Is the justification for government-sponsored murder a bunch of (legal and/or moral) bullshit?

[ralph124c]

So why doesn’t the US Congress formally declare war on Al Queda?
It would solve all these issues-and killings cold be conducted on a proper, legal basis.

[Ravenman]

The 9/11 use of force resolution covers any military attack on Al Qaeda. There is no reason to declare war; it essentially has been done.

[WillFarnaby]

@Chessic_Sense

Yes, of course he did. He had years to turn himself in and face trial. He did not. The government essentially said “Come out with your hands up,” and he replied “You’ll never take me alive!”

What was he charged with? He was never charged with treason by the U.S., nor was he ever charged with being involved in terrorist attacks in the U.S. What would he have faced trial for?

According to Holder, in order to be targeted for assassination, Al- Awlaki had to present an imminent threat. What was this imminent threat? He was putting out another propoganda DVD?

@Chessic_Sense

He was a member of fuckin al Qaeda! This is a fact without dispute! To say otherwise shows a creationist-level of ignorance.

This is irrelevent. According to Holder he must represent an imminent threat.

[CoolHandCox]

@WillFarnaby

…

According to Holder, in order to be targeted for assassination, Al- Awlaki had to present an imminent threat. What was this imminent threat? He was putting out another propoganda DVD?

This is irrelevent. According to Holder he must represent an imminent threat.

Here is AG Holder’s speech in full from March 5, 2012 you’re referring to.

Holder goes through a list of requirements, one being a member of Al Qaeda (so it’s not irrelevant), another is “imminent threat.” I don’t think Holder means what you think he does, though. Holder means, generally, that the Al-Awlaki had to be involved in a plot to kill Americans – That plot doesn’t have to be moments away from going into effect, rather, the imminence is focused on the US’s not having another opportunity to kill (if capture unfeasible) Al-Awlaki before the plot goes into effect. Or generally speaking, this guy is hatching a plot to kill Americans, because of his location we can’t capture him without risking too many soldiers lives, and we likely won’t be able to find and target him before the plot actually goes into effect at some later time, so let’s stop it now. Imminent in that sense.

Here’s the relevant part of the speech:

The evaluation of whether an individual presents an “imminent threat” incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States. As we learned on 9/11, al Qaeda has demonstrated the ability to strike with little or no notice – and to cause devastating casualties. Its leaders are continually planning attacks against the United States, and they do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack. Given these facts, the Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning – when the precise time, place, and manner of an attack become clear. Such a requirement would create an unacceptably high risk that our efforts would fail, and that Americans would be killed.

[WillFarnaby]

@CoolHandCox

Here is AG Holder’s speech in full from March 5, 2012 you’re referring to.

Holder goes through a list of requirements, one being a member of Al Qaeda (so it’s not irrelevant), another is “imminent threat.” I don’t think Holder means what you think he does, though. Holder means, generally, that the Al-Awlaki had to be involved in a plot to kill Americans – That plot doesn’t have to be moments away from going into effect, rather, the imminence is focused on the US’s not having another opportunity to kill (if capture unfeasible) Al-Awlaki before the plot goes into effect. Or generally speaking, this guy is hatching a plot to kill Americans, because of his location we can’t capture him without risking too many soldiers lives, and we likely won’t be able to find and target him before the plot actually goes into effect at some later time, so let’s stop it now. Imminent in that sense.

Here’s the relevant part of the speech:

Ok I missed that part of the speech. As Holder says, Al- Qaeda is continually planning attacks on the U.S. This makes his requirement of an attack being imminent completely worthless, because an attack is always imminent using his definition. So pretty much if you can be linked to Al- Qaeda and we can’t or won’t capture you, you can be assassinated any place in the world.

[Ravenman]

@WillFarnaby

As Holder says, Al- Qaeda is continually planning attacks on the U.S. This makes his requirement of an attack being imminent completely worthless, because an attack is always imminent using his definition. So pretty much if you can be linked to Al- Qaeda and we can’t or won’t capture you, you can be assassinated any place in the world.

Well, that’s a pretty big twist of logic. It’s like saying that because Sideshow Bob is continually trying to kill Bart Simpson, there’s no call for Bart to be alarmed.

[CoolHandCox]

@WillFarnaby

Ok I missed that part of the speech. As Holder says, Al- Qaeda is continually planning attacks on the U.S. This makes his requirement of an attack being imminent completely worthless, because an attack is always imminent using his definition. So pretty much if you can be linked to Al- Qaeda and we can’t or won’t capture you, you can be assassinated any place in the world.

If you believe that AQ is continually planning attacks against the US, then to me, that just sounds like your in a war - we’re going to continually plan attacks to thwart them. With that in mind, Holder says we can only target high-level AQ commanders abroad helping implement those plans who are also US citizens (cannot target low-level AQ American citizens). They have to be actually planning/plotting against Americans, though. Propaganda videos are not enough.

I can assume we both want the President to protect us from attacks. I agree with you, but I read it as good, and I know you mean it to be bad.

Anyways, there are more requirements to target a US Citizen abroad than just an “imminent” threat, though.