How often do we have to go through this? The real issue about authorizing assassination

[howard112211]

of US citzens isn't what this guy has done or not done. It is not about him at all. Therefore all the "look how bad a guy this guy is" posts are totally useless.

The point is that the administration has officially declared that the president has the authority to order the assassination of a US citizen, based on personal judgement. If the president has the right to order this, without presenting any sort of case before a court, he can order it against anyone. Whether the person in question is a member of a terrorist group is irrelevant. If he does not have to answer to anyone, in principle there is nothing to stop him from also using it against journalists or protesters. I'm not saying that Obama will do this, but apparently he has the right to. So that makes the USA effectively a dictatorship, doesn't it?

Not so hard IMO. Why are we still stuck in the cycle that we should have already left when the patriot act was passed? :shrug:

[WeDidIt]

1. Circumstances very much matter.

This asshole is an enemy of this nation. He is holed up in a terrorist nation wiht enemies of this nation.

He is fair game. He is no different than the assholes who left the U.S. to join the Wermacht during World War II. We sure as hell killed a lot of those.

I fully support the president on this.

[howard112211]

5. Circumstances are in the eye of the beholder. If you make exceptions to rule of law

you undermine the integrity of the process. It paves the way for others making other exceptions. Today this guy is an enemy of the nation. Tomorrow we might have anouther Bush in the white house.

WW II was different. There was not directed effort to assassinate individuals. There was simply a war against a foreign army.

[treestar]

9. The right wingers were always telling us there is no rule of law on a

"battlefield." That is undeniably true. Bush tried to extend the battlefield so that it included the entire planet.

But now DU wants to treat Yemen as part of the United States. Yemen may not be quite a "battlefield" but on the other hand - it's not the United States.

People confuse US citizenship (US citizens have rights all over the world and foreigners have no rights whatever) with the power of enforcement (the US can only rule the US with its laws, not anywhere else).

[howard112211]

10. The question remains whether the president has the same authority

on US soil. If that is not a strong "no", then we have a problem.

[treestar]

20. Of course not

If the guy were in the U.S. we could use our system.

We'd have cops or the FBI.

But we don't have that in other countries.

[EFerrari]

43. There is international law as well as national law that applies to battlefields.

Hence the term "war crime".

[whatchamacallit]

15. Why didn't we just execute everyone in GITMO?

They're there because the government believes them to be terrorists and enemy combatants, so why bother with fucking trials? Oh wait... the US government has released hundreds of them... good thing we didn't just off them I guess.

[treestar]

22. Because they were not out in the field there

they were there be definition of the fact we had captured them.

and we should capture this one first, if we can.

But we don't have to let him get away. (As we did with bin Laden, leading the wingnuts to blame Clinton for 911).

[EFerrari]

44. We didn't capture them. We bought them from the Northern Alliance

for between two or three thousand dollars a head so Rumsfeld could have his terror parade.

[LooseWilly]

52. Yemen is not a battlefield. It is a sovereign nation.

Al-Alawi is not a combatant. He is a suspected recruiter. No one has presented any evidence to conclusively prove that he is a recruiter... hence the use of the term "suspected". Administration officials have not even, as far as I have seen, alluded to conclusive evidence that is "top secret"... they've continued to use terms like "suspect" and "believe" in all the stories I've seen.
In other words... they are just pretty sure that he's an al-Qaeda recruiter.
Pretty sure is now sufficient grounds for a kill or capture order... for a US citizen. Courts are too burdensome for those who would tap wires... or kill US citizens abroad... fucking activist courts... no telling what sort of interpretations they might make of the law.
Better to just ignore the courts, like Jackson did with the Trail of Tears. Maybe Obama will be put on money too...

[underseasurveyor]

17. Then you will not object when the same standard is applied to you.

Or will you? See the thing is, yes this guy is an asshole and if he gets hit by a bus I'll certainly shed no tears HOWEVER now this is the sticking point... If this standard can be "aimed' at him it can most certainly be 'aimed' at you too U.S. Citizen. That is the distinction and the critical point of the whole slippery slope.

