Glenn Greenwald: The Due-Process-Free Assasination Of U.S. Citizens Is Now Reality

[Hissyspit]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald

FRIDAY, SEP 30, 2011 06:31 ET

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality

BY GLENN GREENWALD

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki -- including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry's execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists -- criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

From an authoritarian perspective, that's the genius of America's political culture.

MORE

[Hoosier Daddy]

1. OH MY GOD THAT'S BRILLIANT!

Kicked. Recced. Loved!

[Hissyspit]

300. Permalink:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2011/09/30/awlaki/index.html

[Syrinx]

2. Glen Greenwald can suck it

When you declare war on your country, you relinquish your citizenship.

[SidDithers]

4. +1...nt

Sid

[bananas]

23. Keith Olbermann can suck it, too!

From last year:
Olbermann: Obama orders assassination of US citizen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x607595

[ooglymoogly]

191. The genius of the constitution is that it guarantees its citizenry

the right to demand of it's government that the cutting of corners, for expediency, will not be suffered.

What corners do you think the government will next cut, or has already cut, in its authoritarian quest for expediency and a perfect environment for the very rich?

There appears to be no doubt that this (equally authoritarian) man was a slim customer, working hard against his own country and indeed, needed to be brought to justice; but giving up due process on these grounds, at best, is suicide for democracy and dangerously short sighted for "we the people", the citizenry of this country.

It is not surprising that the authoritarians among us will be cheering this dangerous shortsighted move.

[snappyturtle]

237. +1 Absolutely! nt

[louslobbs]

246. +2 n/t

Lou

[defendandprotect]

280. +3 --

[Name removed]

285. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

314. Why didn't Obama simply extradite this man and try him?

What would have been so difficult about that if he was truly guilty?

Not hard to get an American jury to convict a guilty defendant.

This makes no sense.

[Enthusiast]

326. PLUS FUCKING ONE!

[ooglymoogly]

193. DU is the real world for liberals dealing with reality. nwat

[girl gone mad]

293. Ok..

you hate liberals.

Fuck Nader, Fuck Greenwald, Fuck Moore, Fuck Kucinich, Fuck everyone to the left of Reagan.

We get it.

[RetroLounge]

305. No suprise you support this.

:puke:

RL

[Cyrano]

20. Umm, wingnuts have declared war on us, Syrinx..

They have declared war on our unions. They have declared war on our earned benefits such a social securtiry and medicare. They have declared war on our political beliefs. They have declared war on our economic well being. And they have declared war on just about everything we believe in. And (this is just a personal belief) they would off everyone of us if they could.

I suppose this makes them fair game by your definition.

[Inuca]

26. Don't equate a metaphor with fact n/t

[EFerrari]

31. Exactly. Awlaki commanded no army and had no means to wage war

on the United States.

[msanthrope]

54. I call trying to take down an airliner with a bomb a means to wage war. nt

[whatchamacallit]

255. How do you know that?

was it proved to you sufficiently that you have no doubt?

[Robb]

276. A jury in the UK put the guy on the other end of his emails in jail for 30 years.

[Exilednight]

332. That's nice, but this is the US, not the UK. n/t

[Robb]

338. So if the RAF had killed him, it would be OK?

[Exilednight]

353. I don't buy into the question. The UK would never assassinate a US citizen without

the US knowing about it.

But for argument's sake, let's say that the UK would act independently. If this were the case, then I would say that it is for the people of the UK reconcile this issue with their leadership. As a US citizen, I would hope that the US would take a strong stance against UK and voice its concerns over such an action. But in light of what happened, I wouldn't hold my breath that our government would do any such thing.

[Robb]

384. I like this answer.

Let's even look at it another way: if we'd been the ones who convicted the co-conspirator, and AaA fled the scene. Do we get to shoot at him?

[Exilednight]

389. I would argue no. The simple reason, AaA was never tried and convicted. The only way I could argue

that killing a US citizen is legal would be if the military was on the ground and attempted to apprehend him and he resisted.

The only other way killing a US citizen could be legal would be if that citizen was part of a foreign state's military, but terrorists organizations are not foreign military.

Personally, I have a huge problem with the whole way we "prosecuting" the war on terror. Terrorism is a criminal act, not a military invasion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

360. Because he was on the OTHER end of the emails.

Awlaki was not there forcing him to do anything. He took action, he committed the crime.

And, as you pointed out, he got a trial and a 30 year sentence, not a summary execution.

[Robb]

383. You're arguing two different things.

The argument that he should've gone to jail instead of being killed is at least an interesting and reasonable one to make.

But arguing that he was merely the planner and pulled no triggers himself? Come on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

390. That's just the point. There were emails.

Last week I got an email from my daughter saying I should look into Viagra.

I'm pretty sure she had nothing to do with it.

Just because an email 'indentifies' as being from someone, that's not proof he sent it. It might have been him, or it might have been someone else in the organization using his name. Emails don't leave fingerprints.

Convicting the first guy for what he DID is one thing - executing the other for supposedly sending emails is quite another.

A TRIAL would establish if he actually was an operational planner, or merely a propagandist. What this amounts to is killing someone for simply being associated with Al Queda.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with going after planners and masterminds, like the Blind Cleric, who did not themselves build a bomb or pull a trigger - but the farther away from the actual crime, the greater proof of involvement is necessary.

Of course, my position is entirely based on my contention that we are dealing with criminals, not fighting a war. Criminals are arrested and put on trial - like the Blind Cleric was. Al Queda and its off shoots are criminal organizations.

As long as we treat them like combatants on the battlefield, we give them legitimacy, and killing one recruits three. Treat them like the criminals they are, and let them be seen in court, with their rhetoric and actions being dismissed as un-Islamic violations of their faith, and they LOSE adherents.

The more we bomb, the worse WE look. The only REAL war here is a propaganda war, and we are losing it.

[JDPriestly]

315. As I asked another DUer, why couldn't Obama simply extradite

this man and try him pursuant to the Constitution?

If the evidence showed he was guilty, the jury would have convicted him.

What is it about our justice system that Obama does not believe in? Why does Obama doubt the wisdom of our Constitution?

Why did Obama swear to uphold the Constitution if he now can't be bothered to do so?

[Enthusiast]

327. Obama is now a true believer in

the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Koch Brothers system of justice.

[hack89]

391. Because the government of Yemen does not control parts of its territory?

There is a reason that certain parts of the world attract terrorist groups - they are lawless with little or no government control. Yemen is one of those places. The choice was to kill him or risk the lives of American soldiers to go get him - seems like an easy choice to me.

[Flatulo]

343. Neither did Osama bin Laden. He managed to make quite a

mess with a few religious fanatics and some airplanes.

[FedUp_Queer]

349. Last I checked bin Laden wasn't an American Citizen.

[Flatulo]

354. I was responding to the post that claimed that al-Awkli had no means

to wage war. Citizenship doesn't enter into this particular hypothetical. One could argue that OBL had no means to make war, yet his ideaology and call to attack American was quite effective.

edited

[RaleighNCDUer]

361. Yeah, OBL had no means of waging war

except for the personal fortune in the tens of millions of dollars he had, plus his family money (which, of course, they NEVER gave him access to).

[Amonester]

244. As long as they don't publicly declare that they intend to murder...

as many fellow Americans as they want, like that wingnut tim mcveigh, who kept his mass-murder plot 'silent' until he did it, for example, my guess is they have nothing to fear... until... the day they 'do it'.

If any of those psychos just can't keep his rotten mouth shut for reasons of imposing one's own rotten interpretation of any fairy tale on any mass of his own fellow country-people, well, he shouldn't be surprised IF something bad happens...

Hey, you wanna kill people because you're stupid to the core? Well... if you do, at least keep your babbling mouth shut.

Otherwise... good effin' luck... (well, no, not good but bad effin' luck...)

[Flatulo]

342. And when they set up shop in a lawless ME state where

they can't be apprehended, and they then post online calls to kill their fellow Americans, along with bomb-making instructions, we should drone their asses as well.

Fair game indeed.

[Odin2005]

35. No you don't. You must be tried in a court of law for treason.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

138. I emphatically agree.

The Founding Fathers did not regard any crime as so heinous that the mere accusation of which eliminated the call for due process. Even treason, which they regarded as the most heinous imaginable crime, was still under the purview of law. It is the only crime which has its rules of evidence explicitly laid out in the Constitution. They took the rule of law very seriously, and that is the legacy which we inherit. We would do well to act in the same way.

[Robb]

158. Eh. If your name was found in Benedict Arnold's papers, you got your house burned to the ground

And your whole family killed, usually by US troops. Not to excuse either action by that, but it's not worth romanticizing our Revolution too much. :hi:

[DeSwiss]

167. That was BEFORE there was a Constitution. n/t

[Robb]

192. Correct. (nt)

[ooglymoogly]

340. And therein lies the crux of this entire debate. nt

[ChadwickHenryWard]

204. I don't romanticize the Revolution.

I learned from reading A People's History of the United States that many of the complaints made by the colonists in pushing for a break from Great Britain were overblown. While they complained loudly about taxes, they paid lower taxes than those living in the British Isles. Even with the recent increases, they still did not bear the burden domestic Britons did; what's more, the taxes were levied to pay for the French and Indian War, which had been started by the colonists and primarily benefited them. The war had been started so that the Colonists could move west into Indian land. The Crown sought to keep the colonists east of the Appalachians to prevent hostilities with the Indians. The Boston Tea Party, besides constituting and unconscionable attempt to frame the Mohawk Indians, was an attempt to prevent a tax from going down. The tariff protected local merchants from competing with tea from India. All of these policies were set by Parliament and not the King, but it was easier to badmouth the King because there was nothing he could do about it. It was deemed imprudent to lay blame on the body that could actually grant them their independence. Alan Dershowitz considers some of the complaints in the Declaration "whiny," particularly the complaint about the establishment of a bureaucracy. He also notes that they therein condemn the Indians as brutal savages. The Continental Congress of course had no authority whatsoever to dissolve ties with Great Britain, and by doing so they were acting entirely outside the rule of law.

At the same time, we get very little discussion of the real complaints against British rule. I have a copy of Common Sense, and it makes a very compelling case against monarchy. Where, for instance, does the king get his authority? He inherits it from the first member of his royal line. How then did the first king get his authority? Either by legitimate election or by brute force. The legitimacy of an election is not heritable, and a usurper has not legitimacy to leave his successors. George III's line of course began with the Duke of Normandy, who took the throne by force. This leaves George III with no legitimate claim to rule as sovereign. He also complains about the instantaneous transfer of title at the moment of the king's death to his heir. This man could be six months old, or eighty years, or he could be a fool, a drunkard, or a madman. There is no way to guard against this in monarchy. When people are given the ability to choose their sovereign, they will not (we hope) choose somebody so grossly incompetent. It has always seemed funny that these things are never discussed in history class. The complaints about taxes are so provincial and temporary, it hardly now seems a legitimate cause to overthrow the government. But the complaints against monarchy are ubiquitous and eternal. This is a much better reason to sever bonds with Britain.

