West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(59 posts)

Killing Anwar al-Awlaki

Started 7 months ago by MBarrettMiller
Latest reply from kootchman

MBarrettMiller
Member Profile

Is this what we have become??
Todays headline, "Drones quiet U.S.-born cleric whose words inspired jihad."
WORDS! No arrest, no witnessesses, who knows what evidence etc. etc.
it's not that he's a good guy but that we are all at risk when our government kills in our name whomever they deem to kill....
Along with money have we become a people that knell to the act of killing whenever we want?
Is this really the country you want?
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without dong anything."
Thoughts?

Posted 7 months ago #
MBarrettMiller
Member Profile

ah, doing

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

i have just left a facebook discussion with my brother on this very subject.
we disagree.
he believes this is a war and anything is justified in a war.
i believe we killed TWO American citizens without due process.
Why? because they were the english speaking advertising arm of a jihad against America:(

Posted 7 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

What disturbs me almost as much as murder to squelch free speech is the fact that, if anything, such actions inflame the situation more than the speech itself ever could. I don't believe our "cause", whatever it may be, is in the end helped by such actions. At best, the killing is inconsequential.

Posted 7 months ago #
MBarrettMiller
Member Profile

Inconsequential except to himself, his family, his friends and any others who saw some value in his life.
Is prison no longer an alternative to killing?
I am advocating for a group of teachers who dont have the courage to speak up for themselves. I am really beginning to think I am nuts-
If we dont speak up we get what someone else feels is the best thing for us. Mitt, the new Texas cowboy, the looney dame, the disgruntled business tycoon, Newt the angry etc.
I spent years living in a communist country where no one would speak about anything other than the weather and sports.
Our road may have a bad curve ahead....

Posted 7 months ago #
chrisma
Member Profile

@anonyme: Sincerely, with all due respect, al-Awlaki was not targeted and assassinated to squelch his 'free speech'. If that were the case, there's enough loudmouths saying inflammatory things to keep the drones busy 24/7 all over the world. Of course, we don't know the strength of the evidence that implicates him anything more than rhetoric (which is the truly troubling part), but I am highly skeptical that the U.S. would waste the resources on someone who was only talking.

I am in no way trying to defend his assassination, and I do find it quite troubling that the President can apparently unilaterally order the assassination of a US citizen without any due process. However, in this case, I think it's a distraction and a trivialization to claim this was about free speech.

Posted 7 months ago #
chrisma
Member Profile

@M.BarrettMiller: again, not defending the killing, but al-Alwaki was living in a part of Yemen that was not really under the control of the Yemeni government. Taking him into custody would've required a military operation involving hundreds of our soldiers on the ground in hostile territory, not just an extradition request and diplomatic pressure. Compared to killing him outright with a drone strike, I can see why that choice was made.

Just because it's expedient doesn't make it right, but I don't think prison was a realistic option in this case. I think it was either kill him, or let him continue doing what he was doing.

Posted 7 months ago #
elikapeka
Member Profile

I am really struggling with this one. One the one hand, he clearly had a hand in some pretty awful things. He probably has indirectly caused or at least attempted to cause many deaths around the world and he needed to be stopped.

On the other hand, I'm very uncomfortable with any president having the power to order the killing of a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world without due process.

But is this someone we could have sent in some law enforcement or even military personnel to capture without extreme danger to them and other possibly innocent bystanders? I don't know.

I'm having a lot of trouble deciding where I stand on this.

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Brandenburg V Ohio

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/brandenburg.html

makes it very clear that inciting to violence is protected free speech unless the violence is imminent...

in other words.. you must prove that the person involved is an active part of a plan to cause imminent danger to others.

if that was the case, he could have been indicted and convicted in absentia before being placed on a kill list.

he was placed on that list over a year ago without due process.

the other American who likely died with him was not on any list and has never been accused of doing anything other than maintaining a website.

Admitted, the website includes information on how to kill effectively..
but if that is enough to get you put on an American hit list
then there are currently a lot of right wing and left wing radicals who had better hide now.

Posted 7 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

It makes no sense to argue that there was no evidence against this man while simultaneously claiming that he was not killed due to his "rhetoric". As elikapeka pointed out, it is disturbing that due process continues to be so blithely ignored by our government. Some forms of speech are in violation of the law and can be prosecuted. The question is, why didn't it happen in this case? If it wasn't prosecutable, then it was free speech - no matter how vile. If there was evidence of other crimes, the argument again returns to the lack of legal process.

