Thread: Obama approves the killing of an American citizen.

I really don't get you. I don't know how many times you have posted that
you think msnbc is propaganda. Why in the world would you link to them?

alright, nevermind, it's NYT in disguise..

Originally Posted by dajo

I really don't get you. I don't know how many times you have posted that
you think msnbc is propaganda. Why in the world would you link to them?

alright, nevermind, it's NYT in disguise..

It's a New York Times article. I do believe that the NYT, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, and other news sources are propaganda. However, I say that because of their extreme biases. I don't think any of them flat out lie on a regular basis, though CBS and the NYT were caught lying red handed once each. Lying is extraordinarily risky for those companies. What they do is leave out facts and drive others into the ground for the purpose of making the left look good and the right look bad. It is majorly dishonest, but it is not the same as lying. I don't think the NYT is all that much with Obama on foreign policy. He ended up being a fraud in that area.

What do you think of the policy discussed in the article?

I'm not big on hunting people down to kill them - I don't quite understand
what makes him so extraordinarily dangerous either, so that there is the
need to overstep this line, of targeting and assassinating a US citizen.
He is 'believed' to participate in attacks? He was linked? In what way?

It's the extraordinary reason I'm looking for that justifies an extraordinary action.

The broader policies are scary, of course. To think that it could have been
this easy to avoid the banning on assassinations after 9/11, by simply
labelling the target a 'military enemy' whatever that may mean. And I
have listened to enough hate speeches on the 'war on terror' by officials,
while none of them adress the deeper issues of what is going on. With all
those half-truths and dogmatic indoctrination, I am opposed to any laws
or policies that cut liberties to an unreasonable extent, to gain security.

Plus, I don't believe much of what 'the officials have to say' anyway.
So I'm naturally sceptical, when it comes to that war on terror.

Should his citizenship give him any more protection from his actions than other high level terrorists? Al-Qaeda members are viewed as unlawful combatants of war, dealt with by the military instead of law enforcement.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Should his citizenship give him any more protection from his actions than other high level terrorists? Al-Qaeda members are viewed as unlawful combatants of war, dealt with by the military instead of law enforcement.

It hits closer to home and makes American citizens, who generally feel safe from such a threat, see more of a threat to themselves.

How do you feel about the policy? How do you feel about waterboarding?

Killing is wrong, unless it is necessary.

The whole war on terror bit is ridiculous so anything that comes out of it is likely to follow suit. However the american government is renowned worldwide for it's great feats of inconsistency, so I guess we should keep on the lookout.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It hits closer to home and makes American citizens, who generally feel safe from such a threat, see more of a threat to themselves.

How do you feel about the policy? How do you feel about waterboarding?

But it's not so close to home. If this person was in the US and the government just kills him without a trial - then the government is in the wrong. Because here in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. That is our right as an american citizen.

This is a more complicated situation because they believe this individual is a dangerous terrorist, in a foreign country. This is the catch. I'm not a judicial system expert, but from what I understand (for the most part) we can not put you on trial for crimes you committed in FOREIGN country. Because this person is in a foreign country, the judicial system has no power to do anything. But the government feels something has to be done.

I don't think this is the first time an american citizen has been targeted while outside of our country. No. This is the first time they have gone to great extent to do so 'legally'. I have no doubt other american citizens have targeted in the past, killed by hired hit men to not leak back to the government.

How do I feel about this policy? Well for one I'm not sure killing 'terrorists' is getting us anywhere. But it does make me ask another question, what makes a person an american citizen?

If you are
1. Not living in the US anymore
2. Happy living in a foreign country
3. Supporting a war against the US
4. Taking part in a war against the US

Do you have any right to still be protected by the US constitution? Now this isn't the same as people rebelling. People have a right to rebel, but they need to do so within the US borders. Otherwise, it's not a rebellion.

Americans are considered americans regardless where in the world they live. Our citizenship doesn't end - UNLESS - we do something that would make the government feel we are giving up our citizenship. Such as, taking part in a war against America.