Imagine this tool under a republican admin. say a palin or a liz cheney, or bachman type. As far as they're concerned lefties, liberals, and dems are the bane of this country and they want to "take back america."

Are you so willing to accept open U.S sponsored assassinations?

[WeDidIt]

30. Not at all. I won't object one bit.

because it will never be used against me as I won't be calling for death to americans from some terrorist hell-hole.

If the government is going to have abeef with me, they'll come arrest me. This asshole cannot be arrested. He is officially a combatant in an enemy force. Death or capture are the two options. Capture would lead to the legal system, but killing him is always an option in a battlefield.

[Feron]

32. Don't be so sure about that..

Take Richard Jewell, Brandon Mayfield, and Steven Hatfill for starters. All three men were innocent and yet the gov't smeared them as terrorists.

If it can happen to them, it can happen to you too. Hell people are put on "no fly" lists for arbitrary reasons.

While the person in question is unsavory, he still has legal rights. Take away the rights of the worst of us and it bodes ill for the best of us.

[WeDidIt]

56. And not one was killed

You have officially jumped the shark with your argument. Comparing Jewell et. al. to this terrorist bastard is beyond ridiculous.

[underseasurveyor]

33. You're assuming that there will be sanity and reasoning from here on out.

So what happens when eventually some right-wing, tea-bagging administration is in charge? They are a bit on the kooky side ya know. As far as they're concerned you're no different than an al qaeda terrorist.

In any case you're still ignoring the dangerous precedent this sets not to mention it's completely unconstitutional. Oh that's right it's just a goddamned piece of paper.

Congratulations you just became exactly the same thing you sit there and claim to hate. Terrorist eagerly await the killing too, just like you.

Well at least you don't hold a double standard. I'll give ya that.

[WeDidIt]

55. And you're wearing a tinfoil hat

Fuck the anti-government attitude.

[Moochy]

63. No because the good citizen has nothing to fear !

Only evildoers are assasinated... According to OMCs minimum wage replacement, upthread.

[Mojeoux]

28. Isn't this what "James Bond 007" was about? The "00" a license to kill. n/t

[dorkulon]

35. Seriously? James Bond?

:banghead:

[Mojeoux]

41. I'm not saying that a "license to kill" is OK, just not new. n/t

[sabrina 1]

49. Please present your evidence that this person

has done something that warrants the death penalty and lifting this country's ban on political assassinations.

Don't bother with 'Obama says so, so it must be so'. Our standards of proof go deeper than 'Bush or Obama say he's a criminal so the CIA can go kill him'. Or at least they used to. So present the evidence please. We have hundreds of examples already of people the last self appointed 'King of America' told us were criminals and therefore deserved to be tortured and held without charge for years, only to learn that a vast majority of them were innocent people.

I am appalled that the same people who railed against the Patriot Act and Bush declaring that he alone had the authority to declare someone to be an 'enemy combatant', a nice play on words to avoid abiding by the laws of this country and the International Laws we signed onto, are now supporting the exact same policy because the the current occupant of the WH has a 'D' after his name.

It is truly disturbing to read your post, just so you know.

[Hannah Bell]

50. bullshit. unconstitutional bullshit to boot.

[Richard Steele]

54. UnAmerican codswollop. Disgusting.

nm

[no limit]

57. What' stopping the government from naming you a terrorist?

They got the media behind them as we have seen time and time again. So if Obama decided that he doesn't like what "WeDidIt" has to say they unleash a huge stream of propogenda against him. They don't have to verify any of the claims, they just have to be as loud as possible when making those claims. They now have a right to kill you with no trial.

Nobody is saying they will do that, but they certainly can if they wanted to. That's a good democratic system in your eyes? Would you have the same opinion if it was President Palin or President Cheney?

[uponit7771]

61. VERY GOOD POINT about WWII and killing US citizens fighting for Germany. No one put them

...on trial before shooting them

[John Q. Citizen]

64. And you know this, not because he was found guilty by a court, but because you read it on the

internet or saw it on TV or heard it on the radio or read it in a newspaper.