Posted 7 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

What JoB said.

Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

I'm with the President on this.

Awlaki was like an armed and dangerous fugitive who's wanted for planning a series of vicious murders. Eventually the cops catch up with him; they've got him in their sights. What to do?

Of course, you'd like to take the guy alive so you can bring him in for a trial.

But . . .

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

MBarrett: I commend you and others for speaking out, but frankly, I don't see this becoming a trend. Rather, I see it as a special case that's not likely to be repeated often, if at all. Remember that the reason this case is garnering so much attention in the first place is precisely because it's so exceptional. Awlaki was an American citizen, after all, and not your ordinary Brand X terrorist.

How many guys do you suppose there are there like him – Americans who have taken up arms against their own country from abroad? –A handful at most; I'm guessing less than six.

I'm not circling the wagons yet.

Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

he could have been indicted and convicted in absentia before being placed on a kill list.

Nuh-uh. Trial "in absentia" is not allowed in the U.S.

From Wikipedia:

For more than 100 years, courts in the United States have held that, according to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant's right to appear in person at their trial, as a matter of due process, is protected under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Don't know if this guy was formally indicted or not. Assume that he was . . . As far as whether there was credible evidence against him, I'm gonna go with chrisma, who is "highly skeptical that the U.S. would waste resources on someone who was only talking."

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

FWIW, Awlaki's father, the ACLU, and several other organizations sued the government to get Awlaki's name OFF the assassination list. One could argue that THAT'S due process.

Oh, one probably shouldn't. But one still could. ;-)

Posted 7 months ago #
velo_nut
Member Profile

Good riddance. Religious nut bag.

Posted 7 months ago #
chrisma
Member Profile

@anonyme

It makes no sense to argue that there was no evidence against this man while simultaneously claiming that he was not killed due to his "rhetoric".

I agree it makes no sense, and that's not at all what I was arguing. I didn't say there was no evidence. I said that we (that is the public) don't know the strength (breadth, depth, detail) of the evidence that the Obama administration supposedly has on him, implicating him in actually planning or participating in attacks on the US and it's citizens.

His rhetoric is a matter of public record, and it was inflammatory and violent, but I don't believe for a moment that it's the reason he was assassinated. Not every loudmouth jihadist gets this kind of 'special attention' from the U.S..

Posted 7 months ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

We should have dropped a nuclear bomb in Northern Afghanistan years ago. al-Qaida would never been able to return to its homeland and regain its strength. Instead we waste trillions of dollars and thousands more Americans lose their lives sent over to try and win a battle we still haven't won even though bin-Laden is dead.

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Good kill. Well done. Far as I know Messer Miller.. Mr. Hitler used words too... just words. Others did his bidding. We waited after Bin Ladin declared his war ... and called for the worldwide "jihadi" .. and looked what it cost us. Clinton refused to pull the trigger...until AFTER the African embassy bombings. .. now we know better..in a civilized world it all works out just peachy keen... Uh huh....

Posted 7 months ago #
MBarrettMiller
Member Profile

Ah, drop a nuclear bomb!!! Do you think giving ourselves the liberty to do such a thing might give liberty to someone else to do likewise?
Darling Sara had no problem putting targets on elected officials. Officials voted into office by Americans. When one of those elected officials was shot in the head dear Sara saw no responsibility to her actions----so---could not this rag tag fella in Yemen say in the same court of appeal that he was just expressing his thoughts and surly not responsible for others who took action...hmmmm. Oh, he's a Moslem..now I get it.
Sara good---fill in the blank-bad.
Yes, there was a second American killed along with the so called "religious nut bag"....
My oh my...

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Birds of feather .. flock together

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

DBP..

"FWIW, Awlaki's father, the ACLU, and several other organizations sued the government to get Awlaki's name OFF the assassination list."

Not really.

had they been given legal standing to pursue the case..
that would have constituted due process

As for the right to be present..
if the defendent refuses to exercise his/her right to be present..
they can be tried in absentia.

Happens all of the time to defendents in the US who are served and refuse to show for their court dates...

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

MBarrettMiller...

ah.. the reasoning behind that supreme court ruling i referenced...

the imminent danger exclusion requires actual participation and planning of a specific violent act...

not talking generalities or even modalities with someone who goes on to commit a crime.

