How One Piece of Paper Destroyed Your Right to a Trial

[Genx87]

Believe me, I know all about how Germany descended into hell. A history lesson is not necessary.

I don't like the precedent that killing a US citizen overseas set either. However, I refuse to be a hypocrite -- had Bush done the same thing, many of you guys wouldn't have blinked and while I may not have liked it, I wouldn't have condemned him either.

So knowing the history of Germanys descent into hell. Why such opposition to bringing it up when talking about extrajudicial killings of American citizens today? We are supposed to learn from history, not repeat it.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Tell me the difference. You can't, because there is no difference.

The nazis told their citizens the same lies our government is telling us.

The Jews were a threat to Germany, so they had to be dealt with.

Al-Awlaki and his son were a threat to the United States, so they had to be dealt with.

Where is the difference?

Conservatards gonna full retard.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Since it would be hard to get him to trial we should just skip it and go directly to the death penalty stage? I find that a strange way to approach the issue of bringing american citizens to trial that live in hard to reach areas.

Would you have said the same thing if Bush did it? Were you upset about the Patriot Act? Do you believe we should have risked the lives of special forces operatives to send them into Yemen to get him, someone who was likely surrounded by lots of heavily armed Al Qaeda members? Do you believe he was an Al Qaeda member?

Yemen did try to apprehend him and negotiate to get him turned over to their government, but it did not work out.

 

[Genx87]

How is he "one of our own"?

Being outside the US, and part of a foreign "militant group" should result in loss of US protections. Though I would put the process before a, likely, public court where pronouncement's of a person's defection are clear. Agreeing on the details would be rough, but I'd start with the original question of how he still qualified as a US citizen.

That has never been the litmus test in the past when american citizens were captured while fighting for our enemy. Why change it now? Why allow our executive that kind of power?

The big problem here is there was not a due process that we publicly agree on. When / where did Congress authorize the policy used to carry this out?
Moreover, the drone strikes themselves... assassinations on foreign soil, are another question entirely. Should the US be involved in that?

Our due process historically has been a trial of some type. Not a closed door decision by a single man that hides behind state secrets when people sue him to prevent their murder.

 

[OutHouse]

Tell me the difference. You can't, because there is no difference.

The nazis told their citizens the same lies our government is telling us.

The Jews were a threat to Germany, so they had to be dealt with.

Al-Awlaki and his son were a threat to the United States, so they had to be dealt with.

Where is the difference?

You is crazy girlfriend.

 

[OutHouse]

The president has too much power.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You is crazy girlfriend.

Nah, he's stupid. There's a difference.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So knowing the history of Germanys descent into hell. Why such opposition to bringing it up when talking about extrajudicial killings of American citizens today? We are supposed to learn from history, not repeat it.

TH did not make any distinction in his remarks regarding the initial political prisoners and the mass killing of innocent men, women, and children. That distinction is absolutely necessary to have even the remotest hope of making a semi-legitimate comparison.

 

[Texashiker]

Conservatards gonna full retard.

It is called civil and human rights.

You is crazy girlfriend.

I respectfully disagree.

We can not tolerate a government who kills its citizens at will.

 

[Texashiker]

Nah, he's stupid. There's a difference.

Why dont you explain to me the difference between nazis killing jews with no due process and no recourse, and the us government killing its citizens with no due process and no recourse.

TH did not make any distinction in his remarks regarding the initial political prisoners and the mass killing of innocent men, women, and children. That distinction is absolutely necessary to have even the remotest hope of making a semi-legitimate comparison.

Whether is it 6 million, or 2, the government has no right to kill its citizens without due process.

 

[thraashman]

How is he "one of our own"?

Being outside the US, and part of a foreign "militant group" should result in loss of US protections. Though I would put the process before a, likely, public court where pronouncement's of a person's defection are clear. Agreeing on the details would be rough, but I'd start with the original question of how he still qualified as a US citizen.

The big problem here is there was not a due process that we publicly agree on. When / where did Congress authorize the policy used to carry this out?
Moreover, the drone strikes themselves... assassinations on foreign soil, are another question entirely. Should the US be involved in that?

When he opted to join a foreign militant group that has declared itself an enemy of the US, he opted to make himself an enemy combatant and a military target. Military target acquisition and elimination is and should remain at the discretion of the President. Would apprehending him have been preferable? Sure, but you run into many problems in attempting that. Risk to US military lives to apprehend. Do we or don't we notify the host country? If we do notify will they warn him and ruin out chances or worse place more American lives at risk?

Basically the drone war in itself sucks. There's too much collateral damage. But does it suck worse than putting more soldiers in harm's way? I view the Al-Awlaki situation as the least shitty option amongst a bunch of shitty options. Terrorists should never feel safe from us.

