america assassinates american citizen without trial

[Moonbeam]

America stands for strength and crushing her enemies which is exactly what happened here. Good kill.

Thank you. I knew there had to be some insane way you happened to arrived at the right position. I know your couldn't have done it with reason.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are the President. A citizen develops a deadly virus that would create an epidemic that could kill billions of people. The President discovers his lab is somewhere in Atlanta Georgia and he knows he will release the virus in 2 hours. Does the President nuke Atlanta knowing that by killing maybe a million and certainly all the virus there is, he will save billions of lives? What would you do if you were President. Could you kill a million of your fellow citizens?

 

[zinfamous]

Well put - even though if I were an American I would be considered a pinko liberal lefty, you're absolutely right on this point. If Bush has conducted himself in this way the lefties would be asking for his head on a plate, try him for war crimes etc etc etc.

and here we have the fundy Bush cock-suckers screaming for the destruction of American liberty with this incident, while they would have been bowing at the alter of Cheney had it been on their watch.

..what the fuck is the argument, here?

Me--I haven't heard dick about this being any sort of violation on any type of major news network. From what I can tell--the normal conservative boogeymen have been silent...so does this mean that Rush and Beck and Fox news have been chomping at the bit that now one out of a dozen Al Qaeda leaders, assassinated this year, is some example of the dissolution of American liberty?

wtf is wrong with you people?

 

[spidey07]

and here we have the fundy Bush cock-suckers screaming for the destruction of American liberty with this incident, while they would have been bowing at the alter of Cheney had it been on their watch.

..what the fuck is the argument, here?

Me--I haven't heard dick about this being any sort of violation on any type of major news network. From what I can tell--the normal conservative boogeymen have been silent...so does this mean that Rush and Beck and Fox news have been chomping at the bit that now one out of a dozen Al Qaeda leaders, assassinated this year, is some example of the dissolution of American liberty?

wtf is wrong with you people?

Actually, it is the left who are, once again, taking the side of the terrorists. The right believes it's a good kill. The left believes "OMG! poor terrorist's rights!". So you're seeing the true colors of the liberal and how they think.

 

[JTsyo]

Does the US hold trials without capturing a fugitive?

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually, it is the left who are, once again, taking the side of the terrorists. The right believes it's a good kill. The left believes "OMG! poor terrorist's rights!". So you're seeing the true colors of the liberal and how they think.

Actually several leftists in this thread have taken the side of the government here. As well, not everyone opposing it is a leftist. Sorry.

 

[spidey07]

Actually several leftists in this thread have taken the side of the government here. As well, not everyone opposing it is a leftist. Sorry.

I was generalizing, and the generalization is true. Whenever it comes down between choosing America or the terrorist, the left consistently takes the side of the terrorist without fail.

 

[Karl Agathon]

I give credit where credit is due Mr Obama :thumbsup:

 

[Darwin333]

First, I didn't say any amendments should be suspended. I said that I wasn't sure the constitution applied outside of the United States with people waging war against us. If he was captured in the US I would support him getting full rights in the criminal courts. What do you think the process should be here?

At the very least some sort of legislation that laws out specifics and requires some sort of judicial overview. I think that an indictment is another reasonable thing to expect.

Its not that I can't see how this might be necessary I just completely disagree with basically one person being able to, without oversight, be judge, jury, and executioner. That goes completely against what the US has and does stand for.

And your rights as a US citizen, as far as the US government is concerned, do not end at the border.

 

[Moonbeam]

I was generalizing, and the generalization is true. Whenever it comes down between choosing America or the terrorist, the left consistently takes the side of the terrorist without fail.

There are insane folk on the left and the right as well as rational people but when it comes to pure rational outlooks the left wins. Obama is on the left. I am on the left. We completely agree on assassinating terrorists.

In every situation where national security becomes an issue people move to restrict rights that unrestricted would get us killed. Then when safety returns to the people, they want rights far far more protected. This is situational ethics at its best. A national consensus and common sense are required to do this balancing act with any kind of success. We learn as we go. We slaughtered the Indians and locked the Japanese up, we took the rights of slaves. If we get scared enough we may fuck up again, but so far, I think, so good. Assassinating folk who would kill millions of innocent people if they could and are actively trying to find those ways is a death sentence, in my opinion. You can't allow somebody to hide behind his own rights when he or she wants to take the ultimate right of millions, not for any reason no matter how idealistic. You have not only a right but a duty to kill anybody who is unjustly trying to kill you and some other person. If you would rather die than be killed as a solo event that's your option but you empower that person to stay alive to take some other life who may not have your virtue which is rather selfish. Those of you who put some fantasy idealism about these truths are simply idiots and ivory tower dreamers. You'd change in a second a gun was stuck in your face or your kid, parent or spouse was about to be killed.