For the most part, and don't view the war with much favorability. I do however regard some of the thinkers at the time as very important figures. Their stock and trade was the ideas by which we shape modern society.

[JDPriestly]

317. Habeas corpus, one of the rights that this murder violated,

pre-dated the US revolution by quite a long time.

It is essential to the tradition of British law although it was not always respected.

Obama's violation of habeas corpus is a serious matter. Don't trivialize it.

Someday, you may be the victim of a violation of habeas corpus, and you will rue the day you ridiculed Obama's conduct.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

337. I didn't say anything about habeas corpus.

In fact, in the whole of post number 204, I didn't mention yesterday's murder at all.

Beyond that, I don't think habeas corpus enters into it. He was never charged with a crime, so he could hardly have invoked his right to hear and challenge charges against him. What's at issue is even more basic: he was deprived of life by his government without any criminal charges whatsoever. The matter didn't even get to the stage where he has a right to habeas corpus. I think the violation is even more serious than that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

362. That is the essence of habeas - the concept that every man deserves

his day in court. Summary execution is the ultimate repudiation of habeas. Guilt was decided without even an arrest, much less a trial. Exactly what habeas corpus is supposed to address.

[WinkyDink]

231. "US troops"??? Try again with your history lesson.

[Robb]

235. Yes, US troops. By 1780 the notion of the United States was well established.

You should read up on how suspected Loyalists were treated in South Carolina after Cornwallis left.

[WinkyDink]

336. I'm aware that 1776 preceded 1780. The connection to B. Arnold?

[Bragi]

36. I don't think anyone's civil rights are safe with you /nt

[markpkessinger]

42. Even if he does "reliquish his citizenshiop" . . .

The Fifth Amendment does not state that "No citizen shall be deprived of life without due process of law"; it states, "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." And the courts have long understood this protection to apply to all persons, regardless of their country of citizenship, within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. And even individuals accused of the high crime of treason (and is that not "declaring war" on one's country?) are entitled to all the constitutional protections afforded any other accused person, including the right to a trial.

God help this country if we were ever to adopt your view of things. You see, the founders were quite well aware of how easy it was for oppressive governments to redefine, as necessary, terms like "treason," in order to dispose of political opponents; that's why they put that protection in the Constitution, and did so WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.

[MisterP]

187. another thing the Obama Presidency is doing is mainstreaming Bushite stuff

into the Democratic party that, a few short years after its members were up in arms on those very same policies
when The One renews the Patriot Act, expands his powers of unlawful execution, stripping all human and civil rights from "unlawful combatants," and the "unitary Presidency"

"But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story

it's like that scene in "Buffy" where they simply can't see or remember something, even when it's right there in front of their eyes
of course, come election time they'll all shriek "did you forget 2001-08?!" and the GOP will say this is typical Black Socialist stuff (an accusation helping the "reasonable liberal" defenders of these obscene actions)

[defendandprotect]

284. +1 ---

[EFerrari]

299. Bush's arguments are repeated here all the time

without a shred of self-consciousness.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

316. Yup, our elections have become little more than sporting events.

Very little difference between opposing teams.

[ooglymoogly]

341. That is becuause pugthugs have taken over the dem party

and call themselves bluedogs or third wayers. We need to concentrate on them and vote them out of office. Surprisingly in the last election half of their no. were voted out of office with no real effort from us.

[FedUp_Queer]

350. Or irony

[RetroLounge]

307. +1000

RL

[chervilant]

207. Sadly,

my ignore list has increased by three after reading the responses to this OP, including the pathetic post to which you responded.

[louslobbs]

248. +1.....what you said. n/t

Lou

[emilyg]

296. +100000

[Javaman]

99. fail.

due process and the constitution still exists regardless of what you think or say.

you should have followed up your post with, "USA!! USA!!".

It's getting to the point that sometimes I can't tell the right from the left anymore.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Do we get to use my definition of when you relinquish your citizenship?

It's good to be the king. When you sit in the big chair, you get to decide these things.

And it's all good, because the minions will cheer.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catbyte]

136. I must admit I can't work up too much outrage over this

[WinkyDink]

233. Best hope a Republican President doesn't mis-identify YOU.

[defendandprotect]

286. Ted Kennedy ended up on the "no fly" list -- had he not died he might have been assassinated ... !!

[frylock]

137. the founding fathers can suck one too..

lady justice? SUCK IT!

[whatchamacallit]

256. +1 n/t

[_ed_]

168. And that's just up to you?

You get to make the call?

Yeah, much better to allow fear to direct us rather than the rule of law.

[librechik]

176. do you also relinquish your humanity? Where was the necessary indictment and due process?

In your worl it's ok to skip that for certain people. When do the rest of us become those people? Such powers have rarely existed without being abused.

[sabrina 1]

199. When did Awlaqi declare war on this country? Do you have

evidence of that? He was here in the US openly living and preaching at his mosque up to relatively recently. Why was he not arrested in this country when he was easily apprehended?

He was formerly used as part of the Pentagon's outreach program to Muslims and vetted by the FBI, invited to dinner at the Pentagon eg. When did he become a person who was plotting against the US?

I have seen no evidence of that. And why would this government work in concert with a man who is currently murdering his own citizens in Yemen?

Glenn Greenwald could not be more correct. And it is tragic to see support for these policies that one would expect to see only in a Monarchical society or a third world Dictatorship.

[Muskypundit]

224. +1

[WinkyDink]

230. One citizen cannot "declare war" on the United States. That is patently absurd.

[tblue]

277. Really? Where is it written and what is your proof?

How ugly.

[defendandprotect]

282. When Bush/Cheney did these things we rightly thought it was TREASON ....

[tblue]

289. I don't know the exact legal definition of treason,

but it's amazing how our president gets a pass doing things we'd vilify Bush for. How can people not see the bad precedent this assassination sets? No one stands for principle? I am so disillusioned. This whole thing has pushed me over the edge. I do not belong with people who relish summary execution.

[defendandprotect]

292. It's a matter of consciousness raising ....

You're not "with" them -- you're here to challenge this thinking --

stick with it -- !!

Too many believe in authoritarian solutions and violence still --

Though time after time we see the result of violence --


As far as I know OBL was a CIA asset --

And Brzezinski is very clear that US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda via ISI/Pakistan

and used it -- "to bait the Russians into Afganistan in hopes of giving them a VN type

experience." US went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in.


US financed Taliban/Al Qaeda up to the moment of 9/11 and most likely beyond.

And OBL certainly wasn't going to be permitted to be heard in any court here about any of that.


We've also now learned from CIA asset/whistleblower Susan Lindauer that US/CIA were

very close to lifting the sanctions against Iraq. Sadaam/Iraq had agreed to every

condition re inspections and every thing the CIA could think to ask for. Would have

also been a tremendous boost to US economy -- they were going to buy 1 million US made

autos every year and every other business in America would have profited.


Other nations were also challenging our "no fly zone" over Iraq and were flying in

missions for HUMANITARIAN reasons with aid/food for Iraqis.


The only LOSER was the MIC ---

And thus the long time dream of the Bush/Cheney/PNAC criminals came to be --

[TwilightGardener]

283. Yup. Join the other side in a war and plot against your country, you should be looking over

your shoulder, you bet.

[FedUp_Queer]

295. Actually, no. In fact, we have LAWS governing the relinquishing of one's citizenship.

Below is 8 USC § 1481 and the statutory provision the applicable provision (1481(a)(7)) to losing one's citizenship. You will note that it requires not does he have to intend to relinquish it (which I don't know if he ever made such a statement), but a court must CONVICT him of this. By doing what Obama did, there is no way around the fact that he served as judge, jury and executioner for this man. Now, if anyone reading this finds that ok, that's fine. Don't EVER tell me that there is ANY difference between Obama and Bush when it comes to waging war and the national security state.

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a
foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

the Constitutional definition of Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

18 USC § 2381 (the statutory definition of treason with the punishment) : Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 USC § 2383: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 USC § 2384: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 USC § 2385: Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms ‘‘organizes’’ and ‘‘organize’’, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

[RaleighNCDUer]

363. Reading that it sounds like the last section 2385 comes closest to

thecircumstances to his actions - and the punishments are fines and imprisonment (which of course implies ARREST) not execution.

This guy was a propagandist - Tokyo Rose. Nothing more.

[obxhead]

321. And when your President decides that to be the case

you lose your rights.

How would you feel if this were Bush or McCain doing this. I'm guessing you would be 1000% against it.

[tavalon]

325. Maybe in your world

But the founding fathers seem to disagree with you. But hey, BOOGA!

[whistler162]

334. 94,000+ Americans killed by the government without a trial

CURSE YOU Abraham Lincln!!!

[ooglymoogly]

339. How many fools does it take to screw in a light bulb? nwat

[Windy]

3. He relinquished his citzenship rights.

He tried to kill many many americans.

I am actually sickened by this entire argument. Its bizarre.

[jpgray]

5. What do you think is the most compelling evidence against him?

[Enrique]

8. the fact that he was on the list

Obama wouldn't have put him on the list if he wasn't guilty. :sarcasm:

[Robb]

47. Easy answer. The emails between him and the British Airways plotters.

I know it was in an English court, but Karim's defense never questioned their authenticity.

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1057577#1057618

[msanthrope]

59. The public fatwa he issued against a female cartoonist? The evidence in the Stephen Timmns'

attempted assassination trial?

[trumad]

7. What part of this do you not understand?

("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"),

[msanthrope]

72. And he got his due process of law under the AUMF of 9/18/01.

He should have shown up for his Yemeni murder charges. Then the US wouldn't have been able to touch him.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Oh yeah? Then I would imagine that you could get an indictment with no problem then.

There is no clause that allows for execution without a trial and you can't have a trial without bringing charges. You have removed all burden of proof from the state, all they now have to do to kill a citizen is just make an accusation of association or just declare you a terrorist and it is lights out.

[trumad]

12. Bingo and that's the point.

[msanthrope]

64. Yemen has the right to hunt fugitives. He didn't show for his Yemen murder charges. nt

[stockholmer]

109. so using your logic, the US should drone-attack every person in the world who doesn't show up for

ANOTHER nation's criminal proceeding.

:puke:

[msanthrope]

130. No. The US should target SDGTs and break Al-Qaeda. nt

[stockholmer]

148. break al-Qaeda? lolol, they are really 'breaking them' by putting them in charge of Libya

Abdel Hakim Belhaj (rebel commander of Tripoli) is a ranking al-Qaeda leader (emir of the Islamic Fighting Group of Libya)

http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/Report/RSIS_Libya.pdf (page 18 has interview with Belhaj)

One of Belhaj's underlings is Nasser Tailamoun, who was Osama bin Laden's driver. Qadaffi released these 2, plus dozens of other radicals, in September of 2010.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/libya-releases-islamists-including-bin-ladens-driver-48737

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US and NATO use and support of al-Qaeda in the Libya coup d' etat

Abdel Hakim Belhaj, Tripoli's newly installed military governor (also a key official within Libya's National Transitional Council), is linked to Al Qaeda, reports Liberátion (Leftist French newspaper).

http://www.liberation.fr/monde/01012356209-abdelhakim-belhaj-le-retour-d-al-qaeda

http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fmonde%2F01012356209-abdelhakim-belhaj-le-retour-d-al-qaeda

Belhaj is the former head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (an affiliate group of Al Qaeda). In 2003, Belhaj was arrested in Malaysia in 2003, later being interrogated by CIA in 2004 in Thailand. He was set free in Libya in 2008.


