Extrajudicial Killing

[The Dark Lord]

OT: That guy's a horrible public speaker.

[Furah]

What the [bleep]. How could anybody be ok with this? There was no evidence to prove that he was doing anything in relation to terrorism, and even if there was, he needs to be given a fair and just trial. On top of that, I see no reason to have executions as a legitimate form of sentencing.

[Guy]

What the [bleep]. How could anybody be ok with this? There was no evidence to prove that he was doing anything in relation to terrorism, and even if there was, he needs to be given a fair and just trial. On top of that, I see no reason to have executions as a legitimate form of sentencing.

Are you ok with the other killings that have been happening for the past 3 years or whatever? Every single death there isn't publicised as widely as this guy's. Are you saying all of these terrorists should've been given fair trials, and then eventually found to be guilty and executed anyway? To give them a fair trial in the fist place you have to capture them as well, which has a human cost. It's unfortunate, but this is the only real efficient way to do it.

[magekillr]

What the [bleep]. How could anybody be ok with this? There was no evidence to prove that he was doing anything in relation to terrorism, and even if there was, he needs to be given a fair and just trial. On top of that, I see no reason to have executions as a legitimate form of sentencing.

 

If there is evidence that he's guilty of terrorism and is in another country, I think there is a legal case to be made that he can be executed. Now, me personally, I would be against that morally, but it's a lot more gray in the legal area if there's an indictment with actual evidence. Think of it like a hostage situation. Police are able to kill a person who's holding innocent people hostage without a trial, "Come out with your hands up or we'll shoot you."

 

The problem is I don't believe us to be at war with al Qaeda, I believe in treating them as criminals. Others see them as enemy combatants. The other side is where is the battlefield? Could the president launch a missile at an al Qaeda member who is in London? If not, why not? Either way, this is [cabbage], and it's sad that the biggest cheerleaders are the very people who should be appalled. It's this reason why the ACLU gets a bad rap -- they defend the people everyone hates on the sheer principle that their rights were violated (NAMBLA, Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK).

[Zierro]

It's amazing seeing how reluctant people are to believe there really are terrorists out there set on spilling your blood to make a political point. Just about any terrorist-related topic is flooded with skeptics pinpointing the government's methods as "unethical means to an end", when really all they're doing is preventing something which, time and time again, reveals itself to be a preventable gory catastrophe.

 

I mean seriously. Is it that you think this man was framed of being a terrorist?

[magekillr]

There is absolutely zero evidence that this man was a terrorist, there is only evidence that he incited others to take up arms and become terrorists themselves. There is absolutely nothing criminal or illegal about that. In fact, the FBI is guilty of doing that very same thing. You know when you hear about the FBI "thwarting" the newest terrorist attack? It's not because they're so good at preventing terrorism. It's because they spend months encouraging people to commit acts of terrorism -- going as far as to FUND THEM -- and when the people they've spent months encouraging finally take up arms and do it, the FBI steps in and says, "Aha! We caught you and prevented a terrorist attack!"

 

Saying that he's guilty of terrorism is exactly like saying the men in Guantanamo are guilty of terrorism. If there's so much evidence that he's guilty of what you people say he's guilty of, why won't the government present their case to a court? Here is your mindset right now:

 

We can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want including citizens without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us.

[obfuscator]

I highly doubt there is zero evidence that he was a terrorist. More likely the government just hasn't released said evidence.

[Guest jrhairychest]

There is absolutely zero evidence that this man was a terrorist, there is only evidence that he incited others to take up arms and become terrorists themselves.

 

I'd be laughing at this statement if it wasn't for the likes of 9/11, you know, where those guys were incited to become terrorists at some point. Personally I'd rather see a suspect dead if it saves lives.

[magekillr]

Well, call me crazy, but a government that can kill people it doesn't like without presenting evidence before a court is the definition of a tyrannical regime.

 

Also interestingly, the Obama administration, and the President himself, heaped praised on the Saleh regime in the midst of that regimes slaughter of dozens of its own citizens. I guess it's not terrorism if the government does it. Remember, they hate us for our freedoms.

[obfuscator]

I agree with you, I just think it's impractical to properly indict every terrorist who wants to kill innocents.

