "traitor" who has "forfeit[ed] the legal defense this nation offers" is based on what, exactly? Where is your evidence? Are we supporting the targeted assassination of fellow citizens now based of conjecture and accusation?

This activity is extra-constitutional, illegal and, regardless of whether it has been going on without our knowledge, just straight up wrong.

This. This is the point of the thread. If left unchallenged, it will gain legal precedent and the executive branch can just skip the judicial branch in handing out punishment to anyone accused of being an enemy of the state.

If you think that this only applies to people who are beyond reasonable doubt working against the country, then what about the stories of American citizens being kidnapped in the middle of the night by our own government due to suspicion? All that went on during the Bush administration but without "transparency."

This, to me, looks like a logical next step to make this sort of executive behavior a legal precedent and an executive right.

I'd have much less of a problem if the senate and congress were voting to knock off this American citizen. It's the lack of oversight by the other branches that scares me. Where's the balance of power?

[bravos4evr]

I understand what ya'll are saying. However, I don't see where it authorizes them to assassinate anyone within the country itself. The fact that he was born in this country doesn't change anything when it comes to his removal as a terrorist. Plus, there is no need for a trial.... he has come clean about his involvement(and i am actually suspicious of the authority of our Govt to try someone for actions done outside of our country even if done to our citizens). So there's that...

Look, this stuff has been going on for prolly 250 years in this country (especially early on when we assassinated spy's for the British who were citizens). If there was legal precedent to be set, it was set years ago.

[luvdembravos]

Well, let's just hope that one day, the people in charge don't decide it's time for you (or I) to "get what [we] deserve,".

Like requiring everyone to pay for health insurance whether they want to or not? Oops, off topic...sorry... but I couldn't resist. :p

But back on topic, like others stated, this type of thing has been happening for years. As long a 99.9999% of Americans get a proper trial by jury and are being protected by the law, I really don't care what happens to a dirtbag like al-Awlaki. I guess Obama feels it's just better to kill the dude than to give the CIA and others the chance to waterboard his a$$.

[KB 34]

While I know this kind of stuff happens all the time undercover, it happens undercover because we all wish this kind of stuff wasn't neccesary and didn't happen. This kind of order given in secret should be difficult to make and not something any person wants to make. It shouldn't be considered normal, which is exactly what Obama is doing. This kind of stuff is best told later in spy books, not broadcast to the world like it's not a big deal because life is kind of valuable and should not be taken without analyzing the reasons and ramifications first.

[Chris_Moderato]

Like requiring everyone to pay for health insurance whether they want to or not?

I don't support that provision.

But back on topic, like others stated, this type of thing has been happening for years. As long a 99.9999% of Americans get a proper trial by jury and are being protected by the law, I really don't care what happens to a dirtbag like al-Awlaki. I guess Obama feels it's just better to kill the dude than to give the CIA and others the chance to waterboard his a$$.

That 0.0001%, or 35,000 citizens, are still American citizens. They are afforded certain legal protections under the Constitution of this country. This order violates those protections.

I'm not naive. I understand that the government has gotten its hands dirty behind the scenes over the years. I doesn't matter. We, as citizens, shouldn't settle for that.

Everyone gets so upset over this administration's (and the last's) supposed overreaching into the lives of it's citizens. Yet, here you have one branch of the government unilaterally deciding to execute an American citizen, without due process, setting an extremely dangerous [public, if you have to have that in there] precedent, and no one seems to care.

[Middle Man]

I think that deep down most Americans know that it's not the way things ought to work in a civilized nation. I guess it's rationalized by arguing that we're dealing with uncivilized wackos. When you give up the moral high ground, though, you cause more problems than you fix, IMO.

[Middle Man]

LINK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece)

It's slippery slope, man. Before you know it, you're covered in all the same muck as all the scum you're trying to defeat.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror...

...The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee...

...He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”. ..

...Colonel Wilkerson ... said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken. ..

...Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.” ...

[Freddy_Ballgame]

If you wanna add those three to the hit list, I'm down....

:D

[I Come in Peace]

I can't believe I'm posting this but I'm agreeing with Michael and Obama on this one. This guy lost all his claims of citizen protection when he became a terrorist. I say bomb the hell out of him. He is just as much as a threat as any other terrorist and you shouldn't be putting the safety of other citizens to protect this bastard. Kill him!!!

