Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Northerner

(5,040 posts)
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:08 PM Mar 2012

Debating assassinations on “Real Time”

I was on Real Time with Bill Maher last night and the most contentious debate occurred over the claimed power of the Obama administration to target American citizens for assassination without due process, as it did with Anwar Awlaki. Below is the clip of that discussion. One irony is that it was preceded by a discussion of hate crimes prosecutions (in the context of the Trayvon Martin and Tyler Clementi cases) in which both Maher and Andrew Sullivan insisted that Americans have the inviolable right to express even the most hateful and repellent opinions without being punished for it by the state, yet were both supportive of the Awlaki killing, an act grounded overwhelmingly if not exclusively in the U.S. government’s hatred and fear of his political speech. The discussion also included Brown University’s Wendy Schiller:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-sullivan-and-glenn-greenwald-clash-over-military-killing-us-citizens-overseas-on-maher-panel/

Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/24/debating_assassinations_on_real_time/singleton/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Debating assassinations on “Real Time” (Original Post) The Northerner Mar 2012 OP
gay marriage bad, murder untried and unconvicted "enemies" + women/kids good nt msongs Mar 2012 #1
That was a crappy episode SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #2
Astonishing that there's even a need for a debate gratuitous Mar 2012 #3
Greenwald is so right here. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #4

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
2. That was a crappy episode
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 03:27 PM
Mar 2012

It might as well have been the Mahr/Sullivan hour as no one else got a word in edgewise.


Edit: The opening interview with the OP_ED guy from the NYT was awesome though...

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
3. Astonishing that there's even a need for a debate
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:18 PM
Mar 2012

There was a time when summary execution of political adversaries was something the United States frowned upon. Now it's celebrated. Looks like we're going to need to apologize to Stalin before too much longer.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
4. Greenwald is so right here.
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 04:29 PM
Mar 2012

I think that the American Bar Association has a big job here -- educating Americans to understand that the law has to apply universally -- at least our law has to apply equally to all Americans.

If it is against the law for our government to kill an American who holds a high office in the US without a trial, it is also against the law for our government to kill an ordinary American citizen, even a criminal, who is living overseas .

If we are at war in Yemen, we need to declare war there so that all nations and warn all people and all nations that we are at war there.

As for being at war with Al Qaeda. What does that mean? The laws of war apply to wars between nations. How can we apply the laws of war to a movement?

Specifically, how can we fight within the universal laws that apply to war against Al Qaeda. We have never defined Al Qaeda very clearly. Vaguely, it is an organization of Muslim extremists. Somehow it has to do with violence against people and things for a political motive. But we are such a violent nation, and so much of the violence here, even the shooting of Trayvon Martin has a political aspect that defining an act as terrorism in itself involves a judgment that reflects the political bias of the judge.

Equal justice is not a conglomeration of exceptions and special circumstances. One law has to apply to everyone. The Obama administration is continuing the misguided, dangerous policy of special laws applied selectively for special individuals. That policy does not insure equal justice.

We see this same kind of injustice when we compare at the benevolent treatment of the Wall Street thieves and the banks and mortgage companies who robbed us with the aggressive enforcement of the law when it comes to shoplifters and petty thieves. Nothing wrong with punishing shoplifters and petty thieves, but come on now, what about the guys who steal far more? Let's pass laws that impose the same justice on all thieves.

Al-Awalaki may have been a vicious killer. We don't really know. We have to take our government's word for it. And so the German people took their government's word for the fact that Jews were evil, that Socialists had to be imprisoned if not killed.

The universal application of law -- equal justice -- is one thing that can insure that we do not go the way of the Germans. We need to insist on universally applied law and equal justice.

Everyone on DU understands that Trayvon Martin deserved an opportunity to appear and be heard -- due process -- before being tried and executed. The flaw in the Florida law is precisely that it imposes the law unequally. The person with the fastest gun is declared innocent from the get-go. The drone killing of Americans overseas is no different. Our guns are faster and bigger, so we are declared innocent without trial.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not justifying the evil that is crime or Al Qaeda. I am simply hoping to help you understand that if we sacrifice our dedication to universal law and equal justice, we will descend into a dictatorship of the powerful and most brutal.

Emotional acts of vengeance, acts motivated by fear and not reason are often unjust.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Debating assassinations o...