The thing I love about Islam or what I've been told about Islam in passing, I don't really know much, is that in Islam the Christian thing about turning the other cheek is made to make some sense. In Islam, I hear, when you confront evil, and what evil really is we will leave aside other than to say that the killing of innocent people is a valid example, you confront it with maximum response, you destroy it mercilessly and without any compromise right up till the evil you fight wants to surrender. Then and only then do you totally reverse course and apply compassion. What an incredible quality of mind that takes.

 

[Darwin333]

America stands for strength and crushing her enemies which is exactly what happened here. Good kill.

I thought the right wing were staunch defenders of our liberties and constitution?

 

[Darwin333]

You make a good point, but there is no way in hell these guys are coming in to a trial. It would never happen.

It's fine to stick to one's principles,

I don't know any other way. I am not and will not be one of those people that believes in our freedoms and rights only when it is convenient to do so. Frankly we have way to many people like that right now and it is why we are seeing our rights eroding.

but it's incredibly naive to do so in the face of stark reality.

No it is not, reread my posts. I am not arguing that this was the only way to remove a threat to our national security I am arguing against the process in which it is done. Our entire system of Government is set up so that no single person has powers such as this. We can all agree that such action might be necessary but this is one of the most horrible precedents possible to set. At the very least charges should have been filed and the judicial should be involved in some sort of way. Checks and balances are a very good thing especially when we are talking about killing US citizens.

 

[zinfamous]

Actually, it is the left who are, once again, taking the side of the terrorists. The right believes it's a good kill. The left believes "OMG! poor terrorist's rights!". So you're seeing the true colors of the liberal and how they think.

where?

I am an evil leftist and I roundly support this kind of assassination.

 

[zinfamous]

I was generalizing, and the generalization is true. Whenever it comes down between choosing America or the terrorist, the left consistently takes the side of the terrorist without fail.

you are an idiot.

 

[Thump553]

and here we have the fundy Bush cock-suckers screaming for the destruction of American liberty with this incident, while they would have been bowing at the alter of Cheney had it been on their watch.

..what the fuck is the argument, here?

Me--I haven't heard dick about this being any sort of violation on any type of major news network. From what I can tell--the normal conservative boogeymen have been silent...so does this mean that Rush and Beck and Fox news have been chomping at the bit that now one out of a dozen Al Qaeda leaders, assassinated this year, is some example of the dissolution of American liberty?

wtf is wrong with you people?

PBS had quite a long segment about the legalities of this kill, with a good balance pro anc con. Suffice it to say very few legal experts equate due process in this situation as mandating arrest, trial and conviction first. I also saw it covered on NBC.

As far as Faux goes, their obsession de jour is that failed solar company and trying to draw inferences about Obama/dem donations, etc.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know any other way. I am not and will not be one of those people that believes in our freedoms and rights only when it is convenient to do so. Frankly we have way to many people like that right now and it is why we are seeing our rights eroding.



No it is not, reread my posts. I am not arguing that this was the only way to remove a threat to our national security I am arguing against the process in which it is done. Our entire system of Government is set up so that no single person has powers such as this. We can all agree that such action might be necessary but this is one of the most horrible precedents possible to set. At the very least charges should have been filed and the judicial should be involved in some sort of way. Checks and balances are a very good thing especially when we are talking about killing US citizens.

To kill an American who is trying to kill as many Americans as he can and can't be gotten to by usual law enforcement isn't a surrender to convenience, but to inevitability. Nobody who has to bare the weight of security for the nation is going to allow a terrorist to live that he can reach is some way and remove from the picture. It's a matter of self defense. All the rest of the arguments about this boil down to whether the person assassinated is an imminent threat, can't be reached by the law, etc. The killing of somebody who is going to kill innocent people if unstopped is not the issue. That will be done no matter what by anybody who has that power given that capacity and authority. The President also has a red button.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I was generalizing, and the generalization is true. Whenever it comes down between choosing America or the terrorist, the left consistently takes the side of the terrorist without fail.

