Glad we’re in agreement.
If your claim is that Awlaki made videos calling for violence against America, I will be unable to disagree because those videos exist and can be viewed. If your claim is that Awlaki held an operational role with Al Qaeda, such that he merits assassination, then I’m going to need more than the suspicions of anonymous government officials or messageboard posters. Otherwise, I just can’t see what crime Awlaki was guilty of committing.
I was responding to Hamlet’s assertion that it’s permissible for the President to order the killing of American citizens without due process so long as they are killed “on the battlefield”.
I’m asking what constitutes "the battlefield and if Osama Bin Laden was killed on it.
If he wasn’t “on the battlefield” then shouldn’t those enraged by the killing of A Alawki be enraged by his killing or do they hold that the President can order anyone on the planet killed without due process so long as they are not American citizens?
Yes, I know: if MOIDALIZE isn’t convinced, then the Obama administration is carrying out premeditated murder of people who say mean things on YouTube. That this guy met and corresponded with terrorists is immaterial, MOIDALIZE doesn’t know about that and won’t read anything about it. MOIDALIZE has spoken.
Being an amazingly stupid dumbass was the one that got him.
I was.
Along with the Clapper Declaration linked above; there’s Anwar al-Aulaqi’s own emails. See here: Excerpts from his emails
It goes on.
James Clapper is an intelligence advisor to the President. His assertions of Awlaki’s operational role are not dispositive. The Government makes accusations of criminal activity by citizens all the time, but we don’t punish anyone until they’ve received due process. Otherwise, we could have just locked up Casey Anthony based on public opinion and the gut feelings of Nancy Grace.
As for Awlaki’s communications with Karim…they’re pretty despicable. But it seems to me that Karim reached out to Awlaki, and Awlaki encouraged him to commit an act of terrorism. That’s still just as much protected speech as “Don’t retreat…reload.”
By your standards then a Mafia Don who tells one of his men to kill someone is protects by the First Amendment.
MOIDALIZE knows the truth, government assessments of terrorists are as worthless as Nancy Grace’s opinions.
They are. While we’re at it, remember that Awlaki had similar communications with the Fort Hood shooter and several others.
What’s the relevance of who contacted whom?
A cite, I beg of you. Tell us how helping someone plot a terrorist attack is protected speech. There’s a lot of good stuff at the site CoolHandCox links to.
For that matter, by MOID’s logic then Charles Manson was protected by the First Amendment and should immediately be released and financially compensated for being falsely imprisoned for several decades.
Similarly, he should be outraged by the jailed of Omar Abd Al-Rahman, the infamous “Blind Sheikh”, convicted following the first bombing of the WTC.
Yeah, that’s a shocker. Faced with the prospect of certain torture, and living the rest of my miserable life in the hellish prison conditions that we’re now world-famous for, I think I’d take my chances with being incinerated in a drone attack too.
The ironic part is the killing is legal, the torture is not.
We did. We locked up Casey Anthony, an innocent woman, for years.
I don’t think **MOIDALIZE **condemns the fact that the guys in the OP were targetted on grounds of terrorism per se. Rather, he (rather rightly) hints that court proceedings, evidence, lawyers and so forth might have been a tiny teensy bit called for before lighting them the fuck up.
[QUOTE=Cool Hand Cox]
What process is due to Anwar al-aulaqi? I think this needs to be established before we can decide whether or not it’s been violated in this instance.
This is what we know: he is/was on a targeted killing list (in 2010). He could have removed himself from that list by surrendering. He did not surrender nor made any attempts to surrender.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure you have a firm grip on this whole due process thing.
You mean what the phrase means, or what this person was entitled to?
No, he’s gone much farther than that.
You’ll notice he’s now asserting that Al Alawki’s actions were protected by the First Amendment.
If that’s the case, then he should also object to the jailing of Charles Manson, Omar Abd Al Rahman, and Mafia Dons who order their men to kill people.
That’s a good argument to make. It makes sense. And if he were being pursued as a criminal it would be required. He would get a lot more due process. How he was killed would be illegal. Period.
He’s not. He’s being pursued by the CnC as an enemy combatant as authorized by Congress. He gets no more due process than any other enemy gets before a bullet rips through them or a drone blows them to bits. That set of laws requires no more than that (you just need to show due diligence in making sure he’s the enemy, member of AQ or working with them, and you’re not indiscriminately killing people), unless that enemy attempts to surrender beforehand. In that instance, you cannot kill them. Not very much due process there.
I guess a question would be, to see if there’s any solid footing we could agree on is, if this guy was fighting for Germany in WWII, would he be required the same due process you’re claiming he’s entitled to now (5th protection, ect) or could we just kill him in a firefight along with all the other Germans. If you’re answer is yes, he could be killed in that scenario (which is nothing like the scenario in which he was killed), we at least agree there are some situations where Americans can legally be killed with very limited due process (i.e., he was identified wearing a German uniform working with Nazi’s in the war effort). Then, it’s just a matter of how wide you/we/society want to enlarge that “classic” battlefield scenario to apply in 2011.
I think we’re dealing with the laws of war and limited due process and his Constitutional protections thus do not apply - I think Congress needs to modify this area because the courts are reluctant to do anything and consistently defer these issues as political questions.
He is also a US Citizen. That citizenship and the rights it grants doesn’t magically disappear when the President decides your an “enemy combatant”. It’s anathema to the Constitution and the idea of a limited government to allow one person to decide for himself and unreviewable that the Constitution no longer applies to you.
The Constitution doesn’t stop applying when we’re at war.
I would love it if Congress would modify this area. Or the Courts. But with the fear of terrorism still unabated, no one has the fucking stones to stop the President from ordering the killing of US citizens without due process.
Hamlet once again is ignoring the fact that during the 1860s hundreds of thousands of American citizens were killed without any sort of trial at the discretion of US forces and hundreds of thousands of others were held for years without any sort of trial.
Braying repeatedly “that was on the battlefield” without any sort of explanation doesn’t help.
Furthermore, Hamlet is completely ignoring that the Constitution protects everyone not just American citizens.
For example, the FBI can’t deny due process for foreign nationals but provide it for American citizens.
In short, whatever due process should have been accorded to Al Awlaki should also have been accorded Osama Bin Laden and various others.