It's important to note Belhaj is supported by NATO, as Le Parisien and MSN France report:


http://news.fr.msn.com/m6-actualite/monde/libye-calme-relatif-%c3%a0-tripoli-avanc%c3%a9es-dans-louest-statu-quo-dans-lest-2

10 h 20. Un islamiste à la tête du commandement militaire de la rébellion à Tripoli. Abdelhakim Belhadj a été le chef militaire qui a préparé, avec l'aide de l'Otan, la prise du QG de Kadhafi, à Bab Al-Azizya. Al-Jazeera lui a consacré un long entretien en direct du QG à l'issue des combats. Ancien dirigeant du Groupe islamique des combattants libyens (GICL), lié à Al-Qaida, Abdelhakim Belhadj, a été arrêté en 2004 par les Américains en Asie et livré par la suite à la Libye, selon la presse arabe. Il aurait bénéficié de l'amnistie de centaines d'islamistes libyens en mars 2010 ordonnée par Saif Al-Islam, fils préféré de Kadhafi.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karel Abderrahim, a researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques, a French think tank) said in an interview to La Croix, a Catholic French newspaper, that he is skeptical about the dissolution of Al Qaeda-Libyan Islamic Fighting Group:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-croix.com%2FActualite%2FS-informer%2FMonde%2FKader-Abderrahim-chercheur-a-l-Iris-Je-ne-vois-pas-qui-pourrait-federer-la-Libye-_EG_-2011-08-24-702836

Further background:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/libyan-fighting-factions-to-unite-under-single-military-command-1.380955?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2011/08/27/al-qaeda-in-libya-started-to-act-killing-friends-and-foes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

"Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries"....................


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flashback 2 years (including Young Turks video) more US support of terrorist groups

Saudis and CIA back Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s Jundullah in Pakistan and Iran?

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/12/saudis-and-cia-back-khalid-sheikh.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flashhback to 2007 (BBC)

Libyan Islamists 'join al-Qaeda'

Zawahri called for North African leaders to be overthrown
A Libyan Islamist group has joined al-Qaeda, according to an audio message on the internet attributed to the radical network's second-in-command.
Ayman al-Zawahri purportedly said the Fighting Islamic Group in Libya was becoming part of al-Qaeda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7076604.stm


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

flashback to 2002 (Guardian UK) French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell (and how the UK flat-out lied)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/nov/10/uk.davidshayler

MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'Startling revelations by French intelligence experts back David Shayler's alleged 'fantasy' about Gadaffi plot

British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ties things up rather neatly, going back to at least 1996................... all on here supporting the NATO invasion need to wake up

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The USA seeds of al-Qaeda (via support of the proto Mujahadeen movement) started in 1978 and 1979, under Robert Gates and Brzezinski of the Carter regime. Now have continued key roles in the present day, as Gates has been the Sec of Defense under both Bush and Obama and Brzezinski is a de facto chief architect of geo-political policy for the Obama administration http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65720/zbigniew-brzezinski/from-hope-to-audacity http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23726367#23726367 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama08.htm .

Al Qaeda is a West-created/funded insta-war/invasion/liberty crackdown/fear machine, an artificial hydra, utilizing the 150 year-old methods the British practised in the middle east.


http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/the-imperial-anatomy-of-al-qaeda-the-cia%e2%80%99s-drug-running-terrorists-and-the-%e2%80%9carc-of-crisis%e2%80%9d



The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a 3 part BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis.


The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lByw7kvS0 part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6LhnW4Oa8 part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HvzR8w1z2g part 3



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zbigniew Brzezinski


http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=cambodia_662


1980-1986: China and US Support Kymer Rouge

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/us.html

China and the US sustain the Khmer Rouge with overt and covert aid in an effort to destabilize Cambodia’s Vietnam-backed government. With US backing, China supplies the Khmer Rouge with direct military aid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser during the administration of President Carter, will later acknowledge, “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.”




September 4, 1997: Brzezinski’s ‘The Grand Chessboard’ Advocates Overthrow of Iranian Goverment


“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”. In the book Brzezinski details how in order to protect America’s status as the last remaining super power on earth it would be necessary to invade and control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran. The book theorizes that America could be attacked by Afghan terrorists which would lead to our invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately control of Iran as a key strategic country to hold in the war for global supremacy.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US empire's currency (the rapidly-dying dollar) is backed up, collateralized by oil, and the oil is backed up by the global Anglo-American war machine.

This crisis point with the current global monetary debt regime will occur in the next 2 to 5 years max, it even may cause a new world war, as many industrialized countries (not just 3rd world periphery states) will simply be unable to continue to operate at a level that will prevent their own citizens from outright civil wars and coup d' etats (much like we see now in the 'arc of crisis' ie. Morocco to the Chinese border).

This concept was laid out over 30 years ago by Zbigniew Brzezinski (chief geo-political strategist for Carter, now for Obama) in his books, speeches and CFR articles. His goal is to use this arc to force a China vs. Russia war by 2020. This will complete the elimination (in his mind) of the last threat to the Anglo/American banking cartel for true, lasting technetronic global hegemony.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921766,00.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32309/george-lenczowski/the-arc-of-crisis-its-central-sector

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_chessboard.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/04-0

-----------------------------------------------------------
2 key books by Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299979870&sr=8

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------


Between Two Ages

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetronic/dp/0313234981/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5

http://wearechange.org.uk/london/wp-content/themes/arras-theme/resources/misc/Zbigniew%20Brzezinski-Between%20Two%20Ages.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creating an "Arc of Crisis": The Destabilization of the Middle East
and Central Asia
The Mumbai Attacks and the “Strategy of Tension”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24770171/Creating-an-Arch-of-Conflict


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TheKentuckian]

241. Yemen didn't waste him, we did. Smarter clandestine services and an Administration

that doesn't think it can bolster its bonafides off of such an act would have Yemen take the credit and loopholed the entire debate.

They didn't and now I think there should be prosecutions for conspiracy to commit murder and abuse of power.

[closeupready]

215. Well-said.

+1.

[sad sally]

234. Our President has placed himself above the law, just like his predecessor.

One of its key components is the Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC, a clandestine sub-command whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. Reporting to the president and acting under his authority, JSOC maintains a global hit list that includes American citizens. It has been operating an extra legal “kill/capture” campaign that John Nagl, a past counterinsurgency adviser to four-star general and soon-to-be CIA Director David Petraeus, calls "an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175426/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_uncovering_the_military%27s_secret_military/?du

[piratefish08]

15. should have been a piece of cake to arrest and indict him then, right?

[trumad]

18. Again---what part do you not understand?

("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"),

[msanthrope]

76. He got his due process when he didn't show for his murder charge in Yemen.

He could have turned himself in to Yemen's authority when he was charged--then the US would not have been able to target him under the AUMF.

[sabrina 1]

203. Are you kidding? Yemen? Do you know what is going on there

and who 'the autorities' there are? They themselves have been slaughtering their own people, are you seriously giving credence to such a government?

Is there ANYTHING this government does that you would disapprove of? You are supporting the killing of a US citizen who was here in this country up to two years ago and could easily have been arrested. Have you ever the US Constitution? International Law on these matters?

Did you support Bush's destruction of the Constitution? Do you support Saleh of Yemen's current murdering of his own citizens?

[StarsInHerHair]

264. they are truly stupid, aren't they? we all have gps in our cell phones,

we can all become collateral damage, just by walking by a witch/terrorist

[DisgustipatedinCA]

386. That's a bullish reply and you know it is

So you get off on murder, or being on the side thats winning or whatever. Fine, but don't try to rationalize your pile of shit as being anything other than a pile of shit. He had Yemeni due process my ass. Really fucking idiotic line of reasoning you've got going there.want me to extrapolate a little on what we could do with Yemeni due process? Go try to do some thinking. You're in dire need.

[Odin2005]

37. Did he ever renounce his US Citizenship? Why not try him for Treason in a court of law?

[markpkessinger]

48. No, he didn't "relinquish his citizenship rights" . . .

. . . he committed a heinous crime, for which he was just as entitled as any other accused person in the United States (citizen or non-citizen, it doesn't matter) to a trial by jury, and to face his accusers in court.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution defines both treason as well as a minimum standard required to convict someone of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Thus, the Constitution very clearly contemplates the possibility of an Anwar al-Awlaki, but such a person still must be convicted by a court of law. There is no carve-out here for persons regarded as "terrorists," nor is there some particular number of attempted killings of American citizens that enables the suspension not only of the Fifth Amendment, but of a major section in the body of the Constitution itself.

I am amazed that more people don't grasp the danger in what the Obama Administration is doing. Even if we have absolute trust that this president will only use such a power against genuinely bad guys, once you open the door to having that determination made by presidential fiat, you are on a very steep and slippery slope. What this Administration does sets precedents for what future Administrations will do. If, God forbid, Rick Perry were ever elected to the presidency, would you want someone like him to be entrusted with this kind of power? I sure as hell wouldn't!

[_ed_]

169. Then you're sickened by the rule of law, then

It's bizarre how quickly some people will piss away our civil rights just because they're afraid of the scary terrorists.

Mafia members kill Amerians. So do drug gangs. Should cops start assassinating them in the streets before trial?

Where does the killing end for you?

[madrchsod]

186. reccomend...

[ooglymoogly]

194. +1

[EmeraldCityGrl]

323. +1

[Enthusiast]

329. PLUS ONE!

[bighart]

392. You hit it right on the head.

Well stated:

"Mafia members kill Amerians. So do drug gangs. Should cops start assassinating them in the streets before trial?
Where does the killing end for you?"

This is exactly the point.

[CopingBarker]

174. +1

[2banon]

226. Really? Which Americans? Where? How? With What?

[Muskypundit]

232. Yea, I really dont get it either.

The man is a self admitted terrorist who has tried to kill Americans, a high up member of a organization whose only goal is to kill Americans. If that doesnt make him a fair target, then I guess we are going to have to give trials during firefights before we can shoot back.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

319. With that logic, couldn't American presidents rightfullly be targeted for

assassination?

[Enthusiast]

330. If they didn't quietly go along with Wall Street theft

and the wishes of the military industrial complex I'm sure they would find themselves on the list. Sort of like President Kennedy. Maybe.

[Enthusiast]

328. To believe he tried to kill many many americans,

we have to completely accept what the government tells us. Many of us are highly suspicious of what the government tells us. The government has been dishonest with the citizenry time and time again. Accusations and allegations do not equal proof.

This is why we have due process -to sort these things out. It is foundational to the very existence of the United States of America. We accept this at our peril.