You can talk about murder all you want to. You can even say.. as jiggers just did.. that violence ought to be perpetrated against a specific group of people...

but unless you talk about how to commit a specific murder in a specific way at a specific time.. it's free speech.

sucks sometimes...
but there you go.

it sure saves a lot of murder mystery clubs from needless prosecution.

Posted 7 months ago #
valvashon
Member Profile

This killing was just plain wrong and illegal. All of us who are U.S. citizens are now at risk. Some more than others, of course, but once the extrajudicial killing of one citizen is OK'd by the president the killing of any of us could be OK'd.

As usual, Democracy Now has some fascinating and insightful coverage of this, courtesy of Constitutional Law Attorney Glen Greenwald:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/30/with_death_of_anwar_al_awlaki

He does a great job of laying out his case, and pointing out that Obama had none.

Posted 7 months ago #
maplesyrup
Member Profile

“I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other able Muslim.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/09awlaki.html?pagewanted=all

I hate violence, but the guy brought it upon himself. What was he expecting?

Posted 7 months ago #
MBarrettMiller
Member Profile

I have no idea what he was really expecting. I know what I am expecting i.e. a country that follows due process, day in court, judged by your peers, a secular state, rational thinking that minimizes violence rather than glorifying it, a country where money has not substituted clear thinking etc etc...yea, a dreamer, huh!
When a country acts violently in the name of it's citizens it has taken away our right to say no. No, I don't want to kill because I can-no, I don't want to kill because a trial would cause too much grief. What happened to all those real men/women who brought justice in Nuremberg and at the trials in Japan? For all that jump to Nazi comparisons at the drop of a hat one should rememebr that Germany was the most educated, intellectual laugh in the face of the wacky Nazis until they all took their eye off the ball and got rolled along with everyone else. Law and order, internal and external enemies, cracked self concept of its own value, we have the moral authority etc etc-sound familiar?
Peace is more than just a word- it takes courage that many seem to no longer honor. Sad-

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Ah yes MBM ... my father had a chair at Nuremberg... and a walk through one concentration camp... A man says I am going to kill you in a parking lot... he has the means, the method, and is a known associate of, and international sponsor of murder, and thousands upon thousands have heard him say his intent is to kill you.. may I gently suggest.. shoot him dead..on the spot. Quickly. You do know that reasonable fear of death of great harm is an affirmative defense? Heck as a deficit reduction plan...they could have sold lottery tickets for the right to pull that trigger.. I would have bought at least ten bucks worth. How appropriate was it? A Hellfire missle...he also if I am not mistaken made a pronouncment he was no longer an American citizen... ok then...

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Yea JoB?.... go out on the street corner and yell... I am going to kill the President during his next visit.. see what happens... see if that free speech thing flies

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch...

LOL.. that was your best shot?

the worst i would get is a mental evaluation and a new entry in my FBI file.

every day right here in the United States anti-abortion activists hide behind the right to free speech to literally paint targets on the doctors and nurses who work in abortion clinics by publishing not only their work addresses but their home addresses and schedules as well.

they say things like..
these people are murderers and deserve to die

but when some "lone gunman" is apprehended after the fact for taking them seriously..
they successfully hide behind the right to free speech.

it isn't enough to advocate violence
it isn't even enough to have correspondence with or meet with individuals who ultimately carry out the violence you advocate...

to be convicted in this country you have to actually participate in the planning and/or execution of the specific crime.

That's the law.

and it doesn't change because we label someone an enemy.

far right extremists plan and carry out more terrorist activities in the United States than all other terrorist plots and activities combined.

now that's an impressive enemy.

should we advocate putting targets on their backs?
license to kill?

it would make a great sit-com
but not so great a reality.

Posted 7 months ago #
MBarrettMiller
Member Profile

Hey Job-wish I'd said everything you said.
Time to wake up America....

Posted 7 months ago #
waynster
Member Profile

First off this so called murder wasn't a murder of a U.S. citizen he denouced his citizenship years ago targeted U.S. intrest and military tagets regardless of who was there and killed. He lived in yeman were he would sooner kill all you so he could say I killed americans for his fanatical religous beliefs so was this right maybe maybe not.....it did make the world citizens safer from this so called goody goody al-Qaida bad guy........will there be more you bet there will....