[Crocefisso]

What the [bleep]. How could anybody be ok with this? There was no evidence to prove that he was doing anything in relation to terrorism, and even if there was, he needs to be given a fair and just trial. On top of that, I see no reason to have executions as a legitimate form of sentencing.

Pretty much.

 

Anwar al-Awlaki's crime was spouting extreme rhetoric. And? Many people do that on the internet all the time. Awlaki was just better than most, and so he was killed.

[Zierro]

Here is your mindset right now:

 

We can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want — including citizens — without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us.

 

In your technical little realm of fine print and black-and-white instruction manuals, I can see exactly how there is no harm in organizing, rallying, and inspiring mass murder via the internet. Let's all just ignore the fact that they are the key component to the bombings, hijackings, and executions we all fear so much - let's instead focus on what our official documents tell us is wrong. What really matters here are the formalities and semantics behind the issue at hand - not the real world issue of saving innocent [bleep]ing lives.

[Nomrombom]

I understand the side saying that it is necessary to save lives/prevent disaster/prevent backlogs etc. but I cannot bring myself to agree. Where does it stop? What prevents the government from doing this to people in the US? Where do you draw the line?

[Dizzle229]

No tears shed for the guy and had he not been a US citizen I'd have thought nothing of it, but my biggest question is this: Would it have been possible to get him alive?

[Guest jrhairychest]

I understand the side saying that it is necessary to save lives/prevent disaster/prevent backlogs etc. but I cannot bring myself to agree. Where does it stop? What prevents the government from doing this to people in the US? Where do you draw the line?

 

Any government can kill its own citizens if they deem you a threat to their national security. It's been that way for a long, long time. Be thankful you live in the US instead of countries where they'd kill you just for opposing the government in an election. :(

[Nomrombom]

I understand the side saying that it is necessary to save lives/prevent disaster/prevent backlogs etc. but I cannot bring myself to agree. Where does it stop? What prevents the government from doing this to people in the US? Where do you draw the line?

 

Any government can kill its own citizens if they deem you a threat to their national security. It's been that way for a long, long time. Be thankful you live in the US instead of countries where they'd kill you just for opposing the government in an election. :(

 

The world is just full of backwards, moronic bastards, ain't it?

[magekillr]

For those arguing that he effectively lost his citizenship rights, here's the State Department being oddly honest about all that (the only reason his citizenship matters is because he wasn't in the country. Foreign citizens have the same rights under the Constitution only if they're being held by the US...but citizens carry those rights no matter where they go):

 

While the Obama administration contends al-Awlakis U.S. citizenship didnt prevent the CIA from targeting the alleged terror leader with a drone, the government didnt have the right to take away that citizenship.

 

Its interesting, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at Fridays daily briefing amid a barrage of questions on the airstrike that killed al-Awlaki in Yemen. Nuland said she asked State Department lawyers whether the government can revoke a persons citizenship based on their affiliation with a foreign terrorist group, and it turned out theres no law on the books authorizing officials to do so. An American can be stripped of citizenship for committing an act of high treason and being convicted in a court for that. But that was obviously not the case in this case, she said. Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case.

 

Summary Judgments for Oct. 3

 

Translation (supplied by Greenwald): "We wanted to strip Awlaki of his citizenship, but theres no legal authority for us to do that, so we just went ahead and killed him."

[Furah]

What the [bleep]. How could anybody be ok with this? There was no evidence to prove that he was doing anything in relation to terrorism, and even if there was, he needs to be given a fair and just trial. On top of that, I see no reason to have executions as a legitimate form of sentencing.

Are you ok with the other killings that have been happening for the past 3 years or whatever? Every single death there isn't publicised as widely as this guy's. Are you saying all of these terrorists should've been given fair trials, and then eventually found to be guilty and executed anyway? To give them a fair trial in the fist place you have to capture them as well, which has a human cost. It's unfortunate, but this is the only real efficient way to do it.

No, I'm not. I'm not ok with anyone being executed. The only time I'm ok with a person ending another person's life is when it's a case of kill or be killed in that moment, or euthanasia (not always though, only for the elderly and those in constant pain from a medical condition.)