I would like to bring up how Bush would be considered a war criminal if he did this.

[I Come in Peace]

If you wanna add those three to the hit list, I'm down....

:D

I know you are joking but that is not funny as it isn't if any one would say the same about Obama.

[Chris_Moderato]

I can't believe I'm posting this but I'm agreeing with Michael and Obama on this one. This guy lost all his claims of citizen protection when he became a terrorist. I say bomb the hell out of him. He is just as much as a threat as any other terrorist and you shouldn't be putting the safety of other citizens to protect this bastard. Kill him!!!

Short-sighted.

[Chris_Moderato]

I can only imagine the howls of protest that would have been echoing across this board had this policy been blatantly implemented by the last administration- I can't believe I'm saying this, but at least Bush and Cheney only went so far as to set a legal precedent for the executive branch to unilaterally tap the phones of citizens.

Even those guys gave John Walker Lindh a trial.

I don't care if Anwar al-Awlaki lives to see tomorrow. If he is killed resisting capture, as the US or allies of the US are knocking down the walls around him, we'll all breath a little easier. However, if he is picked off on the street by agents of the US government while shopping for mango without either a) an attempt being made to apprehend him or b) having his US citizenship revoked, then the action will be illegal, and a dangerous precedent will have been set.

Think about it. What if, one day, it is determined by someone in power that you are an enemy of the United States. They are 100% wrong, they've got the wrong guy. You're completely innocent. Wouldn't you expect, at the very least, the opportunity to plead your innocence in a court of law? Isn't that your birthright, as an American, regardless of what you are accused of?

It's easy to say, "Ah, **** it. Kill this scumbag." Fair enough. No love lost for terrorists. But when that terrorist is an American citizen, he is afforded certain protections under the law. That's not only for his protection. It's for our protection as well.

[I Come in Peace]

I can only imagine the howls of protest that would have been echoing across this board had this policy been blatantly implemented by the last administration- I can't believe I'm saying this, but at least Bush and Cheney only went so far as to set a legal precedent for the executive branch to unilaterally tap the phones of citizens.

Even those guys gave John Walker Lindh a trial.

I don't care if Anwar al-Awlaki lives to see tomorrow. If he is killed resisting capture, as the US or allies of the US are knocking down the walls around him, we'll all breath a little easier. However, if he is picked off on the street by agents of the US government while shopping for mango without either a) an attempt being made to apprehend him or b) having his US citizenship revoked, then the action will be illegal, and a dangerous precedent will have been set.

Think about it. What if, one day, it is determined by someone in power that you are an enemy of the United States. They are 100% wrong, they've got the wrong guy. You're completely innocent. Wouldn't you expect, at the very least, the opportunity to plead your innocence in a court of law? Isn't that your birthright, as an American, regardless of what you are accused of?

It's easy to say, "Ah, **** it. Kill this scumbag." Fair enough. No love lost for terrorists. But when that terrorist is an American citizen, he is afforded certain protections under the law. That's not only for his protection. It's for our protection as well.

what if you could only kill him but not capture him?

side note: your defending bush and i'm defending obama what is going wrong with the world?

[Chris_Moderato]

what if you could only kill him but not capture him?

I think I addressed that in my post, lavell.

If he is killed resisting capture, as the US or allies of the US are knocking down the walls around him, we'll all breath a little easier.

My point extends beyond this one specific case, though. The precedent it sets, that the executive has the right to unilaterally authorize the assassination of an American citizen anywhere in the world, is extremely dangerous and illegal.

side note: your defending bush and i'm defending obama what is going wrong with the world?

Any defense of President Bush is purely indirect. When it comes down to it, however, once these people rise to the level of national leadership, they're pretty much working out of the same playbook.

(I take your point, though.)

[The Rap]

Well maybe the military was afraid if their only chance to get him was to kill him and they were afraid that the soldiers would not know what to do? Then all Obama did was say that in those circumstances it is ok to kill him. I say this because I see Chris' point and it is one that is ingrained in most Americans.

[I Come in Peace]

Well maybe the military was afraid if their only chance to get him was to kill him and they were afraid that the soldiers would not know what to do? Then all Obama did was say that in those circumstances it is ok to kill him. I say this because I see Chris' point and it is one that is ingrained in most Americans.

also caputring these terrorists just create more of problems then just killing them.