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

waynster...

as far as i know he didn't renounce his citizenship
he held dual citizenship

You say he "targeted U.S. intrest and military tagets regardless of who was there and killed"

Do you mean he talked about where they were and said that the United States was engaging in illegal military activity.

I agree.. he did.

and it's still protected speech under US Law.

trust me.. every time i hear some right wing neo-natzi wannabee cracker open his mouth i think how good it would be for someone to wipe those self serving bigots off the face of the earth...

but my better sense kicks in
and i remember that our best hope for making our nation safer is the rule of law that protects us all.

Posted 7 months ago #
waynster
Member Profile

Job I do agree with most of what you are saying your right the U.S. does not need to be the world police judge or jury. At the same time once he renouced his citizenship which he did in order to hold his position in al-Qaida and he did plan and help excute terror on the world sadly he marked his own fate. As for free speech I question whether its applied here. Only becouse free speech doesn't say you can come out and say man women and children must die just becouse your not moslem nor does any other religous body have that right. Its sad what our world has come down too....:(

Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

trust me.. every time i hear some right wing neo-natzi wannabee cracker open his mouth i think how good it would be for someone to wipe those self serving bigots off the face of the earth...

but my better sense kicks in

–Well, that's a relief anyway. I wonder if the citizens of West Seattle will ever know just how close they came to disaster.

And what does a "wannabee cracker" look like, do you suppose? Is that someone who maybe owns a nice home but dreams of living in a trailer park?

Posted 7 months ago #
chrisma
Member Profile
JoB said the long and short of it, IMHO;

...our best hope for making our nation safer is the rule of law that protects us all

But on the subject of citizenship I did find this, which is useful for putting things in perspective.
POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
- obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
- taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
- entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
- accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
- formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
- conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
From the Wikipedia entry on Anwar_al-Awlaki:

In late April, Representative Charlie Dent (R-PA) introduced a resolution urging the U.S. State Department to issue a "certificate of loss of nationality" to al-Awlaki. He said al-Awlaki "preaches a culture of hate" and had been a functioning member of al-Qaeda "since before 9/11", and had effectively renounced his citizenship by engaging in treasonous acts.[200]

Looks like the Resolution didn't really go anywhere, but it would have provided some better legal justification for targeting and killing him as we did. Apparently, no one in this administration is too worried about that though.
Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

► Apparently Awlaki was never indicted. Oops. The U.S. should've taken that step at least.

Some public statements by Awlaki follow. You can decide for yourselves whether these things fall under the heading of "protected free speech." Bear in mind that when Awlaki said them he had already become a person of great influence in the Muslim world and had good reason to believe that his speech could lead directly to radical Muslims commiting acts of violence. Indeed, it would appear that this is exactly what Awlaki desired: that his words would lead directly to violent action.

I say that even under the 1st Amendment, this kind of speech is NOT protected.

Awlaki on the Fort Hood, Texas shooter:

Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a U.S. soldier. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism, which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges. The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly, they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation.

— from a Nov. 9, 2009, statement on his Web site.

I, for one, was born in the U.S. I lived in the U.S. for 21 years. America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in nonviolent Islamic activism. However, with the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself, just as it is binding on every other able Muslim.

— Mar. 17, 2010, audio statement posted to the Web

Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

Here's another Awlawi-ism. This one hits a little closer to home . . .

(Excerpted from the Wikipedia article.)

In 2010, cartoonist Molly Norris at Seattle Weekly had to stop publishing, and at the suggestion of the FBI change her name, move, and go into hiding due to a fatwā calling for her death issued by al-Awlaki, after Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

Al-Awlaki cursed her and eight other cartoonists, authors, and journalists who are Swedish, Dutch, and British citizens for "blasphemous caricatures" of the Prophet Muhammad, in the June 2010 issue of an English-language al-Qaeda magazine that calls itself Inspire, writing "The medicine prescribed by the Messenger of Allah is the execution of those involved."

Daniel Pipes observed in an article entitled "Dueling Fatwas", "Awlaki stands at an unprecedented crossroads of death declarations, with his targeting Norris even as the U.S. government targets him."

More on the Seattle Weekly cartoonist story:

http://tinyurl.com/who-laffs-now-infidel-dog

As a journalist myself, and someone who has been a victim of censorship [wink, wink], I feel pretty strongly about defending the right to free speech.