[SidDithers]

6. Poor, poor al-Awlaki...nt

Sid

[AverageJoe90]

180. I'm sorry, but really? nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

387. Poor poor US Constitution

Disgusting little authoritarian bootlicker.

[leveymg]

9. This has a way of snowballing. But, it's hardly unprecedented.

[Enrique]

11. i don't doubt it, but...

but what are the precedents?

[leveymg]

16. The first Predator drone/Hellfire missile casualty was a US Citizen, for one.

See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/438

[bananas]

41. Is that the right article?

It's titled "Blackwater Director Let 9/11 Hijackers into US, then Killed, Tortured the Remaining Witnesses"

[leveymg]

50. Read down to the second or third para.

You'll see the connection.

[RZM]

68. That is incorrect

Mohammed Atef (Al-Qaida's military commander) was killed by a drone strike in Afghanistan in November 2001. He wasn't a US citizen.

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-drone-war

[leveymg]

144. Kamal Derwish, a USC, was in the vehicle targeted in the Nov 05, '02 Predator strike.

That strike took place November 5, 2002 in Yemen. In fact, it may have been his cell phone that was long been monitored that provided the homing signal. The other named target in that missile strike was senior al Qaeda leader, Abu Ali al-Harithi, who was instrumental in the USS Cole attack. The attack in Afghanistan you reference did not occur until sometime in the November 14-16 period reported.

DERWISH:
Kamal Derwish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_DerwishCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Kamal Derwish (also Ahmed Hijazi) was an American citizen killed by the CIA as part of a covert targeted killing mission in Yemen on November 5, 2002.

ATEF:
Atef was killed, along with his guard Abu Ali al-Yafi'i and six others,<36><37> in a U.S. air-strike on his home near Kabul during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan at some time during November 14–16, 2001.<1> American intelligence intercepted communications from those digging through the rubble of Atef's home, leading them to believe they had been successful in killing him.<3> According to the Combatting Terrorism Center he was killed in a strike on an "al Qa'ida safehouse".<38> Although initial reports said that American bomber aircraft had destroyed the house, it was later revealed that MQ-1 Predator UAVs had attacked the structure.<39><40>

[RZM]

150. Atef died in 2001. According to your info Derwish died in 2002.

I remember the Atef thing well. It was trumpeted as the first successful killing of a high-ranking Al-Qaida member in the wake of the campaign in Afghanistan.

[leveymg]

153. I misread the year. You're right - Atef 11/01 and Derwish 11/02.

Thank you for pointing that out. Anyway, my main point here is that there is certainly precedent for killing US Citizens with armed Predators prior to Al-Awlaki.

[RZM]

155. Thanks. I agree that it doesn't affect your argument.

Just thought I'd point it out :)

[ooglymoogly]

201. It is one thing to kill and pass it off as casualties of war.

It is quite another for the president to openly claim the, clearly unconstitutional, right to assassinate whomever he deems to be a target, which may soon extrapolate to a decision by the oligarchy.

That puts any one of us in peril, to say nothing of the constitution and it's protections that have held this country together lo these many.

When the rule of law is so carelessly shattered, the country is shattered.....

the constitution is that rule of law.

[StarsInHerHair]

266. finally a smart assessment

[court jester]

13. a drone bomb here and a drone bomb there

everywhere a drone bomb

one day people will ask "how did Americans let this happen"
but then of course it will be way way too late to do anything

"...A month earlier, an American official said the Central Intelligence Agency was building a secret air base in the Middle East to serve as a launching pad for strikes in Yemen using armed drones..."

[drokhole]

181. That detached, vacant stare says it all.

Mindless obedience - it's what makes our military great! USA! USA!

"Do not think yourself better because you burn up friends and enemies with long-range missiles without ever seeing what you have done."
- Thomas Merton, from "Chant to Be Used in Processions around a Site with Furnaces"

[RaleighNCDUer]

365. A look of pure boredom.

"This game's no fun at all - they don't even shoot back."

[StarsInHerHair]

267. exactly

[seaglass]

14. The constitutional scholar strikes again. Oh, I meant Obama - he certainly

has some legal backing that allows him to do this, right? Love the transparency too.

[EFerrari]

17. Didn't he just yesterday or the day before lecture Cuba

about transparency and human rights?

[msanthrope]

69. The legal backing is the AUMF of 9/18/01. The ACLU agrees.

I suggest you read the lawsuit done by al-Awlaki's dad and the ACLU. They didn't challenge the government's right to target. They only challenged the process by which al-Awlaki became a target.

They lost.

[seaglass]

92. Of course. I have already learned that a President can torture people with legal cover and zero

repercussions, why shouldn't there be legal cover to assassinate an American citizen.

[defendandprotect]

288. +1 -- and now it's a bit clearer why Obama saw no need to prosecute Bush/Cheney --- !!

[Supersedeas]

294. John Yoo approves this message

[MNBrewer]

160. The ACLU certainly does NOT agree!!!

Some day we will come to rue these Star Chambers we've set up!

Go ahead, Defend them. Just hope YOU don't wind up on the sharp end of the pike.

[_ed_]

170. You have no idea what you're talking about

Awlaki's Father's case was thrown out for lack of standing. There was no ruling on the merits of the issues in the case.

Stop making things up.

[msanthrope]

177. The ACLU didn't challenge the merits of the law, only the process.

I suggest you read the claim--they didn't dispute that targeted killing can happen under the AUMF, only that the procedure had been improperly applied to al-Awlaki.

[RaleighNCDUer]

366. The Nazi concentration camps were legal, too. Didn't make them RIGHT. nt

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TacticalPeek]

21. "at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed"

He sounds like it does not make much difference whether one gets the 'trappings' or not.

[Octafish]

22. Secret Courts + Wall-to-Wall Wiretapping + Summary Executions = Police State

Yet, the traitors who lied America into two illegal, immoral, unecessary and disastrous wars walk free.

[Inuca]

28. You don't really know what a police state is

or feels like. Unhappy as I am with some things here, it's absurd to call it a police state. Look around, follow the news, read some history, and you will find plenty of examples of true police states.

[Octafish]

40. So what if it's not like East Germany or wherever? Read''Friendly Fascism'' by Bertram Gross.

You may understand why when we vote for a Democratic candidate for President who says he'll end the illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars he doesn't. You may also start to understand why Congress works so diligently to represent the interests of the rich and no one else any more. You also may see how the courts work to protect the interests of the rich, including their property, over the interests of the people. Then there's the press, the only business named in the Constitution, protecting the interests of the rich and the warmongers they employ to run the show.

Here's how the imposter George W Bush put it:

"Money trumps peace."

Details: Know your BFEE: Money Trumps Peace. Always.

I'm sorry if that doesn't sound like a police state to you.

[Inuca]

116. For the first 23 years of life

I DID live in a police state, I can tell the difference.

[RaleighNCDUer]

368. Do you REALLY think this site is not being monitored right now? nt

[zappaman]

165. yet somehow you are able to still say we live in a police state

whereas a real police state would shut you up.
exaggerating again?

[Octafish]

182. Like in a police state people would be watching what you say.

Right you are, zappaman.

[ooglymoogly]

198. Neither, apparently, do you. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

367. We have the highest percentage of the population incarcerated

in the entire world. We actually have more bodies in cells than communist China, with more than 3x our population.

We ARE a police state. There is no doubt about it.

[Syrinx]

24. I want to be on record... Killing terrorists is not against the ideals of all liberals.

I'm very liberal. I'm in the socialist category. And I'm very proud of it. But I am not going to defend terrorists. People like the guy we're talking about. He was an insane killer, that wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible. He had rejected his American citizenship. And he vowed to kill as many Americans as he was able to. I'm glad he was killed. I'm a liberal. But I'm not a pacifist. Those are two very different things.

[trumad]

25. I don't know...maybe it's me...but aren't Liberals for the Constitution of the United States?

("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"),

[Syrinx]

30. he gave up his citizenship when he declared war against America

[trumad]

32. He did?

Can you give me some background on that law?

[Syrinx]

44. Article 3 Section 3 of the constitution says that waging war against the government...

Equals Treason.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

51. Tell us how what you propose or support is even REMOTELY constitutional.

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted"

In open court is a legal term in the United States defined by the appearance by a party or their attorney in a public court session such as during a trial. Normally, the public may be present at trials, hearings and similar routine matters.

[msanthrope]

56. Wrong law--targeted killing of terrorists is permitted under the AUMF of 9/18/01.

He was charged in Yemen. He didn't show up. Yemen does not have to suffer our homegrown terrorists in their borders.

[MNBrewer]

113. ANYTHING is permitted under AUMF using your rationale

[msanthrope]

126. No. Targeted killing of SDGTs is, though. nt

[MNBrewer]

141. Nothing is forbidden

Therefore everything is allowed, using your interpretation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

372. You love your fucking acronyms. SDGT?

[frylock]

183. will you have such a hard-on for AUMF when president perry is wielding it?

[msanthrope]

211. Tell ya' what--I'll be voting for Obama, so President Perry won't be my fault.

I would have jumped for joy if Bush had done this to OBL in 2001.

Think of what it could have stopped.

[frylock]

223. it really won't matter who is at fault..

all that will matter is that you support extra judicial killings. it really shouldn't matter who directs it, right? unless of course, you're some partisan hack. and you're not a partisan hack, are you?

[defendandprotect]

290. It's not whether Perry will be your fault -- it's whether your trust is misplaced ---

OBL was CIA asset --

US/CIA financed Taliban/Al Qaeda via ISI/Pakistan and funded it up to 9/11 --

if not beyond!

See Brzezinski on that one -- !!

[RaleighNCDUer]

371. No, it says giving allegience to a foreign government and waging war

against the US - Al Queda is not a government. He could no more give up his citizenship for Al Queda than he could for the Devonshire Kennel Club.

[Odin2005]

39. Bullshit. Did he renounce his citizenship? if not he is still a US ctizen.

Try him for treason, surely, but I reject ALL extrajudicial killings.

[msanthrope]

46. It's not extrajudicial. It's been the law for 10 years in this country.

I've asked posters on this board to define how his due process has been violated under the relevant law.

[Odin2005]

49. You mean Bush's BS laws? Fuck that noise.

[msanthrope]

52. You mean the laws passed with overwhelming Democratic support? Laws reviewed and passed by SCOTUS?

We own it. Now, tell me what process this terrorist is due and how it has been violated?

[Odin2005]

53. No US Citizen can be deprived of his rights without due process of law.

I don't give a damn what the SCOTUS says, they suck up to TPTB.

He must be tried in a court of law by a jury of his peers.

[msanthrope]

60. Ok. Again, tell us what his due is? Cite the law that says he gets a 'trial' and a 'jury of his

peers?'

He was targeted under the AUMF of 9/18/01. Tell us how his due process, under that law, was violated?

Not for anything, but he was charged under Yemeni law, and refused to show to answer the charges. Yemen doesn't have to tolerate our homegrown terrorists, do they?

[Odin2005]

62. It's called the CONSTITUION, read it.

[msanthrope]

67. Cite the Constitution where it says you get a 'jury of your peers?'

And again, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'due process' means.