Something your drug-addled mind can't comprehend, but there is at least one other option, even if you can't figure it out.

People that care about the LAW. I bet most, if not all, people that think this is wrong don't have any warm and fuzzy feelings about this guy, but the fact is it is illegal. Who or what this guy is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is legality.

It is 100% false to ASSUME what you have written.

Just like many other things, you and others throw out the appeal to emotion and claim we must "like" the thing you dislike. 100% not true. But you are so delusional you probably can't even make this distinction.

But you can't argue with facts or the law, so you have to throw these "red meat" emotional appeals to try and ridicule others and make yourself feel better. Just like the "you are with us or against us" BS.

 

[Moonbeam]

Something your drug-addled mind can't comprehend, but there is at least one other option, even if you can't figure it out.

People that care about the LAW. I bet most, if not all, people that think this is wrong don't have any warm and fuzzy feelings about this guy, but the fact is it is illegal. Who or what this guy is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is legality.

It is 100% false to ASSUME what you have written.

Just like many other things, you and others throw out the appeal to emotion and claim we must "like" the thing you dislike. 100% not true. But you are so delusional you probably can't even make this distinction.

But you can't argue with facts or the law, so you have to throw these "red meat" emotional appeals to try and ridicule others and make yourself feel better. Just like the "you are with us or against us" BS.

When did self defense become illegal? You always have to stop people who are trying to kill innocent people in any way you can. If the only way is air strike by drone it will be done. Only a fool would allow somebody who is trying to kill innocent people a longer life to kill so they could be stopped from killing by more traditional means. When somebody declares war on innocent people you make war on them. You get the red button on your ass. Stop with the stupid shit about illegal. The law here is the universal law of self defense and it applies to any who attack. Hold hostages with the threat to kill them, get a bullet to the medulla oblongata if the shot can be taken.

 

[woolfe9999]

I was generalizing, and the generalization is true. Whenever it comes down between choosing America or the terrorist, the left consistently takes the side of the terrorist without fail.

If so, this thread is an awfully bad example of it. Lots of left of center posters (6-7 by my count) in this thread supporting the action.

Libertarians, who are for very limited government, are also quite apt to be opposed to this sort of thing. Not as simple as you make it out.

- wolf

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

When did self defense become illegal? You always have to stop people who are trying to kill innocent people in any way you can. If the only way is air strike by drone it will be done. Only a fool would allow somebody who is trying to kill innocent people a longer life to kill so they could be stopped from killing by more traditional means. When somebody declares war on innocent people you make war on them. You get the red button on your ass. Stop with the stupid shit about illegal. The law here is the universal law of self defense and it applies to any who attack. Hold hostages with the threat to kill them, get a bullet to the medulla oblongata if the shot can be taken.

I know moonbeam is always over the top with sarcasm, but I really can't tell in this thread if he is just over the top with sarcasm, or over the top with actually posting his real opinions.

But execution isn't self defense, he wasn't in the act of committing a crime, nor harming anyone, so on the off chance you are serious, you are talkign about something totally unrelated.

 

[werepossum]

If so, this thread is an awfully bad example of it. Lots of left of center posters (6-7 by my count) in this thread supporting the action.

Libertarians, who are for very limited government, are also quite apt to be opposed to this sort of thing. Not as simple as you make it out.

- wolf

Libertarians are the most likely to disapprove of such killings under both Bush and Obama. The left is likely to violently oppose them under Bush and violently approve of them under Obama, and the right is likely to do the opposite. A pure leftist who opposes such killings under both or a pure rightist who supports them under both is to be congratulated for at the least staying true to principles - not necessarily easy to do when those principles are being carried out by someone one otherwise despises.

Then you have weird people like me; I consider myself a social libertarian, but I'm firmly in favor of putting down mad dogs no matter which side does it. Pure libertarian philosophy fails somewhere between big corporations and the border in my opinion, certainly way before Yemen.

 

[woolfe9999]

Libertarians are the most likely to disapprove of such killings under both Bush and Obama. The left is likely to violently oppose them under Bush and violently approve of them under Obama, and the right is likely to do the opposite. A pure leftist who opposes such killings under both or a pure rightist who supports them under both is to be congratulated for at the least staying true to principles - not necessarily easy to do when those principles are being carried out by someone one otherwise despises.