However, I do draw the line at death threats. So if forced to choose between Molly Norris living and this Awlaki turd living, um . . . I'm gonna have to go with letting Molly Norris live and taking out Awlaki.

Yeah. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Yea...and on the left side of the spectrum.... your memory is short JoB or highly selective...want to take a trip down memory lane with the various "liberation" left of the 60's and 70's? Sorry folks, I don't think taking a sucker punch is moral or even smart. We are blessed by evolution, or the creator, or karma, .. with the ability to discern, behold and recognize nuance, make probability estimates, ... it's called intelligence. Just because you have an ideology, you don't HAVE to abandon that evolutionary gift. It was as we say in the parlance,, a righteous shoot. A true "high fiver".

Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

http://roominate.com/blogg/soundbytes/high5.mp3

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

"Rule of Law" .... Law is what a majority imposes on a minority... or the imposition of rules by the more powerful. Transient. "Free speech" is a rule of law. It has limits. It is not absolute. As you are so fond of saying from the left.. the far left.. "the constitution is an evolving, living, document" ... so we can change it as times demand. Well, times have changed... and pre-emptive strikes are part of the new rules of law. Funny thing is Awlaki knew it.. he knew damn well we would kill him and he chose to play anyway. What keeps the rule of law intact? Power to enforce. Pot smoking is illegal..rule of law. I look at the penalty, the probability of getting caught, and tell the state to KMA.."we" the people have determined that chronic pain and suffering is alleviated and it should be a medical choice...but the rule of law says no way..the power of the state. Millions of our fellow citizens say that is crap law..and I agree. A note to liberals who love laws and laws and laws... because they like to be ruled and rule others... laws are one personal decision away from being a moot point. everyone here knew there was a "kill or capture" executive order out there... it was highly publicized...now.. I will bet none of our congressfools, or Senateslugs were overwhelmed with letters or statements of disapprovals BEFORE we took him down.... show of hands?

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootchman...

i picked up an FBI file during that walk down memory lane you talk about
not for what i did or for what i said
but for who i talked to and how long i argued with him.

funny thing..guys liked to argue with good looking intelligent women even in the late 60s..
married or not ;->

so you can stop wondering why i think being in the kitchen with someone doesn't necessarily mean being a co-conspirator.

btw.. to this day my file is deeply enough buried that i can't get it through the freedom of information act..

i only know it exists because of a couple of high school friends who eventually worked their way up the FBI ladder of success.

knowing me in the 60s..
knowing i prevented my hubby from participating in acts that would have gotten him jailed if i hadn't hid his keys
they thought it was a hoot that i ended up with a file and he didn't.

funny enough..after all these years i too am amused. it makes a good story.

but it wouldn't be such a good story if that one argument that placed me on the insiders list of a terrorist organization in the late 60s had also placed me on a hit list.

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

DP..

there is a big difference between effectively and actually...

and it is a difference worth fighting for.

There is no nation of Al Qaeda ...

and a fatwah is no different than the death threats made by anti-abortionists against abortion doctors.

in fact.. they are eerily similar

Posted 7 months ago #
waterworld
Member Profile

Kootch: So far as I am aware, Executive Order 12333, banning political assassinations, has not been rescinded. Scholars have argued for years about just how far the Order reaches and whether it could ever be lawful for a president to assassinate someone in a time of war. I think at best, Obama is operating in a conflicted field.
.
To me, that's kind of the problem with the behavior of both the Bush and Obama administrations: the willingness to operate in a zone that is not widely accepted in the international community. If this is going to be our "long war," why not invest the resources in getting everyone on board, Geneva Convention-style, to spell out these new rules we need for this "new" kind of war? Could it be that they already know that most of the world won't agree with us?
.
And by the way, lots of us have been protesting loudly about the administration's plans to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad or otherwise ignore our own mandates for due process. I guess we forgot to send you the memo.

Posted 7 months ago #
chrisma
Member Profile

Uh-oh! Looks like someone stepped on kootchman's last libertarian nerve.

I'll just leave this here, which I'm pretty sure is what JoB meant when she bought it up:

The rule of law is a legal maxim stating that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself. The rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the leader is above the law, a feature of Roman law, Nazi law, and certain other legal systems.