Tell us what al-Awlaki is 'due' under the AUMF? Tell us the process that was violated?

In fact, tell us what al-Awlaki was due under Yemeni law, where he failed to show up for a murder indictment?

[Odin2005]

79. The 6th Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[msanthrope]

84. Cite 'jury of your peers.' Further, he didn't show for his Yemen murder charges. Yemen has the

right to treat him as a fugitive.

Again, tell us what 'due' is he granted under the AUMF and how it was violated?

[Odin2005]

91. The US constitution supercedes statutory law, so AUMF is irrelevent.

As for Yemen, we have a duty to make sure that he, as a US citizen, gets a fair trial in a Yemeni court.

[msanthrope]

102. I don't think you understand my question--you haven't defined HOW the statute violates the

Constitution.

The process is simple--

Take a look at the AUMF. That's the relevant law.

Take a look at the Constitution.

Tell us how the process defined in the AUMF violates the Constitution.

The government can take your life, your land, and your liberty, as long as they follow the rules on how to do so. So tell us how the rules of the AUMF are not being followed here.

[MNBrewer]

105. AUMF contains no process

However, the Constitution is clear. Grand Jury indictment is required.

[msanthrope]

125. The Grand Jury Clause doesn't apply to military targets or actions. It's not even adopted by a

majority of states....

Jeebus. It's not an even an incorporated right, but you think it applies to an SDGT???

[MNBrewer]

140. The Grand Jury Clause certainly does apply

Simply designating him a military target doesn't vacate the 5th Amendment.

[msanthrope]

175. No. It doesn't. Read Ex parte Quirin.

Do you even realize that the GJC doesn't even apply to the states??? You don't need a grand jury to satisfy due process.

[Fool Count]

108. What the hell does Yemen have to do with all of that?

They didn't kill him, US did. Is US Government now in business of executing criminals for other countries?

[MNBrewer]

86. Laws are always subject to constraint by the constitution

Constitution:

Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Law:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

*************************

"Necessary and appropriate force" must be subordinated to the 5th Amendment.

[msanthrope]

90. You need to do a little more reading.

Tell us, simply, what is his 'due' as defined by the AUMF.

Read the whole AUMF. Both resolutions.


The Fifth Amendment tells us merely that one cannot suffer deprivation without 'due.' Which means that you can suffer deprivation, as long as the process of providing you your 'due' has been followed.

Thus the government can take your land, as long as they pay you your due.

They can take your life, as long as you are afforded the process due to you under the relevant law. Here, the relevant law is the AUMF. Tell us how it was violated.

[MNBrewer]

98. Everything required is in the first clause of the 5th Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger".

A Grand Jury presentment or indictment is required in order to hold Alaqui to answer for his crime. To do otherwise violates the 5th Amendment.

It's very clear, and no amount of hand waving about the Authorization for the Use of Military Force can change that.

[msanthrope]

124. The Grand Jury Clause doesn't apply to military targets or actions.

The Grand Jury clause isn't even incorporated. It hasn't been adopted by a majority of States, even. And you think it applies to an SDGT?

Read the ACLU lawsuit, and the grounds they attempted to block the targeting. They didn't argue the 5th's grand jury clause, FFS...

[MNBrewer]

112. It's clearly extrajudicial

1. Judges aren't involved, neither are juries = extrajudicial

2. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/middleeast/08killing.html>

"A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit that had sought to block the American government from trying to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen and Muslim cleric in hiding overseas who is accused of helping to plan attacks by Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen.

The ruling, which clears the way for the Obama administration to continue to try to kill Mr. Awlaki, represents a victory in its efforts to shield from judicial review so-called targeted killings, one of its most striking counterterrorism policies."

EXTRAJUDICIAL
.....

"Judge Bates acknowledged that the case raised “stark, and perplexing, questions” — including whether the president could “order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization.”

JUDGE BATES CLEARLY BELIEVES THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO JUDICIAL PROCESS = EXTRAJUDICIAL.

[msanthrope]

129. You do realize that judicial review happened there? The case was thrown out because of lack of

standing of the Plaintiff, the terrorist's father. No standing, no case. That is judicial review.

Had the terrorist filed, that might have been a different kettle of fish, but as judge Bates noted, with judicial restraint, if you don't show to court, you don't get your day there.

[frylock]

139. you want to go on record in support of bush's draconian laws?!

are you also in favor of USAPATRIOT?

[msanthrope]

214. I want to go on record saying this--too bad Bush didn't use the bipartisan-passed AUMF

to take out OBL in 2001.

Think what it could have avoided.

[frylock]

236. USAPATRIOT was also bipartisan-passed

[frylock]

259. you've certainly avoided my question

[UnrepentantLiberal]

320. I want to go on record as saying Obama/Biden = Bush/Cheney.

[sabrina 1]

200. Why don't you define how his assassination does NOT violate

both International and Domestic law? Did he have a trial, was he indicted? Why wasn't he arrested while he was here in the US up to relatively recently, easily apprehended and given a trial?

And why are you presenting an argument that supports Bush's trashing of the Constitution when we worked so hard to elect people who were supposed to restore the rule of law in this country?

[msanthrope]

216. First, tell me which International or Domestic law you think was violated?

Obama said in 2007 that he felt the AUMF would allow targeted killings. He's correct--the AUMF does.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

208. What is the AUMF?

And what are SDGTs?

[Mnemosyne]

274. AUMF = Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or bullshit as I call it. SDGT? No clue. n/t

[ChadwickHenryWard]

352. According to that trusted legal scholar, Dr. Google Machine,

the AUMF is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, a joint resolution enacted on September 18, 2001. It's a one page resolution the entire operative portion of which states:

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The only piece below that asserts that it is in compliance with a resolution passed in 1973. As you can see, it makes no mention whatsoever of the process due to those "deprived of life, liberty, or property" by the United States government. Since no change is made, we must assume that existing statute stands. (I might also argue that the resolution is unconstitutionally vague, because of the huge number of actions that could fall under "necessary and appropriate force." Further, it transfers the war-making power to the President, as the targets of his action are not restricted in any way.)

Of course, you will note that the AUMF makes absolutely no mention of "SDGTs" which are "Specially Designated Global Terrorists," a now defunct legal classification that allowed the government to "block" the assets of certain groups or individuals. The designation no longer exists, so Al-Awlaki was of course nothing of the sort. These have been replaced by "Specially Designated Nationals," which are groups or individual with whom US citizens and permanent residents are prohibited from doing business. The designation has nothing to do whatsoever with due process, and the government is not authorized kill individual carrying the designation.

After doing some research, I am unable to follow the argument of the above poster even more than before.

[Schema Thing]

66. How do you try someone living in, and directing terrorism attacks from, a foreign land

[msanthrope]

70. He didn't show up for his Yemen murder charges, either, a fact people here ignore, nt

[Fool Count]

110. So? Now US is supposed to kill every fugitive in the world?

[msanthrope]

212. No. Just the ones that try to bring down airliners or send PETN bombs. That'll be a busy

enough schedule.

[Odin2005]

82. You can't, but that does not give you any right to assasinate him.

[Schema Thing]

83. True, but it does give you the right to kill him.

There is a difference.

[sabrina 1]

202. Who said he was 'directing terrorism attacks'? He was here in the US

two years ago, openly living and easily apprehended. Why was he NOT arrested right here? And why is this Government working with a man who is currently slaughtering his own citizens in Yemen? Where is NATO on Yeman, since they are supposedly so concerned about humanitarianism in Libya?

Where is the proof that justified killing this US citizen? I would like to see some concrete proof, not just 'the government told us so'.

[msanthrope]

217. What the hell are you talking about? He was not 'here' 2 years ago. He left the US in 2002. nt

[MNBrewer]

77. His giving up his citizenship somehow created a situation in which the US Constitution is no longer

is no longer applicable to the US government?

That's a non sequitur.

The US government is ALWAYS bound by the constitution.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

143. It doesn't say "citizen."

It says "person." Foreigners are also entitled to trial in the United States.

Also, is there a statute that says that one's citizenship is to be revoked if one makes war against the United States? I've never heard of that before. Also, if the government wants to take away citizenship, doesn't that in itself require a trial? It's essentially a criminal accusation, isn't it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

370. No PERSON shall be deprived...

The constitution does not say "no citizen".

BTW, there are specific ways to go about renouncing your citizenship - and he did not, so far as i can tell, use them. He WAS a US citizen whether we like it or not.

[msanthrope]

45. Can you tell us how this violates the due process outlined in the AUMF of 9/18/01?

I'm serious.

You keep saying this violates 'due process' but you haven't defined what process he is due.

[MNBrewer]

117. There is no process outlined in the AUMF of 9/18/01

It doesn't permit anything specific, just gives the President essentially unlimited authority to do as he pleases.

[msanthrope]

134. Well, if you really think that, it's too bad Al-awlaki didn't avail himself of the courts

and challenge his targeting.

He could have at least asked the World Court at the Hague to step in, but I guess he thought a cave in Yemen was preferable.

[MNBrewer]

142. You don't agree that there is no process established by the AUMF?

[tblue]

291. Ghastly. I feel like I'm in a twilight zone.

Do they call themselves "liberals"? I don't know what that means anymore. I think the problem is tthe "Big Tent." I worked for the party not OFA for just that reason.

[EFerrari]

27. Objecting to extra judicial killing is not pacifism or

defending terrorists. It's defending the Constitution.

[trumad]

29. Yep...

[Syrinx]

33. he did not object to certain policies of our government

He declared war on the United States, and urged mass casualties. At that point he was not a citizen, but an enemy.

[EFerrari]

38. So you want to not only shred the Constitution but Geneva

and all the agreements we are signors to on how to treat "an enemy"?

[msanthrope]

57. Yemen has the right to hunt fugitives. He didn't show for his Yemen charges. nt

[EFerrari]

149. 2000 years of Western Civilization and you're arguing for execution without trial.

'Way to go.

[Ignis]

238. At what specific point does an allegedly traitorous citizen lose his citizenship?

:shrug:

[msanthrope]

61. Targeted killing is Constitutional. nt

[Fool Count]

114. Sure, it is. It directly follows from

the if-president-does-it-it-must-be-legal doctrine.

[msanthrope]

218. If the Congress passes it, the President signs it, and the SCOTUS reviews it?

Yeah. Legal.

[frylock]

145. targeted killing is constitutional

this is truly chilling right here.

TARGETED KILLING IS CONSTITUTIONAL

as read on the fucking DU.

[chervilant]

209. Yeah,

and the final nail in the lid of HER ignore coffin.

Jesus H. Christ on a Cracker, what is this world coming to?!?

[StarsInHerHair]

268. me too, I cant stand a dumbo who just isnt bright enough to see the target

on her own back, potentially, because of this precedent

[EFerrari]

185. Anwar al-Awlaki's extrajudicial murder

Is this the world we want? Where the president of the United States can place an American citizen, or anyone else for that matter, living outside a war zone on a targeted assassination list, and then have him murdered by drone strike.