[Dreamscape]

I was ready to go against Obama on this issue...

But in its own example, this decision is something I can support. al-Awlaki is in Yemen, encouraging Muslims here to rise up against the US and attack the country. He is an immediate threat on our safety.

I will add that it's only because al-Awlaki is out of the country that I can support the killing of an American citizen and it's only because al-Awlaki is a threat to American natural security. But I agree the precedent is alarming.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

Well maybe the military was afraid if their only chance to get him was to kill him and they were afraid that the soldiers would not know what to do? Then all Obama did was say that in those circumstances it is ok to kill him. I say this because I see Chris' point and it is one that is ingrained in most Americans.

also caputring these terrorists just create more of problems then just killing them.

I really hope these were not serious attempts to justify the cold-blooded murder of an American citizen outside due process of law. I think there are two points to be made here. One, to the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no law justifying what was described in the article. So under what authority can the President "reserve the right" to kill a US citizen? Two, even if there were some sort of loophole in the law that would allow this (which there isn't), where do you draw the line? Why not allow the CIA to kill Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols on sight? Same deal with John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, right? We "know" they shot and killed all those people in the DC area, and terrorized a major metropolitan area.

This to me is scarier than the terrorism itself. The way many Americans are willing to forfeit their rights (and more importantly MY rights) in the name of "security".

[Dreamscape]

Obviously, a line must be drawn and that, right now, is the scariest of things. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to deal with al-Awlaki. Since he was born in the US, to try to take away his citizenship and skirt around the law that way is so very hard to do.

But what makes this particular case seperate and where the line should be wrote (and formally at that) is when the subject has fleed the country _and_ is conducting in acts of terrorism. I hope, but cannot prove, that if we could prove al-Awlaki was somewhere in Montana, he would not be included on any list of people that can be targetted for death and considering the American action against terrorists inside our own borders, that does seem to be a consideration.

The slippery slope, the falling down to "their" levels, the lack of due process...they are all quite scary. But, remember, this is a CIA Target List. That indicates that this list is only to be used in international matters, right?

As for the lawful side of things...the problem is the idea of what is a battlefield in the modern world? Under international law, it's acceptable to kill someone who is operating on a battlefield even if that person is your own citizen when they present an immediate threat to your security. But is Yemen a battlefield? It has clearly had its issues with terrorism. But it's not like Iraq and Afghanistan, where it would be clearly an international conflict. I'm not an international law lawyer or simply not informed enough to know.

[Chris_Moderato]

I really hope these were not serious attempts to justify the cold-blooded murder of an American citizen outside due process of law. I think there are two points to be made here. One, to the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no law justifying what was described in the article. So under what authority can the President "reserve the right" to kill a US citizen? Two, even if there were some sort of loophole in the law that would allow this (which there isn't), where do you draw the line? Why not allow the CIA to kill Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols on sight? Same deal with John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, right? We "know" they shot and killed all those people in the DC area, and terrorized a major metropolitan area.

This to me is scarier than the terrorism itself. The way many Americans are willing to forfeit their rights (and more importantly MY rights) in the name of "security".

I know I posted the little thumbs up, but I also wanted to actually post a "thank you" for this post. I'm glad someone else gets what I'm saying.

[Chris_Moderato]

Well maybe the military was afraid if their only chance to get him was to kill him and they were afraid that the soldiers would not know what to do? Then all Obama did was say that in those circumstances it is ok to kill him. I say this because I see Chris' point and it is one that is ingrained in most Americans.

Incorrect. What has occurred here is not a revision of the military's rules of engagement vis a vis terrorist suspects abroad. What has occurred is an executive authorization of assassination of an individual American citizen, wherever he may be, at any time, without due process. Illegal.

Do I think Anwar al-Awlaki is a danger to this country? Yes. Do I think every effort should be made to apprehend him and bring him to justice? Yes. Do I think the military or CIA are within their rights to annihilate him if he violently resists apprehension? Yes. Do I think he should be targets for assassination, in spite of his American citizenship? No. No. No.

The precedent this sets is the key. It's not some abstract thing for us to study and debate. If Anwar al-Awlaki is assassinated by agents of the United States, acting on this executive order, than we will wake up in a country where it is okay for the federal government to execute any one us, with precedent.

