| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Blake, I don't think that either strategy, 100% war or 100% law enforcement can work effectively. Both need to be applied when appropriate. Dropping bombs on US citizens where the evidence against that person is questionable. Further more to do this while at the same time bombing to remove from power in Libya for bombing his citizens who are trying to overthrow the government there is beyond ridiculous. Never mind the complete misuse of NATO to do the mission. We have now entered the realm of believing that we should live by rules different than our neighbors, and we will enforce our view through the ultimate use of violence. The hypocrisy involved in this is astounding. Go back to the Hutari Militia group that was arrested a couple of years ago. What the leader of that group was talking about certainly falls into the realm of terrorism. Should we have taken them out without due process? What about those who were there for the very first time? What about those who had not heard of this radical plan prior to that meeting? I find it overreaching by our government to have even arrested those individual who had no way of knowing what was being planned (with the help of a government mole). It seems to me that in your view we should be just killing them at our first opportunity. This isn't consistent with our Constitution. The entire problem is that in the case of al-aweaponscatcher it is only by labeling him a terrorist do we justify depriving him of due process. The evidence against him, according tho official who have seen it, is "patchy". If the evidence were absolute it might be justifiable in this case. Putting that label on him is effectively convicting him with out due process. Then we justify the elimination of due process because of the label we have put on him. That is very dangerous circular logic. We might as well go back to proving people are witches by drowning them. I still struggle with your examples of us killing civilians in the past. You have grouped Kent State and Richmond, VA together to make your point. You seem to be making the point that killing civilians in Richmond was OK under the rules of war. Is that what you are saying about Kent State too? I'm really having a difficult time believing that you are taking this in that direction. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I agree with your points Sifo. I struggle with them as well. I often wonder what happened in the minds of the average German citizen leading up to WWII. What was their reaction when the first Jew was beaten in the street, when the first person was rounded up, when the first star was pinned on? Were they cheering so loudly that they failed to recognize the incremental degradation of rights? Has our reasoning moved from justice to hatred? I have absolutely no love lost for ANY muslim scumbag dispatched in the activity of armed conflict against this country. Would we feel the same if one of the remote islamic compounds in rural Michigan were bombed into oblivion? Can someone be an enemy of the state while remaining a citizen protected by all the rights and privileges citizenship provides? What happens if that camp begins sending out their own with suicide belts into crowded shopping malls during Christmas? Do we have a responsibility to the citizens who are victims of the bombing to protect them at all costs? Had the shoe bomber or underwear bomber or times square bomber achieved their aims (recruited by Al-Alweaponscatcher or others similar), would the families of the victims felt justified in sidestepping due process in order to prevent the next bombing? Where do we draw the line when one citizen is in the act of murdering another? Is deadly force not authorized? | ||
| Hootowl |
I see no correlation to the Jews in prewar Germany. The Jews weren't terrorists. This dude was. There's no slippery slope here. All these allegories and comparisons are meaningless and serve no purpose other than to confuse the issue and muddle rational thought with vacuous theoretical constructs. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
But the Jews were German citizens protected by German law. Until they weren't. | ||
| Hootowl |
But why weern't they? Because they were terrorists bent on the self proclaimed mission of the destruction of Germany? Or was it something else? That something else is the problem, and has no relation to what happened to the dead terrorist. | ||
| Sifo |
But why weern't they? Because they were terrorists bent on the self proclaimed mission of the destruction of Germany? Or was it something else? That something else is the problem, and has no relation to what happened to the dead terrorist. They were demonized as the cause of Germany's economic issues back then. They were heavily into the banking industry in Germany. Of course we would never simply demonize the bankers in modern America.   | ||
| Reepicheep |
I think you have part of the problem... Let me try and summarize the whole thing: 1) American citizens have a constitutional right to due process. 2) There are rules of war and rules of law enforcement that are arguably within that "due process" by carving out cases where the due process is "two to the chest and one to the head" (for example, a US citizen who is a spy, or is an opposing uniformed combatant). 3) The enemy in this case is in a country that will not allow even a slight chance of effective due process under (1), but with the predators (2) is suddenly an option. New ground, new clarifications of rules needed, and Obama is handling it extremely poorly. | ||
| Hootowl |
And what does that have to do with killing terrorists? Are the bankers next? That's a huge leap. I don't see it. I guess when O hits the millionaires with hellfires instead of additional taxes, I will believe it. Until then, I'm not inclined to believe we did wrong by killing a terrorist, citizen or not. There's no due process in war, there's only killing the enemy. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
"Terrorist" can be applied to any group:  So if enough people agree that one group of citizens is a "terrorist", you can waive their constitutional rights and execute them? | ||
| Sifo |
Hootowl, al-Awlaki is a terrorist because our government has placed that label on him. We then assassinated him because of the label "terrorist". No doubt that the Germans didn't believe that Hitler was going to be shoving the Jews into gas chambers either. It's a process of getting from point A to point B. We have definitely left point A by eliminating due process for a citizen. Keep in mind that you have no protection under the law when you don't demand protection under the law for your neighbor. | ||
| Hootowl |
As previously stated, those are all vacuous allegories. | ||
| Hootowl |