[Zierro]

I understand the side saying that it is necessary to save lives/prevent disaster/prevent backlogs etc. but I cannot bring myself to agree. Where does it stop? What prevents the government from doing this to people in the US? Where do you draw the line?

 

If you know me, you'll know that I'm a pretty liberal person. Do what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Well, when people go on organized crusades of hatred and violence, even if it is done civilly at the moment, it usually turns out to be the prelude to catastrophe, as we all learned in History Class.

 

Does this mean kill anyone who utters anything with a violent context? Of course not. However, if they are systematically organizing the extermination of innocent civilians, it's not really a stretch to call this person a major national threat just because they haven't directly confessed to something in which they openly revolve their lives around (this particular man has been renowned as the "Osama Bin Laden of the Internet"). The reality of the situation kicks in right about here - unfortunately, someone's going to die. I'd rather it be the radicals than the innocent people who don't even understand why the hell any of this is even happening.

 

I think a lot of people here are just romanticizing about the principle of free speech and are upset that, legally, there is a limit to what you can say. I do sympathize on this point, however, speech does translate to real world effects... death being one of them.

[Nomrombom]

I think their more prominent argument is that he is a US citizen and has the right to a fair trial, and by killing him the US does not follow the constitution. You will counter this with something akin to your first few sentences, "usually turns out to be a disaster" etc. Key word here being usually. Just because someone might do something/might have done something does not mean you kill them for it without a fair trial - the right guaranteed to all citizens by the constitution.

 

I completely understand what you are thinking and I do see why you think it, but I can't agree.

[obfuscator]

That argument annoys me. Every person worldwide has the right to a fair trial, not just american citizens.

 

His life is not worth more because he has a little piece of paper that says "property of the USA" on it.

[Nomrombom]

That argument annoys me. Every person worldwide has the right to a fair trial, not just american citizens.

 

His life is not worth more because he has a little piece of paper that says "property of the USA" on it.

 

Just to make sure we're clear, I agree with you. I just used that to clarify what they're saying to Crusty.

[Guest jrhairychest]

I understand the side saying that it is necessary to save lives/prevent disaster/prevent backlogs etc. but I cannot bring myself to agree. Where does it stop? What prevents the government from doing this to people in the US? Where do you draw the line?

 

If you know me, you'll know that I'm a pretty liberal person. Do what you want as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Well, when people go on organized crusades of hatred and violence, even if it is done civilly at the moment, it usually turns out to be the prelude to catastrophe, as we all learned in History Class.

 

Does this mean kill anyone who utters anything with a violent context? Of course not. However, if they are systematically organizing the extermination of innocent civilians, it's not really a stretch to call this person a major national threat just because they haven't directly confessed to something in which they openly revolve their lives around (this particular man has been renowned as the "Osama Bin Laden of the Internet"). The reality of the situation kicks in right about here - unfortunately, someone's going to die. I'd rather it be the radicals than the innocent people who don't even understand why the hell any of this is even happening.

 

I think a lot of people here are just romanticizing about the principle of free speech and are upset that, legally, there is a limit to what you can say. I do sympathize on this point, however, speech does translate to real world effects... death being one of them.

 

Spot on Crusty. I was thinking the same thing as I just got to your post. :thumbup:

[ilovecuttingyews]

CBC's Neil Macdonald wrote an analysis of this that I found pretty interesting (found Here.)

Essentially, he draws parallels between Anwar al-Awlaki defecting to Yemen and Luis Posada Carriles defecting to the USA. Both were accused of crimes, but never tried in a court of law. He states; "One suspects Washington, which has refused to hand him over to Cuba or Venezuela, would regard a drone strike killing Carriles (and, possibly, various civilians that are near him at any given moment) as an act of war." So, while the USA Congress has given the president 'permission' to go out and assasinate these terrorists, there is no valid reason to do so if they are not also willing to accept others doing the same on US soil.

[magekillr]

Oh look at this news goodie from Reuters:

 

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

 

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

 

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

 

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

 

More: Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

 

I'm sure it won't be abused, and it's ok because our government says they're dangerous!

 

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

 

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.