If this is allowed to happen, Barack Obama will have lost not just my respect (which is dwindling fast), but he will also lose my vote (which he may have already).

[The Rap]

Yea, but I really think the real difference is the fact that this guy is in Yemen plotting the death of American citizen so why afford him the privlige to retain his own citizenship? You can be certain that he told his henchmen and recruits that he renounces his American citizenship and I doubt that is what should hold us back. But I would recuse myself from any judgment because nothing makes my blood boil more than someone who is a traitor to our country.

[Dreamscape]

The precedent this sets is the key. It's not some abstract thing for us to study and debate. If Anwar al-Awlaki is assassinated by agents of the United States, acting on this executive order, than we will wake up in a country where it is okay for the federal government to execute any one us, with precedent.
This really doesn't begin some precedent in my mind. First, if we all agree that the American government has been doing this for years, than the precedent wouldn't be set, just continued. Second, I really do think the precedent does not make it okay to execute any one of us. Obviously, we can get bogged down with this individual example, but this example is highly irregular. al-Awlaki has fled the country, is harping up jihad, is well connected to people who have attacked or attempted to attack this country, and continues to attempt to inspire young American Muslims to attack our country along with Muslims around the globe.

He is not some random redneck in the woods, nor any one of us. He is not in this country and if Yemen's word to their tribal leaders is to be trusted, he will not be handed over or even allowed to be questioned by Americans. So, we can hope he falls into our laps or take care of an actual problem.

While the precedent is a worthwhile discussion, let's not ignore the individual example. We can immediately consider the extreme ramifications, but I suppose I don't see them as reasonably happening.

[Chris_Moderato]

First, if we all agree that the American government has been doing this for years, than the precedent wouldn't be set, just continued.

Well, I don't agree that the government has been assassinating American citizens for years. Maybe I don't watch enough 24, or X-Files has been off the air for too long...

Second, I really do think the precedent does not make it okay to execute any one of us.

It sets the precedent that the executive can declare an American citizen a target for assassination. That is dangerous, and un-American. Besides, it's not just about us. It's about our kids, and their kids, and generations of Americans after that. Do we really want to hand them a nation that assassinates it's own?

He is not in this country and if Yemen's word to their tribal leaders is to be trusted, he will not be handed over or even allowed to be questioned by Americans. So, we can hope he falls into our laps or take care of an actual problem.

And I state, yet again, that I am not opposed to American agents attempting to apprehend this individual and, if he resists violently, ending him then and there. That's not the issue.

While the precedent is a worthwhile discussion, let's not ignore the individual example. We can immediately consider the extreme ramifications, but I suppose I don't see them as reasonably happening.

I've seen a lot of things happen in the past decade that I didn't reasonably suppose would happen in this country.

[Dreamscape]

When do we acknowledge that this man isn't American anymore? That he wants our country to fail, the great bulk of its citizens to die, and we know all this. I mean, it's not like it's iffy intel. Do we have to wait to revoke his citizenship, which I'm sure the paperwork has already been drawn up, and hope it goes through as quickly as possible? Or do we hope Yemen plays ball? What is the end game here?

I know you are okay with him being killed in the act of apprehension if he violently resists. Which is subject to opinion because I imagine the story that would come out would start with CIA operatives attempted to take al-Awlaki, he resisted, and a firefight broke out that killed the American cleric who preached jihad. And frankly, and it's probably neither here, nor there, I doubt seriously the idea is to just take him out with no regard to taking him into custody. He's too valuable in interrogation for that. But if we have a limited window to take him out and taking him into custody is too risky, I am okay with signing off on taking him out. The man gave up his American rights when he joined a jihad against America. Maybe not "legally." I understand that and hope they change things to make it more legal.

I hate the term "un-American." Is it not also un-American to want this country to be completely destroyed? I know that two wrongs don't make a right and that's a great story for kids, but I just don't see this as a wrong.

I've seen a lot of things happen in the past decade that I didn't reasonably suppose would happen in this country.
For example?

[Middle Man]

When do we acknowledge that this man isn't American anymore? That he wants our country to fail, the great bulk of its citizens to die, and we know all this...

That describes millions of people, unfortunately. I'm not quite sure where we should draw the line in deciding who's assassination-worthy. I suppose it's not my problem though since the pres apparently has unilateral authority to make that decision. Maybe the Pres and VP put together some sort of top 10 list over beers and a double bacon cheeseburger.