So innocent until proven guilty no longer applies to him, or to you or to me.

Decree by the Emporer (formerly known as the President) is all it takes.

When the Repos get back in one day, you will be fine with their Repo President deciding who should be killed and for what reason they should be killed.

Thanks for nothing. We used to have a Democratic Representative Republic, but the people preferred a dictatorship, as long as they saw it as a "good" dictatorship. So now we have an Empire, and an Emperor who can order who is killed basede on whatever they decide.

Thanks for nothing, once again.

[Echo In Light]

2. Especially within the context of a PHONY WAR

[tekisui]

12. That's what so many are arguing around.

They refuse to acknowledge that the war on terror is not a real war.

Where is the war zone? The entire planet earth!

Who is the enemy? Whomever we say!

How do we fight them? Bombs! Bombs! Bombs!

When will we win? Win? Win? Are you fucking nuts? There are no winners in this 'war'.

[Echo In Light]

13. Precisely

[BlooInBloo]

3. It should be obvious to all that there needs to be a strong check on that power, for balance.

[Swamp Rat]

4. !

[treestar]

6. What is to be suggested about how to handle this?

What do we do about this guy? Suppose he carries out a suicide mission and kills some Americans? If he did that, there would be denunciations for not having caught him before.

[howard112211]

8. Well, first of all, he will not be able to enter the US

without having to pass through US borders, in case of which he will be arrested. As long as he is outside of the US, he can be treated like any other wanted criminal has been treated.

[treestar]

11. There is a Supreme Court case that says the government is not

bound by the bill of rights outside the U.S. It involved FBI agents who somehow ended up in Mexico. They searched a house in Mexico, had no warrant, but the defendant could not get that evidence excluded.

We are stronger than other countries, so this comes up. If Yemen were able to keep us out of their country, this would not come up.

[howard112211]

14. So anytime a politician of the opposition leaves the US

the president can order the assassination? I find that troubling.

[treestar]

19. No, of course not.

Where would you get that?

Supposedly this guy has done something to make him a wanted criminal.

[howard112211]

21. Well, if he doesn't have to prove to a court that this guy is a criminal

he can just make something up? :shrug:

Again, I'm not worried as much about this guy as about how this translates into future handling of such things.

[treestar]

25. The line has to be drawn somewhere

to take it to an extreme, General X does not have to convince a court first before attacking on a battlefield.

Someone simply wanted for a crime should be captured first.

With Al Qaeda it falls in the middle and gets confusing. They are definitely out to get us in the way that say the Japanese army might have been.

I would think they should capture this guy and try him first, but I'm not sure that isn't the way it is. DU is prone to hysteria.

Think of shooting Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde. Or when Andrew Curnanon was on the lam. If it proves impossible to catch them for a trial, do we have to let them get away to kill more people, until we can capture them? And that took place in the U.S.

This guy could be planning a suicide attack. He already said he can't wait to join those already in 70 virgin heaven.

[Luminous Animal]

36. Dillinger pulled a gun.

Bonnie & Clyde were flat out executed in a fit of vigilante justice. At the time of their extra-judicial execution, they could have been apprehended or, if they resisted, they could have been easily legally killed.

[skeptical cynic]

27. Due process is the method for determining guilt

"Supposedly this guy has done something to make him a wanted criminal" warrants execution?

"Supposedly" is very low standard.

Where is the jury of peers? How does this person face his accusers?

[sabrina 1]

59. That would be the same SC that installed an illigitimate

president. The same one that said Corporations are persons.

The Constitution doesn't say 'but remember, after you read all this quaint stuff we wrote, might makes right so go ahead and invade and murder in other countries. This country cannot do wrong outside of the U.S.'

That of course is what the SC's chosen president contended. That is why we opposed the Patriot Act. Because the Constitution says no such thing.