Does it mean they have enough evidence without a doubt to kill this person? That's not something we will ever know. Just assume there is so much about this war they will never tell you.

We couldn't capture him and bring him here for trial?

Don't get me wrong, though. I want him dead. I am just posing issues.

So they've authorised him to be shot or something?

Why can't they arrest him?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It hits closer to home and makes American citizens, who generally feel safe from such a threat, see more of a threat to themselves.

How do you feel about the policy? How do you feel about waterboarding?

He's only being targeted because he's outside of the country. If he was in the US, he'd be arrested by the FBI or Homeland as a criminal, even if he was a foreign national. But because he's in a warzone, and some of his terrorist activites are taking place abroad, he's being treated as a war combatant. I don't see how nationality really comes into play here. If an American journalist was shadowing a group of soldiers in Iraq, then decided to run across the front lines and fight with the insurgents, you'd still shoot at him. Not sure how waterboarding is relevant here.

And I assume that they are trying to kill him simply because it is easier than capturing him. I'm sure they'd capture him if the opportunity arose, but figuring out where he lives and dropping a laser-guided bomb on his house is easier than putting people on the ground in harm's way to extract him.

You are such a warmonger.

Misleading titles are misleading.

"and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing"

Just like any Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Misleading titles are misleading.

"and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing"

Just like any Al Qaeda.

Approval of capture or killing is approval of killing.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Not sure how waterboarding is relevant here.

Have you come across any of the passionate outcries against waterboarding? Is killing worse than waterboarding?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Have you come across any of the passionate outcries against waterboarding? Is killing worse than waterboarding?

Lots of people are against any form of torture. I'm against "hard" torture, as it is generally ineffective and leads to false confessions, let alone the ethical implications. I think that "soft" torture (sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, etc.) is more acceptable, and will soften a subject up for interrogation, but I wouldn't condone it for anything else but interrogating. Waterboarding is kind of in the middle... If performed correctly, it shouldn't leave any permanent damage, but it's still pretty drastic. I'd be curious to find out how effective it is.

I find killing an enemy in wartime far less controversial than torturing one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I find killing an enemy in wartime far less controversial than torturing one.

Interesting social phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Should his citizenship give him any more protection from his actions than other high level terrorists? Al-Qaeda members are viewed as unlawful combatants of war, dealt with by the military instead of law enforcement.

What many people don't seem to understand is that our right to trial exists because anyone can claim that you've done anything they want to claim. Do you personally have evidence that he has engaged in terrorism that makes you so willing to condemn him to die? If he had been caught in this country, do you think we should just drag him out behind the woodshed and shoot him?

I'm about ready to give up on this country. I see our rights being stripped away and I see people not just ignoring it, but actively supporting it. What will it take to get Americans angry?

And that's why Huxley, and not Orwell, was right. :-)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you personally have evidence that he has engaged in terrorism that makes you so willing to condemn him to die?

I don't but the CIA seems to.

If he had been caught in this country, do you think we should just drag him out behind the woodshed and shoot him?

He would probably have been arrested as a civilian and tried under law. However, since he's operating in a war zone, it's not the justice system that deals with him but the military.

I realize there's a fine line between a terrorist and an enemy combatant, but this is how the US government sees it (hence War on Terror).

All of this is still applying a possibly logical explanation to individual cases, in
disregard of any wider implications. And that's the crux of the matter. The CIA
is not the most trustworthy club out there, either. And we know that people
have been 'falsly arrested' and shipped to guantanamo. Even Fox News admit.

I'm gonna have to agree with spartiate on this one. I'm not saying I think we should kill this person. All I am saying is this is how the system works. It's how it's always worked.

Our justice system can't just march in a soverign country and say "Okay were going to drag this person back to our country to put them on trial, thanks". Because think about what you're saying. You are saying the justice system has the right to kidnap ameircans in another soverign country to put them on our trial system, for a crime that is a crime in america. This opens up a can of worms. That's like saying if you're american and doing legal drugs in the foreign country you are in, BUT ILLEGAL IN AMERICA, that american cops still have the right to arrest you while you are in this foreign country.