[Chris_Moderato]

When do we acknowledge that this man isn't American anymore?

When he is no longer an American.

I doubt seriously the idea is to just take him out with no regard to taking him into custody.

The idea is to assassinate him anywhere he is found.

I understand that and hope they change things to make it more legal.

Legal, period, would be fine with me. Not legalish.

I hate the term "un-American." Is it not also un-American to want this country to be completely destroyed?

It's anti-American to want this country to be completely destroyed. It is un-American for one branch of the government to unilaterally authorize the assassination of an American citizen.

My focus is long-term, big-picture. Your focus is narrow. You're stuck on this one sonofabitch, and appear to be ignoring the long-term implications of this authorization.

Examples: Torture of enemy combatants, Wire-tapping without warrants, the rise and inexplicable popularity of American Idol...

[Dreamscape]

Not ignoring, just don't agree. I think it's more drama than anything. Something to fill the 24 hour news cycle, not a sign of an overly intrusive government willing to kill American citizens at a drop of the hat.

But then...I never was a fan of Orwell.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

I know that two wrongs don't make a right and that's a great story for kids, but I just don't see this as a wrong.

Do you see it as illegal?

[Dreamscape]

I have read conflicting reports on when US law ends and international law begins. Under the latter, no. But without that, than yes.

[Chris_Moderato]

Not ignoring, just don't agree. I think it's more drama than anything. Something to fill the 24 hour news cycle, not a sign of an overly intrusive government willing to kill American citizens at a drop of the hat.

But then...I never was a fan of Orwell.

No love for the Idol joke, eh?

P.S. Orwell was brilliant.

[Dreamscape]

No love for the Idol joke, eh?
Trying to steal my material?

No, absolutely no love for that.

Now, if you were to mention Dancing With The Stars...

[Chris_Moderato]

Trying to steal my material?

No, absolutely no love for that.

Now, if you were to mention Dancing With The Stars...

Geez, don't get me started on that steamy pile.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


There doesn't seem to be a lot of ambiguity here. We don't have an option to afford constitutional rights only to those that we like or agree with. While we would all probably agree that the world would be a better place without this creep in it, I don't want one branch of my government to make that happen unilaterally.

As to the issue of an American citizen living abroad, Reid vs. Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert) confirmed that such citizens are entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights with regards to actions brought by the American government.

[Dreamscape]

The idea is to assassinate him anywhere he is found.
This part I still am not so sure about. From what I understand, this list is for capture or assassination. Some report it as a CIA kill list, some as a CIA target list. Have we seen any confirmations that the plan is to kill him anywhere he is found without first attempting to capture him?

If so...this is four pages of convo that is pretty pointless.

[bravos4evr]

The way I understood it was basically that if they are unable to capture him but ARE able to kill him then they have authorization to eliminate the target.

But ,OF COURSE, they wanna capture him! They are gonna wanna put the screws to him for information..... But if an opportunity arises (like say they get a tip he is safe house B in city A, and when they get there they encounter resistance) well they have the authority of the Prez to take him out...... IMO no different than any other police force attempting to apprehend a fugitive really

[The Rap]

Something that just hit me after reading the back and forth of intelligent opposing views; How come I haven;t heard a word about this stuff on any channel? Meaning FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.

[Chris_Moderato]

Something that just hit me after reading the back and forth of intelligent opposing views; How come I haven;t heard a word about this stuff on any channel? Meaning FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.

It's sad, really. This is an actual issue.

And to your point, bravos...the order isn't an authorization to eliminate him if they can't capture him. It is an order to target and kill him. Period. In this way, it isn't applicable to your analogy.

[The Rap]

I know it is sad but considering how polarized the politcal scope is in this country wouldn't there be someone at least who would be screaming about this?

[Dreamscape]

It's sad, really. This is an actual issue.

And to your point, bravos...the order isn't an authorization to eliminate him if they can't capture him. It is an order to target and kill him. Period. In this way, it isn't applicable to your analogy.
I haven't seen that confirmed, Chris. Can you help me with a link?

[Chris_Moderato]

I haven't seen that confirmed, Chris. Can you help me with a link?

These links are drawn from the original link Agent_X posted.

Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp)

Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews)

Because he is a U.S. citizen, adding Aulaqi to the CIA list required special approval from the White House, officials said. The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.