This was the very result we at the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU feared when we brought a case in US federal court on behalf of Anwar al-Awlaki's father, hoping to prevent this targeted killing. We lost the case on procedural grounds, but the judge considered the implications of the practice as raising "serious questions", asking:

"Can the executive order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organisation?"

Yes, Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical Muslim cleric. Yes, his language and speeches were incendiary. He may even have engaged in plots against the United States – but we do not know that because he was never indicted for a crime.

This profile should not have made him a target for a killing without due process and without any effort to capture, arrest and try him. The US government knew his location for purposes of a drone strike, so why was no effort made to arrest him in Yemen, a country that apparently was allied in the US efforts to track him down?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/30/anwar-awlaki-extrajudicial-murder

[StarsInHerHair]

269. this has been happening in my nightmares, people walking down a street

& suddenly a very fast missile-or something-hits from out of nowhere, killing quite a few & injuring many more. No one knows where it comes from or who was targeted, it's all Cheney's State Secrets Kremlin bullshit

[DirkGently]

96. Thank you. Jesus. When did Bush's "pre-emptive defense" theories become DU gospel?

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. They issued us this set of pom-poms and by God, we're gonna use them. n/t

[Mnemosyne]

275. Hear, hear! n/t

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. Due process should be. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

369. How about killing propagandists? THIS guy was a propagandist

who never killed a person in his life. He was much more useful running his web sites.

He was Tokyo Rose.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

388. Factual error on your part

You are in no way a liberal. Please do not tar liberals with your constitution-raping ideas.

[Odin2005]

34. Horrifying. The Imperial Presidency has become an uncontrolable monster!

:grr:

[pecwae]

197. +1

and I can pretty much g-d guarantee no one would be making the least attempt to defend this action were it not one of 'ours' in the Oval Office.

[markpkessinger]

55. Think about this: EVEN if you think President Obama can be trusted with such powers ...

... What if, at some point in the future, someone like Rick Perry (God forbid) were to be elected to the presidency. Would you want someone like him, or a future Dick Cheney, to have the power to target citizens like that? I know I sure as hell wouldn't!

But what this Administration, or indeed any administration, does sets a precedent that future administrations will embrace. And as has been clearly demonstrated by the current President, who campaigned against the extra-judicial actions of his predecessor, once in power, presidents almost never voluntarily cede any powers or prerogatives claimed by their predecessors, and if anything, they expand upon them.

[Puregonzo1188]

74. No one can be trusted with such powers. Not Perry, not Obama, not even Ralph fucking Nader.

[markpkessinger]

85. I absolutely agree ....

... I was just allowing for the possibility that some here may be willing to give President Obama a pass because he's a Democrat and they happen to support him.

[Enthusiast]

331. Thank you.

I do not understand the short sighted thinking.

[krabigirl]

348. Most Americans don't care, as long as they can drive their SUVs.

[Puregonzo1188]

58. Absolutely disgusting. I am at a loss for words. Murdering citizens without trial is a new low even

for America.

[msanthrope]

63. He was charged in Yemen. Didn't show. Yemen does not have to suffer our citizens murdering

their citizens. Simple as that.

[Puregonzo1188]

73. Well they didn't kill him with a drone strike, we did.

I guess the US-backed Yemeni government was too busy killing their own citizens.

By the way part of the reason the Yemeni population is so angry at their government is that they allow our government to fly drones in their country and murder their people.

Your points kind of moot.

[msanthrope]

81. A "successful joint intelligence-sharing operation" according to Yemen. They claimed it.

A "successful joint intelligence-sharing operation" between Yemen and the United States led to the attack that killed al-Awlaki, a Yemeni government official said Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/africa/yemen-radical-cleric/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Puregonzo1188]

87. You are aware the Yemeni government has a history of claiming responsibility for our dirty deeds

because their people hate the fact that our puppet government allows us to commit crimes in their country?

[RaleighNCDUer]

373. So you'd be OK with Iran sending people over here to murder the three hikers

when they don't show up for their trial in Iran, right? They were charged in Iran, and jumped bail. They don't show up, well, that's what they've got comeing to them.

[treestar]

65. What is new here exactly?

Why is this worse than killing OBL?

[Puregonzo1188]

75. Was Osama bin Laden a US citizen?

[Schema Thing]

78. So being a US citizen should be a license to kill?

As long as you do it from foreign soil?

[Puregonzo1188]

88. No, but it does unquestionably entitle someone to say constitutional rights.

[treestar]

89. No, but what difference does it make?

Don't all people have rights? Or just people who happen to have been born in the US?

That's a Bush and Cheney concept, that only US citizens have these rights defined as "human rights." That makes it practically a technicality among the terrorists in Yemen. You mean it's be OK had he simply been Yemeni? And since he renounced his US citizenship then it's OK.

[DirkGently]

178. Oh, right. Assassination is now okay, because we did it to Bin Laden. On to the next killing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

375. That's the way it looks. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

374. OBL was just as bad. He, and we, deserved a trial. He was IN CUSTODY -

or he could have been if he had not been shot on sight. After shooting him we hung around to loot his place of intelligence, so we know he was not shot because of a pressing need to get him and get out.

With this guy we didn't even go through the motions of an arrest, and he was a US citizen.

I don't understand how anybody can be sanguine about this.

[malaise]

71. Sadly this is the truth

Rec

[malthaussen]

80. Due Process or Don't they?

It may well be that the act in question violates no law as our laws are now constituted. It may also be that any such law is unconstitutional, but has not been brought up to the Court as yet. So there may have been no "due process" to observe in this killing.

But I wonder if legality is really the issue here? I wonder if maybe the question isn't really something along the lines of: is this the way we want our America to behave? Should the right to a trial be sacrosanct, or can we dispense with it in the case of people we really, really don't like and who have been really, really bad? Especially in cases where, if we play by the rules, the person who has been really, really bad can escape our vengeance and laugh at us while he does more really, really bad things? After all, aren't rules for wimps?

Back when we were prosecuting Saddam Hussein, I used to say that we should hold the trial in Australia, because there were plenty of kangaroos there. Mr Obama apparently agreed with me, since he ordered Mr bin-Laden killed without a scrap of "process," to pretty much universal acclaim of all Americans, not to mention the rest of what we used to call the Free World. But although I thought the particular trial was a farce (had I been the defense attorney, I would have moved for dismissal on the grounds that my client was incapable of receiving a fair hearing), I never thought the idea of a trial was farcical. Contrariwise, although I'm glad Mr bin-Laden was killed and that we were all spared the drama and farce of another terrorist trial, I know that the guilty pleasure I derive from this is really not an emotion I should encourage, nor should I want the people who actually have the power to kill other people to encourage it. From a simply practical standpoint, if we encourage hit lists, we encourage the growth of hit lists.

Back in the primitive days of computer programming, we used to say "If you give a programmer more memory, he'll use it." Similarly, "If you let the government kill anybody they want, they'll kill anybody."

-- Mal

[DirkGently]

127. It's telling the arguments in favor are, "Bush-era 9/11 laws make it legal." Meaning, "we no longer

recognize the Constitution of the United States as a limitation on the executive's right to label people enemies of the state and destroy them."

[Swede]

93. A dangerous man is dead,that is a good thing.

He could have just surrendered.

[markpkessinger]

159. Which, in effect, amounts to "the end justifies the means" ...

... and that is always a dangerous road to travel.

[watajob]

297. Really?

Dangerous? According to whom? We have impartial, third person evidence of this? Like, from a trial by a jury of his peers? With discovery and cross examination, etc.? Not just a statement by our government that, when challenged, was immediately cloaked in "state secrets"? Surrender?! Rather difficult when being chased by ordnance traveling at several times the speed of sound. This appears to be something straight out of Uncle Joe Stalin's play book. And, unless you're suffering from some painful disease, death is never a good thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

376. LOL

That would be something to see - him surrending to a FUCKING MISSILE.

[DirkGently]

94. The callousness & hyprocrisy is stunning. Not only unconstitutional, but we'd condemn ANY country

murdering people in other countries, period, nevermind its own citizens.

We are way over on the dark side here, and apparently no one in power is willing to drag us back.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[COLGATE4]

101. No. Unfortunately, way too many DUer's are enjoying the instant

emotional gratification resulting from a bad guy being killed, much as the Rethug crowd at the Rethuglican debates cheered Rick Perry's execution record. For them, Constitution, be damned (after all, didn't little Boots proclaim it just "a damned piece of paper"?) They tie themselves into knots parading pseudo-legal justifications: 'he renounced his citizenship', 'he was a traitor', because the cold hard legal truth doesn't fit their '24 hours' script of how the law works.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution is clear that no PERSON (not 'no US citizen') shall be deprived of life... except by due process. Due process is a legal term of art which has been clarified and defined over two centuries of jurisprudence to include troublesome concepts for some like the requirement of being actually charged with a crime, indicted, arrested and given a trial before a jury of your peers. None of these happened with Al Awlaki. As for AUMF, any law which pretends to say otherwise is clearly violative of the Constitution, and the fact that it has not yet been challenged in no way makes it any less so. We willingly continue to accept the dark side until some day in the future when we'll all be asking each other just how it was that we got HERE?

[ProSense]

107. This is

"Unfortunately, way too many DUer's are enjoying the instant emotional gratification resulting from a bad guy being killed, much as the Rethug crowd at the Rethuglican debates cheered Rick Perry's execution record."

...such a bullshit false equivalency. One has nothing to do with the other. Post a thread about Cheney having a heart attack, and you'll see why.

I don't remember people becoming indignant when terrorists were killed during the Bush administration. In fact, the extent of most of the response was debating how many times the person was reportedly killed.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

115. Sure

Can anyone help me reply to this?I understand what you are saying but Obama has been President long enough to end the wars, to do anything he promised, he was more concerned with getting Obamacare passed than he was in getting Americans back to work. Both parties suck and helped pass NAFTA and the bazillion other "agreements" that are sucking the jobs out of America. The biggest problem though is the American people, they want high wages but to buy everything dirt cheap. Until we value hard work and respect others this will never change.....GOP or Dem.....

Good job of attacking health care reform, slamming Americans for wanting higher wages and pushing the "value hard work" meme (conservative in the context above).

Oh, false equivalency check: "Until we...respect others this will never change.....GOP or Dem."

Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

[COLGATE4]

161. If you don't understand the difference between a foreign terrorist

being killed overseas and an American citizen being killed by our government, I can't help you.

[Elmergantry]

262. I dunno, Lincoln killed plenty of American citizens without due process...NT

[Name removed]

270. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theaocp]

265. Weak sauce, Pro.

I hope Cheney has a heart attack asap. Nature does tend to take its course, eventually. The other events are orchestrated and intentional. You like the coppery taste of blood in your mouth, that's your business.

[RaleighNCDUer]

378. He CAN'T have a heart attack. At this point, he could only suffer

mechanical failure.

[RaleighNCDUer]

377. Selective memory there. I remember a LOT of discussion about

the American killed by drone in Yemen in 2002. Most of it centered on "If they knew where he was to shoot a missile at him, why couldn't they ARREST him?"