 

[Genx87]

Would you have said the same thing if Bush did it? Were you upset about the Patriot Act? Do you believe we should have risked the lives of special forces operatives to send them into Yemen to get him, someone who was likely surrounded by lots of heavily armed Al Qaeda members? Do you believe he was an Al Qaeda member?

Yemen did try to apprehend him and negotiate to get him turned over to their government, but it did not work out.

Depends how far back you want to go? But what does me being young and dumb have to do with what is happening now? Because 10 years ago my view of the world was backwards means today my opinion is invalid? Or because my opinions have changed makes the killing of American citizens without trial ok?

You understand we killed him while eating at a cafe right? It wasnt like he was in some fortified camp. He was out in public quite a bit. That said even if he was heavily protected he was no immediate threat. He wasnt actively engaged on a battlefield with our troops.

I'm still trying to connect the dots on how we go from a trial process to fuck it, too hard to get, bomb them.

 

[Genx87]

Conservatards gonna full retard.

I figured you would show up. Im still waiting for your response to what in Adam Bates article you disagreed with. In case you want to offer of something more than a drive by attack. Here is the link again.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/25/doj-drone-memo-obama-is-judge-jury-and-executioner/

 

[Jaskalas]

That has never been the litmus test in the past when american citizens were captured while fighting for our enemy. Why change it now? Why allow our executive that kind of power?

Targeting people for assassination is not the same as "captured while fighting". This is a whole different idea.

Our due process historically has been a trial of some type. Not a closed door decision by a single man that hides behind state secrets when people sue him to prevent their murder.

I called for a public trial, but desertion should be a real part of the system. A person shouldn't be regarded as "Joe Blow" when they go overseas and join the modern day equivalent of a foreign army fighting against us.

A process for this sort of thing should look like this:

1: Executive wants to target you overseas.
2: Public desertion trial, association with foreign militia is proven to a court.
3: Foreign government is notified that we're seeking you.
4: Given one year to return.
5: You're now a deserter, but only targeted in predefined "combat zones". Narrowly defined locations where we are actively engaged in drone strikes.

 

[thraashman]

I figured you would show up. Im still waiting for your response to what in Adam Bates article you disagreed with. In case you want to offer of something more than a drive by attack. Here is the link again.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/25/doj-drone-memo-obama-is-judge-jury-and-executioner/

Agreeing or disagreeing with the drone strike against Al-Awlaki doesn't change that Texashiker's Hitler/nazi comparison is both stupid and insulting to those who actually suffered from the Holocaust.

 

[Genx87]

TH did not make any distinction in his remarks regarding the initial political prisoners and the mass killing of innocent men, women, and children. That distinction is absolutely necessary to have even the remotest hope of making a semi-legitimate comparison.

I agreed the end result has all sorts of issues with that we have today. But the Holocaust is where Germany ended. It also has obvious shock value. I wouldn't have gone right to it out of the gate. But I also don't see bringing it up as some kind of non sequitur on the topic of extrajudicial killings in our country.

 

[Texashiker]

When he opted to join a foreign militant group that has declared itself an enemy of the US, he opted to make himself an enemy combatant and a military target. Military target acquisition and elimination is and should remain at the discretion of the President.

Logical fallacy. When one joins a group we do not surrender our civil or human rights.

Are Jews any less deserving of civil rights?
How about Democrats?
Catholics?
Atheist?

Define an enemy of the United States.

Prove he was an enemy combative. Bring forth the evidence. Our civil rights allow us to present evidence in our defense. Was Al-Awlaki and his son allowed to present evidence in their defense?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Depends how far back you want to go? But what does me being young and dumb have to do with what is happening now? Because 10 years ago my view of the world was backwards means today my opinion is invalid? Or because my opinions have changed makes the killing of American citizens without trial ok?

Have your opinions really changed, or do you just see this as an opportunity to pile on Obama?

You understand we killed him while eating at a cafe right? It wasnt like he was in some fortified camp. He was out in public quite a bit. That said even if he was heavily protected he was no immediate threat. He wasnt actively engaged on a battlefield with our troops.

I'm still trying to connect the dots on how we go from a trial process to fuck it, too hard to get, bomb them.

My viewpoint is that he joined a declared enemy of the United States (which Congress authorized military force against) and it wasn't worth risking additional lives to apprehend him. Even a Republican introduced a resolution trying to strip his citizenship:

In late April, Representative Charlie Dent (R-PA) introduced a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to issue a "certificate of loss of nationality" to al-Awlaki. He said al-Awlaki "preaches a culture of hate" and had been a functioning member of al-Qaeda "since before 9/11", and had effectively renounced his citizenship by engaging in treasonous acts.