[Dreamscape]

But my problem is that we can all agree he's on the target list, but the list also applies for capture. It's not a this or that, but a this AND that. Albeit, it's not the most worthy of arguments, but I do think it's a bit different from "I don't care if you can take him alive, kill him dead."

I'm probably not explaining this as well as I need to, though. Brain's a bit fried.

[KB 34]

So how many of you that support Obama on this one would have supported Bush if he authorized the CIA to kill an American? Bush tried to wiretap people like that and the country went crazy, but Obama gets to have them killed instead? Killing people is better than wiretapping to figure out what they're up to? Yes yes, the republicans have been quiet. Most of them are too busy getting lap dances with Michael Steele on their donor's dime to worry about stuff like this. It's a shame Washington doesn't have more mirrors.

[Dreamscape]

So how many of you that support Obama on this one would have supported Bush if he authorized the CIA to kill an American? Bush tried to wiretap people like that and the country went crazy, but Obama gets to have them killed instead? Killing people is better than wiretapping to figure out what they're up to? Yes yes, the republicans have been quiet. Most of them are too busy getting lap dances with Michael Steele on their donor's dime to worry about stuff like this. It's a shame Washington doesn't have more mirrors.
I wouldn't support this if it was done here. Might be a double standard, I don't care. But in the same vein, the country didn't go crazy. Stop with the hyperbole and try to make an honest point. Politically active liberals and some libertarians and he occasional conservative spoke up on it, but there were very few large protests about the issue. If Bush had approved a target list for capture and/or assassination that included this individual involved, I would have supported it.

Seriously, though, your sweeping generalizations and red herrings don't help matters.

[KB 34]

That is the point, Obama promised to change a lot of Bush policies the country didn't like involving how the US was conducting the war on terrorism that they felt were giving the US a bad name. This goes beyond any of that stuff and brings up an even larger question of right or wrong. The prior questions dealt with how people were being treated and whether the treatment was proper. Now the question has become should at least one terrorist be guaranteed the chance to live long enough to find himself in a position where these issues exist. If the answer to that question is no, then the next obvious question to me is what about the next person, and the next, and the next. Are we confident to allow the current president these powers? If the answer is yes, how about the next few? Repeating things can be much easier and less headline grabbing than the first time.

[Chris_Moderato]

Now the question has become should at least one terrorist be guaranteed the chance to live long enough to find himself in a position where these issues exist.

No, this is not the issue. The issue is not the targeted killing of terrorists. The issue is the Constitutionality of one branch of the federal government unilaterally authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, in violation of that individual's right, as a citizen, to due process.

Are we confident to allow the current president these powers? If the answer is yes, how about the next few?

I do think, however, that you get at some of the underlying danger of setting this precedent with this statement.

[The Rap]

Wiretapping innocent American citizens, living here in the USA, on a broad basis is one thing. Killing one located in terrorist havens in Yemen who is acitvely working diligently on killing Americans is another thing totally .

[Agent-X-]

I know it is sad but considering how polarized the politcal scope is in this country wouldn't there be someone at least who would be screaming about this?

Michael, I believe the original article even makes a point about how we're not hearing a word about this through any major media outlet.

PS. I'll get back to you on the list of decisions I really haven't liked. When I do, I want to be able to list them off and explain what I don't like about them.

[The Rap]

Sounds good and I hope I have the time to refute your complaints.

[Chris_Moderato]

Sounds good and I hope I have the time to refute your complaints.

You don't expect that you might agree with any of Don's concerns?

[The Rap]

Not nice Chris because Donnie and I are good friends and he knows he and I agree on some stuff.

[Chris_Moderato]

Not nice Chris because Donnie and I are good friends and he knows he and I agree on some stuff.

Fair enough, but I found it curious that you were just assuming you'd be refuting everything he said .

[Freddy_Ballgame]

The what if George Bush question was overlooked just a bit....I think it's more than likely that George Bush did have the guy on a list of targets for capture and/or elimination. Why wouldn't he? The guy is an enemy of our nation. Bush had Cheney and others who were much more adept at keeping that type of thing on the dummy-up. I would hope every president has such lists and is aware of citizens who should be considered targets. One needn't be an Arab to hijack a jet and crash it into a skyscraper....

[Agent-X-]

I actually think we'll find agreement somewhere in the middle. I just need the time to put the list together.