Do you deny that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? Do you deny that dead dude was a member of said organization? We don't have to prove it in court, just as we don't have to prove an enemy soldier is an enemy soldier before he's eligible to die for his country. I can't make it any clearer than that. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
You know it is pretty bad ass to line your cabinet with wallstreet insiders, send money to their past partners and global mega banks and then campaign against said wall streeters and banks and have a good chunk of the public none the wiser. Thats like robbing a licka stoe and then standing outside to tell the cops where the perp ran lol. | ||
| Reepicheep |
More interesting details (more about the hippocracy, not so much the legality): http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_me mo_and_marty_lederman/singleton/ I think I see your position Hoot... That the right to due process ends when you become an enemy combatant. And that "wearing a uniform" is way to get Geneva convention protections, it's not a precondition to establishing that somebody is an enemy combatant. It still leaves me unsettled with regards to Sifo's point. This wasn't a snap judgement in the "fog of war". This was a specific targeting over for more than a year culminating in an assassination. I guess the answer would be that if this was done outside a situation where there is a credible case that it was a non combatant in a non war situation, then it would have violated due process constitutional rights. I get the logic, but it still leaves me uneasy. Too much power in the hands of those with too much power, and no transparency or accountability. | ||
| Sifo |
Do you deny that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? Do you deny that dead dude was a member of said organization? That's the problem right there. No I don't know that he was a member of al Qaeda. I've heard it said numerous time that he claimed to be. If he was claiming it, there must be evidence of it in his words. He used YouTube and the web extensively. Please show me where he made the claim to be AQ. That alone would make me feel much better about this. If you can't show it to me then it seems to make my point for me, doesn't it? | ||
| Hootowl |
Was he a card carrying member? Are any of them? Did Bin laden have a membership card? What is your criterion for membership? | ||
| Sifo |
As stated above... Did he claim to be? I'm asking for any sort of proof beyond agreeing with an ideology. Agreeing with an ideology isn't even a crime in the US. Not even agreeing with AQ! | ||
| Hootowl |
Terrorist is as terrorist does. He did a lot more than agree with them. Recruiting for suicide missions qualifies. | ||
| Sifo |
And where's the evidence of recruiting? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'll admit to being on both sides of this issue. Cheering while the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. The guy was scum, but he was American scum. I don't know how to reconcile those two items. I wonder if the folks in Northern Ireland have any insight. | ||
| Hootowl |
Let me google that for you  http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=al-awlaki+recruiter | ||
| Hootowl |
It also appears that we've tried to kill him before, at least once, in 2009. Why the bitter tears now? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Now, I'm ok with "collateral damage". If we targeted the Al Qaeda Home and Gardens editor and Al Aweaponscatcher was sitting in the same living room with him, well, them's the breaks. | ||
| Sifo |
Hoot, As much as I like lmgtfy, it doesn't answer my question. In fact what it comes up with is examples of al-Aweaponscatcher "recruiting" people to an ideology, but not to AQ. I think it's safe to say at this point that we don't have any tangible evidence to point to that would justify his assassination. I'm still waiting for someone to show me that I'm wrong on that point. The guy was scum, but he was American scum. +1 | ||
| Sifo |
It also appears that we've tried to kill him before, at least once, in 2009. Why the bitter tears now? And that was BEFORE putting him on double secret probation. | ||
| Garryb |
We are in the middle of a war on terror. He was a self proclaimed traitor to this country. You can fly your personal flag at half mast for him, but not me. | ||
| Sifo |
Now, I'm ok with "collateral damage". If we targeted the Al Qaeda Home and Gardens editor and Al Aweaponscatcher was sitting in the same living room with him, well, them's the breaks. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out if this is true or a hoax. It seems to be getting a lot of play on the blogs... http://www.westernjournalism.com/this-may-be-obama %e2%80%99s-worst-stunt-in-a-while-apologizes-to-fa mily-of-killed-islamist-terrorist/
| ||
| Sifo |
He was a self proclaimed traitor to this country. Was he? Please inform me of this. You can fly your personal flag at half mast for him, but not me. Not for him. Our Constitution perhaps. | ||
| Hootowl |
I'm going to step out of this discussion. I've made my point as well as I can make it, and no one is in any danger of convincing me we did the wrong thing. There hasn't been any new information or opinion posted in days. We're just saying the same thing over and over and not understanding why the other side doesn't understand. Fruitless. | ||
| Chauly |
I think I'm with Ft on this: I agree with the result of the action, but am uncomfortable with the process. For some reason we (the US) goes to war awfully easily without a Gen-u-Wine Declaration of War in hand. It may be difficult to declare war on AQ, since they are not a governmental entity, and it's like picking up mercury (hard to get a grip on, and when you do, it may not have good results) But it seems that there could be a Public Notice of something similar that is aimed at AQ and everything they do. It does seem like there could be a tribunal of some sort (in absentia?)that gets people on The List, but everyone not only knows they're on the list, but how they got there; just a Declaration of Scumbaggednest from the President or his minions doesn't cut it. Sifo has it dead to rights: 1. American Citizen, 2.Guilty of Hate Speech, Recrucional Activities, Acute Rudeness, and Wearing Glasses. OK, maybe the last isn't rude or illegal, but the other is protected by the First Amendment, and if he actually conspires to Commit Mayhem or something like that, we have RICO laws like we use for organized crime. Al-Whatshislackey may actually stand in front of me, screaming hatred and spittle in my face, and I cannot file charges against him. Now if he hits me, or brandishes a firearm, that's a crime. The long and the short is: declare war, take 'em out any way you can. Make up hit lists, you had better do it publicly and with some sort of Due Process/Grand Jury. If you are not open and transparent, and just start taking people out for some unknown reasons, watch out! |