Regardless, make no mistake -- I hate it and I definitely do see a slippery slope component but I hate risking additional lives to apprehend him too.

 

[Texashiker]

Agreeing or disagreeing with the drone strike against Al-Awlaki doesn't change that Texashiker's Hitler/nazi comparison is both stupid and insulting to those who actually suffered from the Holocaust.

If you are insulted, too bad.

Jewish suffering during the holocaust does not diminish the value of other human life.

The nazis tried, convicted and executed the jews. There was no recourse, no due process, no evidence,,, nothing but the governments word.

And you excuse that same behavior in the obama administration?

 

[Genx87]

Targeting people for assassination is not the same as "captured while fighting". This is a whole different idea.

Absolutely there is a difference. And people who were part of the organization and not captured while fighting also recieved trials. They were not targeted for killing. Anybody remember Tokyo Rose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri

Under what you propose. We should have sent a B29 to get her.

I called for a public trial, but desertion should be a real part of the system. A person shouldn't be regarded as "Joe Blow" when they go overseas and join the modern day equivalent of a foreign army fighting against us.

A process for this sort of thing should look like this:

1: Executive wants to target you overseas.
2: Public desertion trial, association with foreign militia is proven to a court.
3: Foreign government is notified that we're seeking you.
4: Given one year to return.
5: You're now a deserter, but only targeted in predefined "combat zones". Narrowly defined locations where we are actively engaged in drone strikes.

That is a radically different system than we have had in the past. It also depending on how you narrowly define combat zone should have made the Alwaki killing illegal. He was not in a combat zone unless you consider sipping tea and having breakfast in a village combat.

 

[Genx87]

Have your opinions really changed, or do you just see this as an opportunity to pile on Obama?

Of course my opions have changed. I have blasted McCain as much or more than Obama. I dont care who is in the executive branch. Allowing a president to be judge, jury, and executioner goes against what this country stands for.

My viewpoint is that he joined a declared enemy of the United States (which Congress authorized military force against) and it wasn't worth risking additional lives to apprehend him. Even a Republican introduced a resolution trying to strip his citizenship:

Of course a Republican would introduce such a thing. That doesn't surprise me at all. Ironically the history of how we deal with these people him losing his citizenship may have saved his life. He probably would had been indicted.

Regardless, make no mistake -- I hate it and I definitely do see a slippery slope component but I hate risking additional lives to apprehend him too.

I look at it like this. Indict him, try to apprehend when you can. If he lives out his life in a cave or some remote village then so be it. We all seem so fixated on if we cant get him, kill him. I suspect he would eventually be captured by somebody.

What really worries me on this killing is the govt hasnt provided much information except loose affiliations and "trust us" as a reason for the killing without trial. As far as I am concerned. I think they had so little they couldnt even get a slam dunk indictment. That is really scary when you think about it.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Some form of judicial review board is needed for cases like this. Have the intel groups give the evidence to the DOJ and let them do their job. Present the evidence to the court and let them decide if said citizen can be ruled an enemy combatant. Nothing will be perfect, but it's better than the exec branch acting unilaterally. That's not what our founders intended.

Yes, Obama has taken on too much power.

Yes, I'd have been POed if the Bush admin did this. I've stated on this board before that I didn't like the Patriot Act because I knew it was ripe for abuse.

 

[Jaskalas]

That is a radically different system than we have had in the past. It also depending on how you narrowly define combat zone should have made the Alwaki killing illegal. He was not in a combat zone unless you consider sipping tea and having breakfast in a village combat.

Haven't we been saying assassination changes things? If you'd like to oppose the use of drones in this way, I might be there with you.
My purpose here is to propose a path forward with that process, assuming we're not grounding the drone fleet.

Today the President can kill someone overseas, little to no due process. My proposal changes that, makes it better to secure our rights while addressing desertion.

 

[Genx87]

Haven't we been saying assassination changes things? If you'd like to oppose the use of drones in this way, I might be there with you.
My purpose here is to propose a path forward with that process, assuming we're not grounding the drone fleet.

Today the President can kill someone overseas, little to no due process. My proposal changes that, makes it better to secure our rights while addressing desertion.

We already have well established systems for dealing with people like this that have been around for a long time. I don't see why need to change it because we want the ability to kill citizens not engaged in combat.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

What really worries me on this killing is the govt hasnt provided much information except loose affiliations and "trust us" as a reason for the killing without trial. As far as I am concerned. I think they had so little they couldnt even get a slam dunk indictment. That is really scary when you think about it.

Agreed. They should lay out the evidence.