Then you have weird people like me; I consider myself a social libertarian, but I'm firmly in favor of putting down mad dogs no matter which side does it. Pure libertarian philosophy fails somewhere between big corporations and the border in my opinion, certainly way before Yemen.

Yeah, I'm not really fitting in anywhere either. I support this under Obama and I most certainly would also have supported it under Bush. I think the better legal arguments favor it.

This is really an issue that can cut through some ideological divides. However, I suspect that on the whole this is politically favorable for the POTUS.

 

[Craig234]

Public policy is tricky.

Should we assassinate foreign leaders?

Well, there's the case of Adolf Hitler saying 'yes'. Then there's the case of our assassinating a democratically elected leader who won't sell out his country to our corporations so we have him killed - corruption - saying 'no'. How do you say 'yes' to one and not the other? If you try to make rules, they're often easily loopholed.

In this case, let's look at the precedent.

What's to stop the President from assassinating someone not for being a 'terrorist leader', but for something less justified? Nothing in the process prevents it.

What's to stop the president from abusing the labeling of someone a terrorist and assassinating them? Nothing in the process prevents it.

What's to stop the use of assassination becoming a widespread abused activity? Nothing in the process prevents it.

What's to stop the President from assassinating US citizens on American soil? Nothing in the process prevents it.

What's to stop the President from assassinating someone innocent of any crime? Nothing in the process prevents it.

That's the precedent being set here.

Does it mean Obama is going to go assassination crazy? Probably not. Does it open the door for abuse, removing legal protection for other presidents? Yes.

What will be the grounds for objection? There are no rules to break. Where are the rules saying what the person needs to have done to be targeted?

In Noam Chomsky's book "Hegemony or Survival", in which he discusses how being an 'empire' destroys a country's values, he warned against Bush's new usurpation of power on imprisoning people without trial, by quoting Winston Churchill:

The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and in particular to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or communist.

He goes on to note that Churchill warned against this abuse of power in 1943 when Britain was facing the Nazi threat.

What would Churchill have said about the executive ASSASSINATING instead of imprisoning?

The United States has not set this precedent in over 200 years of history - but has now.

When CIA abuses came to light in the mid-1970's, the US banned participating in assassination. That didn't mean assassinating Hitler wouldn't be justified; it recognized the abuse allowing any assassination caused. We've been relaxing that in the Al Queda era - handing them a victory over our compromising our values and exposing our country to a risk of abuse of power.

What's going to stop abuses? The next assassination doesn't even need to be announced.

I might be more hesitant than many about the use of assassination, but even those who are not are in the same situation about the risk of abuse of power.

Some Americans seem to have a lazy attitude about this - if they aren't worried about the danger themselves, then let the President kill who he thinks he should.

If we say we can assassinate as we like, how are we going to tell others they can't do the same to us?

 

[Nebor]

If we say we can assassinate as we like, how are we going to tell others they can't do the same to us?

We don't. The message is the same as always: Go ahead and try.

 

[Craig234]

I know moonbeam is always over the top with sarcasm, but I really can't tell in this thread if he is just over the top with sarcasm, or over the top with actually posting his real opinions.

But execution isn't self defense, he wasn't in the act of committing a crime, nor harming anyone, so on the off chance you are serious, you are talkign about something totally unrelated.

I read his post as not sarcastic, and making the point of this sort of killing being 'self defense', in stopping someone who is trying to launch operations to kill Americans.

There's an analogy with killing a hostage taker. By his threatening the lives of others, he has no right not to be killed to protect them.

Here's a way Moonbeam's analogy breaks down, though.

As I indicated in the post above, the process here has no effective checks. With a hostage, there is a clear and immediate threat; even if you accept that with terrorists, there is no check on abuse like there is if a police commander were to use the pretense of a hostage situation to execute someone for other reasons. The public doesn't even need to be informed the President did it.

The person killed here reportedly had not killed anyone himself, guilty instead of calling for terrorist acts, reportedly planning them. Where's the line and how is it enforced? Would simply saying you hope Al Queda does more terrorism be justification for assassinating you? Can we assassinate anyone who has given any money or support to any member of Al Queda? Employer, girlfriend? How do you prevent it?

I understand Moonbeam's point about self-defense (putting aside the issue of how others feel their terrorism is self-defense against US imperialism).

But is a process the president defines, where whoever he says should be assassinated is, with no checks, carried out by covert forces, how to do that?