[Cid_B]

37. Right... because every person who comes to the US...

stops to make sure their paperwork is in order (especially if they are a wanted criminal.) :eyes:

Guys like this usually send other idiots off to blow themselves but that is just silly.

[damntexdem]

7. Forget the ethics, the legality, even the viability of the policy.

It's not smart to announce government support for murder in a country where so many rightwing nutcases are threatening to commit it.

[Dr Morbius]

29. You know, that's a damn good point.

But I am not sure it counts as "murder." It falls under international self-defense.

[sabrina 1]

51. How do you know it falls under self defense? Have you seen

any evidence of that? Where is it, as I would like to see it myself. I know we were told this about many others during the Bush administration, but later, too late for some of them, we found out that they were innocent.

Are you seriously proposing that this country adapt such an undemocratic policy now because YOU trust THIS President? What about the next president? What if it's Romney, or Lynn Cheney eg? Are you thinking about this country or just this president?

If this is adapted as a policy, what will you say when there is a Republican in the WH, like Bush? What did you say when Bush wanted to do the same thing? Did you think it was self defense then?

[azul]

53. And set the standard for international law and action?

Turn this around. Does some preacher on US tv or in some church calling for a crusade to take back the holy land and kill Muslims then legitimizes such self-defense actions by other countries?

Could all countries, or their leaders, then legally and arbitrarily decide which individuals constitute threats and send out hit squads, drones, or whatever to rub them out?

The USA is setting the role model, if not precedent, for breaking down the existing rule of law. Torture, murder, what next?

[sabrina 1]

65. Amazing isn't it? This cult of personality is so dangerous.

Pat Robertson, speaking of preachers, did call for the assassination of Chavez. He was excoriated by many people, mostly on the left, at the time. But if he were to do it now, now that a democratic president is doing this, I am afraid that many on this board, would agree with him. We have sunk so low in just over one year. I don't know whether to be angry or sad. In fact, I'm beginning to think we were better off when it was a Republican doing all of this, because at least then there was some opposition to it. Now, so-called progressives are supporting the Unitary Executive theory, giving the powers of a King to a U.S. president. It's frightening how fast it happened.

[Egnever]

16. Oh for fucks sake

What needs to be looked at is the rediculous hyperbole surounding this issue. He is wanted dead or alive no different than any other enemy with designs to kill Americans. His assasination wasnt ordered get over yourselves already.

[merkins]

31. By Who?

What authority has decreed he is wanted dead or alive? Cites

[Egnever]

46. The CIA look it up yourself

[no limit]

58. Damn, lets hope the CIA never puts Egnever on their shit list

[EFerrari]

42. But this isn't the Wild West and Obama is not Pat Garrett.

[Egnever]

45. Says you

[EFerrari]

47. You bet. Obama is not a cowboy in a lawless landscape

but a person who swore to uphold the Constitution.

[Egnever]

48. And?

Nothing he is doing is against the constitution what are you going on about?

[RedCloud]

18. What if the orders get smeared and they "off" Limbaugh by mistake?

Well shit happens.

[underseasurveyor]

24. Oops

Sorry boss, we'll do better the next time:evilgrin:

[immoderate]

23. Calling for assassination is wrong. Not that it makes much difference.

Alternatives are calling for his capture, and shooting him when he resists or escapes. They can put a bounty on him. I think that's legal.

The point is they said the wrong thing.

--imm

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Oh, but he's OUR guy, so that makes it okay (to some)

Go Team!



The forgoing is all sarcasm mixed with disgust.

KnR

[conscious evolution]

34. Has he even been indicted?

This is a very scary developement.

[varelse]

38. It's "our" guy now - and since he can do no wrong, it must now be ok

I guess. :shrug:

[ibegurpard]

39. Go Team!

RAH RAH!

[Festivito]

40. So, this is how we make a more perfect union -- NOT!

This is how one can destroy the union we have, however.

[uponit7771]

60. Link and quote the administration sayin such? (meaning NOT "anonomous" quotes)

[Greyhound]

62. So true.

Still the fanatical followers just can't seem to imagine that Obama will not be President for Life.