And the multiple killings of the same person you referred to was a comment on the insanity of the war, with a healthy dose of irony "Not only is Bush fighting an illegal war, but he's doing it so BADLY."

I guess you were too busy cheering to notice.

[DirkGently]

118. The notion that 9/11 put the Constitution on hold is Bush/Cheney ideology, and a lie. Why any Dem or

progressive would get behind that, I cannot imagine.

No law, no military "authorization" makes it either legal or ethical for the United States to murder someone in a foreign country, much less a citizen, avowed or "disavowed."

The AUMF drum beating is wildly off target. This person was not convicted of being involved in the 9/11 attacks, which is all that authorization applies to. Further, it doesn't supercede the Constitutional right to counsel and trial by jury.

There's a big sleight of hand going in trying to justify this that's hugely dangerous. The fact that this U.S. citizen was overseas is not relevant. If this was legal, and ethical, and okay, than it's just as okay if the Predator had launched its Hellfire at a house or Mosque in the U.S. containing someone the government considered an enemy.

Is it? Who thinks that? Who are WE, if that's what we stand for?

[Fool Count]

120. Exactly. When Russians poisoned that Litvinenko guy with

radioactive polonium in London, I am sure he was also on some kind of Putin's list of
dangerous criminals. It always starts with a Predator drone or a dropper-full of polonium
in some faraway country. Next thing you know, they will be cutting your break-lines and
dropping toasters in your bath for posting "dangerous" stuff online. Not such a huge stretch
really.

[OwnedByFerrets]

273. Ding ding ding...youve hit the nail on the head. Hypocrisy in

the highest. Can you imagine the OUTCRY if China sent a drone here to kill one of their citizens that they deemed "dangerous"?

[DirkGently]

318. Of course. Or one of ours? Can Canada launch a missile at Cheney?

[ProSense]

97. The killing of a terrorist is now a reality

Greenwald was also upset that Osama bin Laden didn't get due process.

[MNBrewer]

121. Due Process is so 18th Century

We need to Win the Future, and look forward, not back.

Right?

[Robb]

119. Al-Awlaki was actually indicted in two countries last year.

Yemen, which could probably be dismissed as a dysfunctional court system, and in the UK, which is a more difficult challenge to dismiss.

Second, the notion that Saleh was in any way helpful rather ignores the history of his tenure in Yemen. I'm not sure why Greenwald wants to push that particular silliness.

Third, that Greenwald can cite unnamed "Yemen experts" who doubt the al-Awlaki's operational role in planning several attacks and bombings merely suggests he intends to remain willfully ignorant of public court proceedings that rather otherwise over the past three years.

Finally, on the topic of law, and how "we'll never know" how a court case with al-Awlaki would've turned out -- nonsense. US courts have spoken repeatedly on the First Amendment as it pertains to causing harm; that the idea will not be tried in court again here is no loss to either our nation's public discourse, nor its system of legal precedents.

Maybe Greenwald wrote quickly to get this in the right news cycle, but he kind of blew it; there are excellent arguments against targeted killings out there, many indeed expressed quite eloquently on this board, but he makes none of them, choosing instead to weave a bunch of (put generously) half-truths into a sympathy ploy for a man who doesn't deserve it.

All it does is polarize, not inform, the discussion, and indeed those discussing it. Instead of addressing issues, he puts miles of daylight between what he sees as the only two options: either you're a barbarian who enjoys killing people, or you're supportive of al-Awlaki.

That's how he's framed it, and that's what you see in this thread discussing it. One side thinks the other are barbarians, the other side thinks the first are somehow asking al-Awlaki to lead the toast at their daughters' wedding. Idiotic article.

[RaleighNCDUer]

379. Of course, an indictment is NOT a trial.

You know, a trial. That part which comes BETWEEN indictment and execution.

[AngkorWot]

122. You know who else were American citizens.

Confederate soldiers.

Take up arms against the U.S. Get killed. Natural consequences.

Glenn Greenwald, and his apologists, remind me of those nuts who defend the Branch Davidians.

[trumad]

128. Funny---but so were the Union Soldiers.

The comparison is moronic.

[COLGATE4]

162. +1

[AngkorWot]

222. True... true...

But Lincoln didn't kill the Union soldiers.

"The comparison is moronic."

Great. Then I'm sure you can come up with a good explanation as to how.

[Elmergantry]

258. Wondering when someone would bring it up

Going thru due-process for each of the American citizen-traitors General Grant was aiming to kill with arty would have been a bitch....

[Zorra]

123. So, like, now it's legal to assassinate the Wall St. protesters at will?

Maybe just because they disagree with the Finance/Military/Industrial complex?

Like, "hey! ya, know, let's just get rid of the liberals! It's legal now. They're a huge pain in the ass. Without liberals we can fully establish the plutarchy without impediment! such

Maybe they'll send fucking agents out to poison us so that it doesn't look like an assassination. (Geez, maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas)

And about half of DU thinks this is a good idea?

This place really has changed dramatically.

Sad.

And they'll say, oh, no, this is just for such and such, and so and so, and they would never come for us.
:puke:

[DirkGently]

132. I heard they're terrorist sympathizers who once met a 9/11 hijacker for tea. Let the missiles fly.

[Jamastiene]

344. I second that lamentation.

What used to be railed against on DU when Bush did it is now applauded. Torture, assassination, throw out the Constitution, break any and every treaty we ever signed as a country, keep all of Bush's policies and half his damn administration, whatever. It's all A-ok on DU because the president doing it has a (D) behind his name.

I second that lamentation. This place has done a 180. :puke:

[G_j]

131. Obama: A Disaster for Civil Liberties

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/30-4


Published on Friday, September 30, 2011 by The Los Angeles Times

Obama: A Disaster for Civil Liberties
He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.
by Jonathan Turley

With the 2012 presidential election before us, the country is again caught up in debating national security issues, our ongoing wars and the threat of terrorism. There is one related subject, however, that is rarely mentioned: civil liberties.

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

..more..

[DirkGently]

133. Turley's being hurriedly stuffed the bus, I see. Getting crowded down there.

[MNBrewer]

157. Speaking of the Nuremberg Trials

If trial, rather than summary execution, was good enough for Herman Göring, it's good enough for bin Ladin and al Awlaki.

But back then, we were determined to show that we weren't barbarians...

[DirkGently]

173. Now it seems like we're determined to show the opposite. Another murder cheered amid waving torches.

[xocet]

225. Excellent point. Justice and revenge are two separate things. n/t

[tblue]

281. I think this case is clearly separating the wheat from the chaff.

I'm really not liking what I'm learning about some of the people here. Who knew we weren't on the same page when it comes to civil liberties? Sad really.

[dionysus]

135. a terrorist gets smoked and greenwald fills a pamper. now that's what you call a two-fer.

:thumbsup:

[Feron]

147. Extrajudicial killings are okay when our guy does it!

Imagine if Brandon Mayfield or Steve Hatfill had been traveling abroad when the government accused them of being terrorists. No doubt you would've cheered if the government had succeeded in killing them.

Basically it's stay in the United States or risk being murdered by your own government if it's decided that you're a terrorist. No trial or evidence necessary.

And with the way things are going, people like you will cheer when Americans are killed at home without due process. But hey they were terrorists...the government told me so!

Republicans only pay lip service to civil liberties when their party no longer holds the presidency. Same has proven to be true of the Democrats.

Oh and you can try a defendant in absentia. Of course killing someone is a lot more expedient than a trial...

Sickening.

[DirkGently]

151. Given that only the killings considered good P.R. are even revealed, who knows who's being targeted?

We sure don't. It would be naive in the extreme to imagine its impossible that any number of inconvenient Americans or others could never become "collateral damage" in a drone strike or other "extrajudicial killing."

We have these (supposed) limitations and protections in place for a reason, but people seem to fail to appreciate what they really mean.

It is in no way natural or normal or expected that citizens are not kidnapped or tortured or murdered by powers within their own country, without charge or trial or right to counsel.

Those things ARE the natural way it goes. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were assembled with that understanding, and nothing about human nature has changed since then.

If you don't recognize someone else's right not to be murdered on the say so of the government you -- that instant-- no longer have that right yourself.

I see people people slinging out all manner of rationalizations about how bad so-and-so was, and how the entire planet is just a big WWII battlefield now. And of course how the Innocent Have Nothing to Fear, and We Can Trust Our Leader.

What's missing is that axiom that powers that be never admit wrongdoing. They never say they are or might or could possibly be, say, killing someone unfairly. They always say it's a dangerous enemy of the state. An enemy of the revolution. That a trial is unnecessary. That the exigencies of war don't permit due process. That is HOW government atrocities are committed. It's the only way it's done. It's the way it's always been done. It's not any different because it's us doing it, or we consider our enemies extra bad, or because the killings are done in countries that don't really count, somehow.

This is what barbaric conduct looks like. This is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights forbid. There is no "but this guy was super bad, we're pretty sure, and it's like a war, and we're really scared, sooo..." exception.

It shouldn't be this hard a concept. Wonder how far they'll have to go this time before people decide that their own welfare is actually at risk here.

Maybe when they come for the college kids? When we find out the unfortunate strike that hit the convoy that was carrying the political opponent was not so accidental after all?

What's it going to take to stop excusing the inexcusable?

[chervilant]

210. hmm...

Here's the answer I think you'll get from the pro-Obama crowd:

***crickets***

Having just read through these rather disturbing rationales in support of Obama's "assassination of American citizens without any due process," I have added five people to my ignore list.

Actually, I am finding myself spending less and less time here, now that the general discourse is so coarse.

[Jamastiene]

345. Same here.

When I do come here, I usually leave disgusted.

[RaleighNCDUer]

380. Which is, of course, the result the trolls want.

If they got what they REALLY wanted, this place would be Acorned.

[stockholmer]

152. +100

[StarsInHerHair]

271. [phone]

[bvar22]

146. K&R for Greenwald.

Lets Roll the Tape!

Restore America’s Honor
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

154. Extra-judicial killing is what Al-queda...and the USA does.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[DirkGently]

156. Unfortunately, the notion that the response to evil is to become evil isn't a new one.

[chill_wind]

206. The tragic truth.

[RaleighNCDUer]

381. As Hitler said "To defeat us they will have to become us."

We did, and we're working on it.

[madamesilverspurs]

163. Greenwald's apoplexy is contrived and convenient.

He'd display equal umbrage over a failure to deal with terrorists.

-

[_ed_]

171. Did you read that in your crystal ball?

.

[frylock]

221. more likely read from their crystal meth

[DirkGently]

172. Do you have a response the substance of the piece?

[Puglover]

240. I'm thinking it would be along the lines of

GOBAMA! USA!! :eyes:

[DirkGently]

313. We have got to do better than this.

[Solly Mack]

164. K&R

Having read this thread...I am reminded of this http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf">letter

But then so much of the last 11 years have reminded me of that particular letter.