It doesn't work that way (thankfully) and we wouldn't want the reversal either. We don't want a foreigners judicial system coming in our homeland and dragging people on an airplane against their will to put them on trial in their country.

Sovereignty! The judicial system has to first ask "may we come in" and "can we bring this person back to our country to try them?". The judicial system has to first honor sovereignty. And the answer isn't always "yes you may". Many times the answer is "No, we will deal with this matter ourselves". Remember the crazy church people in Haiti?

Americans are arrested all the time in foreign countries and are taken to jails that we would consider inhumane torture. And there is nothing our judicial system can do about it, even if they wanted to help. Too many americans think they have special rights even when they travel to a foreign country - no - you don't. You are now under that countries judicial system.

Our judicial system can do little to nothing about this case because he is in a foreign country while we are at war, leaving it up to the american power that does not respect sovereignty, our army. Our army and our intelligence is now the one deciding whether or not this man is innocent or guilty. And the same judgment has been passed to all the middle easterners that have died from american fire. Was there any court around to decide whether or not they really were guilty, that they really were taliban? No. Innocent people have been wrongly accused, and innocent have already died. That's war. That's why it's ugly.

Whats going on here is simply the ugliness and the reality of war. It is not new.

my last point applies here as well.. try to see the bigger picture.

Also, there are a few more factors, too. Ever heard of interstate rendition?

And this is how war works since 9/11. Before, this would have been illegal.

Plus, 'That's how it is' is no basis for an argument, or should protect from criticism.
The status quo is merely another alternative, although we evaluate it differently in
our minds. I thought, you'd usually agree with me on this one? What's up?

Originally Posted by dajo

my last point applies here as well.. try to see the bigger picture.

Also, there are a few more factors, too. Ever heard of interstate rendition?
(not sure if it's the right word, I tried to translate)

And this is how war works since 9/11. Before, this would have been illegal.

I agree with you that there is a problem.

Let's say we want our judicial system to put the leaders of our army under trial, and ask the judicial system, have these war leaders stepped outside of their constitutional power? The judicial system has to work within its own powers to discern whether or not a crime has been committed - it needs evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who's going to provide the evidence that a war crime was committed? Who is stopping the army and our intelligence from making the evidence that a crime was ever committed - disappear?

The real problem in my opinion is the lack of free media. If we don't know the truth, then we are powerless, and our judicial system becomes powerless to say whether or not a war crime was committed.The lack of free media is the real reason why this war is so disturbing.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25..

Well, rather vague. Him being merely Al Qaeda is probably what they are talking about.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

So the only thing they really had on him is that he was Al Qaeda. Wow, for all they know, he could have just treated wounds as a pacifist. That scenario means he wouldn't be an imminent threat. In this case, he may not have been Al Qaeda, but just a pacifist. They should release how he is linked to Al Qaeda and what he did because they haven't presented enough information to remotely justify it, not even with international law. Ironically, the information is probably classified.

I mean really, if you end up talking to Al Qaeda on the internet, then technically using the justification presented, you would be an imminent threat. That would mean you could legally be terminated. It is all about perception.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Well, rather vague. Him being merely Al Qaeda is probably what they are talking about.



So the only thing they really had on him is that he was Al Qaeda. Wow, for all they know, he could have just treated wounds as a pacifist. That scenario means he wouldn't be an imminent threat. In this case, he may not have been Al Qaeda, but just a pacifist. They should release how he is linked to Al Qaeda and what he did because they haven't presented enough information to remotely justify it, not even with international law. Ironically, the information is probably classified.

I mean really, if you end up talking to Al Qaeda on the internet, then technically using the justification presented, you would be an imminent threat. That would mean you could legally be terminated. It is all about perception.

Why should the CIA or the military have to release sensitive information on a known Al-Qaeda member's current activities/partners? That goes against intelligence 101.

You're still treating this like a matter of law. It's not, not even international. It's a military action during a time of war and he's being treated no differently than other high value enemy targets.