You see this is another bit of confusion that I need clarity on. Many people here have said the CIA is targeting him for assassination, yet another article states authorized to kill. These are two different things.
I don't want to appear nit-picky but I'm assuming when we're looking at policy we have to be clear in our language, n'est-ce pas?
Apologies I was about to write the rest of this in French.
In any event, if we look at the words
"authorize to kill" as stated by several articles one from the Washington's posts Greg Miller, and others from Reuters and so on...and one article states this, "authorize to kill or
capture" If this language of capture and authorized to kill (assuming he puts up a fight) would suggest to me, that we're reading this all wrong. This list is not a kill list, as some have described on this thread or other places. It would seem, this list is more of a Catch Them Now List---or kill if it comes to that.
I need to get the language straight. I know many on here would accuse of trying to either sugercoat this or rationalize the statements made by other articles. But if this is really a more authorized to kill during combat or battle engagement (as a last resort) I don't see why this is such a problem. I think we're getting caught up in the language of some of the articles.
Here is an example of an article that says what I mean:
U.S. officials say the Obama administration has authorized the CIA to capture or kill a U.S.-born radical Muslim cleric alleged to be an al-Qaida operative.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Reports-CIA-Authorized-to-Kill-US-Born-Cleric-90088012.htmlMany other places has called this a
Kill-or-Capture List or
Capture-or-Kill list. If this guy has allegedly done a crime and we're trying to capture him so he can face trial----but in the midst of capturing him he resists capture....and a battle ensues, then what is wrong if he ends up dead. This would also mean this is not an assassination list as so many on this site are claiming it is. The ACLU statement, thanks with some help from a poster here
DevonRex, I give credit where it's due, it would seem that the ACLU is asking about the criteria to get on this list and the precedent that an American has been put on the list. However,it doesn't seem to be arguing for him to be taken off a Kill-Or-Capture list or if it's constitutional or not for this guy to be on the list. But this is not a list where the CIA is hired to kill this guy or sent out to directly kill him. It's more of a capture, and if things reach a low point use extreme force.
This is very different from using "assassination" as so many here are pushing. Which to me, means, and I could be wrong, that there is a set plan and initiative to take out this guy without even giving him a trial. However, the Kill-or-Capture says otherwise, or suggest otherwise and that a person who is captured would face trial.
NYT uses:
targeted killing
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hpThe truthout article uses:
targeted assassination
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x262344I have another question? Have there been people on this list that we have captured and have faced trial? Or have all of them been killed? And I need clarity on which phrasing is correct..."targeted for assassination" or "authorized to kill"?
I know a lot of people may understand this so I'd like some help...because I do find this to be a very heavy topic and I don't like being confused.
-----------------------------------------------------------
As a note I will say this much. From what I've read, and I do wish the above to be answered. But if I read the truthout article correctly and various other articles on this topic. The ACLU is not arguing the constitutionality of the actions taken by the administration. They want to know the criteria the US government is using to put a person on this list.
Further more, if this is list is a Capture-or-Kill list, then the article posted by truthout and various other news companies who are using the language of assassination are actually sensationalizing and misleading it's readers. The reason I say this is because the truthout article says this:
Justifying Assassinations
, that is if this is an assassination list. Which seems to be disputed by various articles on the net----actually let me rephrase. This is not being disputed----some people are using assassination which leads to a completely different conclusion not only for the reader but the direction the writer takes. By using the terminology assassination they have created a strawman argument of sorts and gone into the constitutionality of this and created a completely different argument than what the case maybe. Keep in mind, I'm going by what I'm reading and I could be wrong here. But when using assassination I think of plot to kill- agent sent to kill- person who may or may not be guilty is killed without a trial.
However, if this is a Capture-or-Kill list as so many other articles or just as many articles have suggested..there is no argument of constitutionality. Why? Because we are under the impression that the person will be searched out for capture and if they are killed, then unfortunately that is what will happen. But if they are captured then they will face a trial like everyone else caught in cases as this---who are non-US citizens. I hope I'm a bit clear here.
In any case, what I am seeing is that this argument on constitutionality is not actually the case brought by the ACLU and is a case brought by the writer of the truthout article and other writers who use assassination. Otherwise, this would be any normal, let's say if it's domestic: FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Criminals (dead or alive). Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding anything or this is all incorrect. Further more we know the Pentagon has a Capture-or-Kill list, is this the same one as the CIA?