I'll go ahead and offer up a few thoughts. One of my big problems with Obama stems from his decision to support FISA. Going from his vote for FISA, his handling of copyrights and intellectual properties appears to [almost] fall squarely on the side of IP owners such that we are headed for an internet that is designed and regulated to protect against IP theft. The MPAA and RIAA want legislation that puts full responsibility on ISPs to stop piracy. In doing so, ISPs will require the ability to fully manage network traffic.

This problem branches out into many issues that bother me. We can run the gambit on issues ranging from digital product licensing and fair use to fully throttling the internet to strip consumer freedom to choose to break the law. Here's where I've grown to dislike Obama...

I DON'T SEE HIM MAKING ANY DECISIONS THAT BENEFIT THE CONSUMER. ALL THE LEGISLATION APPEARS TO GO IN FAVOR OF BUSINESS.

Now the part of this that is time consuming is showing you where this claim is coming from. I'd like to be able to cite sources like the secret ACTA meetings [transparency?? No?? Oh well...] so that my argument is supported with evidence.

[The Rap]

[B]Well right off the bat I can see a differenced of opinion. This administration has been pushing hard for a Consumer Protection Agency and is being stalled by Republicans, backed by corporations and other self interest groups. I also find it hard to agree with that after witnessing the helathcare debate. His whole point was that the American people, i.e. the consumer was being screwed by the corporations and he stood up against them.[B]

[Freddy_Ballgame]

I agree somewhat with what Donny is saying. It's been my question to the GOP for months. What are they whining about? Obama has done little to change what Bush was doing, save the hastily pushed into action healthcare reform. His decisions or lack of same are running the same as Bush's did favoring corporate America over the people who got him elected. In an opportune span of time, working with the majority, Obama really hasn't done dick that shows me he's changed anything. If anything Michael, Obama has changed his own stripes. With so much positivity surrounding his election and the majorities he has, why isn't he doing something to fix some of the real problems we face?
Perhaps it's as I've felt for awhile. We don't elect these guys, they are placed in office by whoever is really running things. As much as things change, they're still the same.

[The Rap]

Fred,

There is a long list of Obama's achievements during this first year plus. You can't just brush off the biggest one by saying "save healthcare reform" since it consumed the most time by far. Also consider how many Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt tried to get this done and always failed. One of the problems Obama faces is that it takes mucho time to rectify some of the problems he wants to solve. Any economist will tell you that jobs is a laggard when reviving an economy. That isn't to belittle the suffering of those beset with financial problems. If you want to know more go to the White House website to see a listing because the in the first few months alone there was gret achievement by just reversing ll the harm that W's administration tried to institutionalize.

I have complaints about what is happening as well. I believe throwing billions into Iraq and Afghanistan is a primary cause for our financial troubles. In addition they are a waste of people and money which could be used more effectively in the fight against terror. I think the problem is similar to the one that happened during the Vietnam War. That is, when the decision-making is being made by the military. It is almost like Petraeus being our foreign policy President. So that is one of the complaints I have against Obama.

Another is that all he has to do is sign an order to end "don't ask, don't tell." He has committed to doing so and many are getting impatient waiting for it to happen.

[The Rap]

Notice how I didn't even mention the opposition which has done nothing for the American people but saying NO.

[bravos4evr]

the money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan is next to nothing relative to normal govt spending. You have to know this ,so it just reeks of making stuff up to ranty on endlessly about how much you hate anything started by the GOP and love everything started by the DEM...... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Chris_Moderato]

...... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Seconded.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

I may be a bit, Hell I am jaded, but even I wouldn't go to the White House website looking for an unbiased viewpoint, Michael. Do you expect them to say Obama has spent his first year touring the world, going to ball games, inviting friends in for beers and sneaking about for a smoke? Neither do I. I live in the real world, as do the rest of us who aren't wealthy. Until I see something I can identify as a positive step for the nation I'm not pattin' Obama on the back. National healthcare is something I am for. Functional national healthcare, not just enough bills rammed together to "claim" it as an accomplishment. Let's see them tear apart the healthcare industries and eliminate most of the waste and crooked dealings. Make it a flagship industry one can point at with pride, instead of anger. That's something that B.O. can hang his White Sox hat on!

[Agent-X-]

Here's an interesting update worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html