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

Internationalist endorsement is not high on my "to do" list.... This was not a political assassination. No head of state was whacked. In fact, quite the contrary, we had the endorsement and cooperation of the presiding government. The capture or kill order was out for all to see.". It would seem apparent that the option was endorsed by congress and the supreme court. If not explicitly, tacitly. Here's a maxim for ya... "No one is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when that aid has become necessary through his or her own fault" i will go with that maxim. Rule of law. Now Maxim is a great magazine... i read it for the editorial content. Ahhh... the law. If it was that absolute, we would need no attorneys would we? In the red state world... this was a good thing.. Ya have to go OUTSIDE King County to get a reality check. How did it play in Kansas City? .. or better yet..Oklahoma City.. they have direct experience in these matters. Obama doing a little "wag the tail" politicking maybe? Good heavens... the guy is morphing right in front of our eyes to a wholly new creature...what's next?

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kootch..
the fact that this played well outside of WSB-land is what appalls me.

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

thanks chrisma..
i've had a tough day
i appreciate the added clarity

Posted 7 months ago #
kootchman
Member Profile

This is a rule of law maxim too... just as valid. Just as enshrined,
Obviously your protest had no merit.. cause all three branches gave it the green light... and the vast majority of the population agreed. We protect sheep too... it' our nature. You are safe.

No one is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when that aid has become necessary through his or her own fault"

In "common law" as in the very sensible bar stool of most American towns and cities..... here are a few more.. "don't let your alligator mouth overload your canary ass"... or "don't go to a gunfight with a knife"... he wanted a Jihad.. he got one. Request granted.

Posted 7 months ago #
MBarrettMiller
Member Profile

Killing is killing. The act can be comforted with tons of jargon and wild justifications but it still killing. It is still wrong.
The rationale behind the law and the more famous ten commandments was to preserve order. Without order there is the possibility of chaos. Killing creates killers, disorder and followers of retribution to those who killed.
Having lived in Ireland i know first hand the cycle of killing for the sake of killing. When it got to be so aweful the sane were able to stem the tide. Had the various factions had the luxury of sitting in an air conditioned facility as they guided missiles down on the unsuspecting hundreds, or thousands of miles, away the killing becomes an armchair fantasy.
I fear that too many here live in the antiseptic fantasy of killing rather than the reality of the horror.
The person above who thought a nuclear bomb was the answer should be open to someone thinking that is the answer for him and his society, a society that embraces such thinking....
Who cares what some in the willowwacks of America think.
Think about all these words being used to justify the killing of someone you love. Someone who is outspoken but gentle in nature. Do they deserve to be killed? Do doctors who perform a legal medical procedure deserve to be killed? Do people who stand against the policies of America deserve to be killed?
When will the killing stop if anyone can be targeted for anything....?
Its good to remember, "First they came for the trade unionist..."
Happy days-

Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

DP [. . .] a fatwah is no different than the death threats made by anti-abortionists against abortion doctors.

in fact.. they are eerily similar

Um . . . never said they weren't. In fact, I DO believe that death threats against abortion doctors are/should be illegal. So please don't make implications to the contrary.

BTW, if you wanted to find out how I felt about this issue, here's all you would have needed to say: "DP, do you think death threats against abortion doctors are protected speech?"

–I would have said: "Nope."

Posted 7 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

DBP...

i didn't make any implications about what you thought

i simply pointed out that constitution protects one...
it should equally protect the other.

Posted 7 months ago #
DBP
Member Profile

There are really two issues being debated here: Due process and free speech.

► Due Process

Certainly, due process is important as a way of guaranteeing the rule of law and assuring that no one is ABOVE the law.

The right to due process under the Constitution normally applies to every American citizen; however, when a citizen takes up arms against his own country (or urges others to), and he does so from the territory of another country, is he still acting in the capacity of an American citizen? Or is he now acting in the capacity of a foreign enemy combatant?

How you answer this question determines where you stand on whether Awlaki was entitled to due process. If you think Awlaki was still an American for all intents and purposes, then yeah, he should've gotten due process, including an indictment and, if possible, a trial.

However, if you see Awlaki primarily as an enemy combatant, then he would be considered fair game under the rules of war.

Personally, I wish Obama had asked for an idictment on this guy, but I assume he had his reasons for not doing so. In the meantime, I'm not shedding any tears.

I understand the fears of those here who see this as a troublesome precedent. As I've stated above, however, the details of Awlaki's case lead me to believe that it won't be repeated. Ass-bowls of his particular type are thankfully rare.

Posted 7 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^