[KoKo]

195. Oops...dupe.

[KoKo]

196. Thanks Solly. It's a good time, indeed to reread that letter...

So much reminds me in some ways of what some of us are facing who think our government is off track with war policy and bailing out Bankers and Wall Street (avoiding prosecution for many) while people out here are suffering and being threatened with losing pensions and benefits and the global financial health of the world is being threatened.

The rights of all of us are in question. Dr. King has some very wise words that can apply to these times in how the people need to organize and why.

[chervilant]

213. So true...

"As in so many experiences of the past, we were confronted with blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us."

As has been noted several times by individuals more erudite than I: those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

[DeSwiss]

166. K&R n/t

[AverageJoe90]

179. I think Glen really means well, but there are a few problems with his theory.....

1.) Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't even in the U.S. to begin with.
2.) It was proven that this man not only had links to al-Qaeda but was even aiding one of their convoys right at the moment of his 'assassination'.
3.) Where the FUCK is this supposed 'hit list'? Or did he unwittingly repeat yet another one of the many GOP/Teabagger conspiracy theories?(I strongly suspect the latter, and frankly, I don't think I'll ever see any real evidence to the contrary)
4.) There are real threats to the Constitution, but there were no violations here.

[stevenleser]

335. Here is the list

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/10/dead-captured-and-wanted/

the father of al-Awlaki found out about his son's inclusion on the list and sued last year to have him removed and lost: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1207/Judge-dismisses-bid-to-remove-Anwar-al-Awlaki-from-US-kill-list

I have no problems with any of this. The people on the list know that they are on it and have an opportunity to surrender. THey choose not to and that had a bad result for al-Awlaki.

[ooglymoogly]

184. Hard to believe many on this of all sites, can be so deadly myopic.

color me disgusted.

[madrchsod]

188. sad isn`t it.........

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

190. Erect bogeyman. Wave flag. Send in the assassins. Announce victory. Works every time.

From the P.T. Barnum school of foreign policy.

[xocet]

227. That is how they do it in the movies. How could it not work out well?? n/t

[Ignis]

239. "We've always been at war with Eurasia."

Thanks, Cassandra Orwell.

[Marr]

228. +1

[Kurovski]

189. K&R. (nt)

[chill_wind]

205. Lots of Senior Officials Spilling State Secrets Today

Lots of Senior Officials Spilling State Secrets Today
9-30-2011
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/09/30/lots-of-senior-officials-spilling-state-secrets-today/

Extrajudicial Execution of Samir Khan Arguably More Significant Than Awlaki
9-30-2011
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/09/30/extrajudicial-execution-of-samir-khan-arguably-more-significant-than-awlaki/

Let’s See the Evidence on Al-Awlaki
9-30-2011
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/09/30/lets-see-the-evidence-on-al-awlaki/

Is Anwar al-Awlaki The Unnamed “National of the United States” In Warsame Indictment?
July 7 2011
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/07/07/is-anwar-al-awlaki-the-unnamed-national-of-the-united-states-in-warsame-indictment/

Our “Public Debate” about Drones Is a State Secret
July 3 2011
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/07/03/our-public-debate-about-drones-is-a-state-secret/

(for those looking for additional facts and legal oriented commentary- emptywheel.net)

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blkmusclmachine]

220. You didn't expect them to NOT use the post-9/11 laws they wrote for themselves, did you?

Pretty sure they've been chomping at the bit to exercise all those post-9/11 laws they wrote for themselves.

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[abelenkpe]

243. +1 nt

[whatchamacallit]

252. Their support

will ultimately damn us all.

[democrank]

245. This is deeply disturbing.

Awlaki`s guilt or innocence aside...

An American president can point to a U.S. citizen and say, "Kill him." That is absolutely frightening.

[whatchamacallit]

249. He had it coming

so we're told... :scared: Even more disturbing is how some of us are willing to slit our own throats, assuming we're safe in the bosom of the state.

[louslobbs]

253. I'd rather be in the dirty laundry, in the worn brassiere. n/t

Lou

[louslobbs]

251. +1 not for those who haven't done anything wrong. This will only happen to people who are bad or

who the government says is bad. So none of us good people ever has to worry about being picked up off the street for no reason and taken to Gitmo or blindsided with a missile, that's just for bad people, you know like Hiv/Aids........it only happens to those who are bad and deserve it. SARCASM for those who need to be told.
Lou

[EmeraldCityGrl]

324. This decision of Obamas scares me in ways

Bush never did. At least with Bush I always knew what we were dealing with...Obama not so much. :-(

[whatchamacallit]

247. We are truly fucked!

We've seen this before... citizens willingly giving up their rights in fits of nationalism and fear. You are not safe because the government is good and can sort out bad apples, you are safe because the law protects you. Throw that away and we will surely descend into a totalitarian nightmare.

[Amonester]

250. Because we're not into a totalitarian nightmare already?

Where have you been?

On the other hand, I wish tim mcveigh would have bragged about his planned mass-murder BEFORE he did it...

Just sayin...

[whatchamacallit]

254. Maybe I should have written

further into a totalitarian nightmare.

[Amonester]

261. Yeah, I wish the Founding Fathers had foreseen the whole corrupt mess

also...

Sigh. Well, they were not perfect, only human.

[RaleighNCDUer]

382. Too bad. They could have written us a constitution or something

to prevent the government from doing this.

[abelenkpe]

257. My whole problem with drones

and drone attacks is that we remotely act as judge jury and executioner. Like a technological wild west lynch mob extracting brutal justice on foreign soil. Often killing innocent people in the process. If another country was doing that here would we be OK with that?

[Major Hogwash]

260. Fuck off, Greenwald.

And take your pseudo-liberal bullshit with you.

[pmorlan1]

302. Not surprising

Still living up to your name, I see.

[krabigirl]

347. Wow. Right wingers just love Obama now.

[StarsInHerHair]

263. they'll keep cheering til a missile hits 1 of them or their family, then....

like so much else, suddenly they'll turn against it, far too late.

[bluestate10]

311. Absurd analogies don't lead to truth. Why should reasonable person

do anything but bash one when seen?

[OwnedByFerrets]

272. Thank you Mr Greenwald...you are correct, however, its been

going on for a long long time. They are now so confident in their aggression that there is no need to even fake hiding it.

[Harmony Blue]

278. It is out in the open now

and the masses have been conditioned to accept these actions. Especially because of fictional shows on t.v. and how the MSM covers news.

[OwnedByFerrets]

357. Just as they have been condition to believe in torture....if its

for YOUR cause.:puke:

[defendandprotect]

279. Obama is a disaster ---

[saras]

287. The next Bush has this power, as does every other president from now on

[emilyg]

298. The day will come when

we look back on this and regret it deeply.

[pmorlan1]

303. I regret it now

Yeah, today.

[pmorlan1]

301. Unbelievable.

It's just jaw dropping to see the level of ignorance about the rule of law in this thread. Not only are they ignorant but they are proud of being ignorant. To think that in this day and age people would cheer for the assassination of an American merely on the word of the President (any president). Do you know how despicable that is? Have you even thought about it or are you just knee jerk supporters of whatever the president does including violating the Constitutuion? Who are you people?

[ProgressIn2008]

304. Glenn, Glenn, Glenn. Your thinking is so... 2006. It all doesn't matter now. nt

[StarsInHerHair]

306. US Laws of War here

Letter of the UN Charter: The UN Charter is a Treaty in Force; an active US treaty. Article VI of the US Constitution declares treaties as having equal power with Constitutional law and laws from Congress. This is also known as the Supremacy Clause:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/us-war-laws-explained-why-afghanistan-and-iraq-wars-are-unlawful-how-to-end-them

[The Traveler]

308. In this case, the argument really doesn't apply

I think it safe to say he had renounced his citizenship and thus relinquished certain rights to our criminal justice system.

It is not merely that he sought to give aide and comfort to the enemies of America ... that would be mere treason, a crime for which one may be charged. He was actually engaged against us. Propaganda is a tool of war ... and this man sought the protection of organizations engaged in asymmetric warfare against us while issuing his propaganda and cultivating contacts within our land. That makes him a military target.

Still ... I have certain sympathies for those who would disagree with me. No matter how you slice this pie, it is clear there is a slippery slope ahead. While I think this was a good call, I am not the font of all wisdom, nor can I foresee all outcomes of this precedent ... I could so easily be wrong about this.

Just recognize that in so many ways, we as a nation are on uncertain and unknown ground. Our President will make errors. That does not make him Darth Vader, or Hitler, or Big Brother. If I were in his place, I would have pulled the trigger, too.

But ... sometimes ya do things because ya know it is the right thing ... other times, all ya can do is act and hope.


Trav

[Exilednight]

333. The supreme court has ruled that renouncing citizenship does not equal giving up

all of your rights as a US citizen. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote extensively about this in the Yaser Esam Hamdi case.

From O'Connor's opinion: "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad."

[pam4water]

309. Wow the crazy talk in this thread is as scary as and right wing forum. D:

[Name removed]

310. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raksha]

312. K & R - seeing exactly this kind of BushCo "reasoning"

on another forum among the self-proclaimed "liberals." It's absolutely sickening.

[Flatulo]

322. Maybe I'm getting more pragmatic in my old age, but

violation of due process in these drone strikes doesn't bother me, as long as there is some involvement by the courts. The burden should be on the executive (as CinC) to prove that there is a real, imminent threat posed by the target.

The problem is that due process hasn't caught up with the type of low-intensity state-less conflicts we're likely to face in the future. As has been mentioned, I think the world would have been a much better place had we been able to take out bin Laden and the Afghan training camps prior to 9/11. In hindsight, the invasion of Afghanistan was ill-conceived and poorly executed. Invading a whole country to get a few bad guys has been largely ineffective. I for one rejoiced when Obama eliminated OBL with pinpoint accuracy and minimum loss of life, and think this is the right way to deal with the threat posed by terrorists networks.

I can't imagine anything worse than trying to explain to the families of innocents injured or killed by fanatics that we were too busy preparing a legal case to actually do anything to stop the attack.

[trumad]

351. I can't imagine explaining to innocents

why are drones accidentally wiped out their family.

[Flatulo]

355. It's not an easy call. If I could have prevented the 9/11 attacks

and subsequent deaths of 3,000 Americans by taking out bin Laden's training camps, but there was a risk of killing innocent civilians, I would have done it.

Better their innocent civilians become collateral damage than ours. And no, I do not value Afghan lives in the same way that I value American lives. That's why I typically root for the Americans when fighting starts.

It's just one heck of an imperfect world, isn't it?

[krabigirl]

346. Americans love violence and killing, as long as the people killed are brown.

As long as we can drive our SUVs, no one cares how many people we kill, or radicalize, over there.

[Flatulo]

356. Nonsense. We've killed millions of Caucasians. nt

[L. Coyote]

358. "no evidence except unverified government accusations" and remember, Saddam has WMD's

Yeah, now that they are dead, true history can never be told or the killers will have to be brought to global justice.

[L. Coyote]

359. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[Desertrose]

364. Yeah, I hate that line,too. K, anyhow.

Recc'd if I could!

[L. Coyote]

385. Good idea, get rid of the time limit and allow recs to keep threads afloat!