Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[MikeK]

[...]

And here I am reading that we are despised by the world because of Bush.

[...]

In case it is a component of my message you are obliquely referring to here, although his administration significantly exacerbated it I didn't intend to imply that resentment for and eventual dislike of America began with Bush. I believe it goes back as far as the Bay of Pigs, if not farther.

We have a serious problem with sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong and pushing little guys around. That stuff tends to piss people off.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it's OK...we move on still keeping a wary eye on a government that can't be trusted.

I feel that I am playing the part of Henry Fonda Juror #8

You lead quite an active fantasy life.

I guess you've never watched the movie.

 

[saveliberty]

Too bad we only killed him once.

 

[Liability]

Here's where we disagree. I don't care what some government agancy said and what their intell was. They at one time said Iraq had WMD's Until that information was presented in a court of law and taken under oath and ruled on by a judge it's hearsay. Sorry but thats just how I feel.

Why do I get the feeling I am in the movie 12 angry men?

Military intel is not subject to legal formulations like "hearsay." You are misusing that legal term quite fully.

We don't evaluate military intel and the need to act upon perceived threats based on what our judicial system might have to say IF it were ever called upon to have a say in the matter.

You see libilty that all they had on him was intell fromn the CIA, and just how accurate has the CIA intell been in regards to WMD's? or even 9/11?

Incorrect.

They had more on him. They had his tapes. He didn't do his propagandizing routine in a dark, secret safe location. It would have been a difficult trick to rally people to his cause if he had recruited and propagandized in secret.

 

[geauxtohell]

What does a Yemen air strike by Yemen Air Force have to do with this issue? After all that is their country and we aren't at war with them.

Nothing. This was a legal killing. You may not like it. But it's legal. and I have no sympathy for the dead terrorist.

Agreed. I think the law needs to be challenged and clarified. This will be a good test case to do it. The world is not going to miss this asshole while we get this all figured out.

In the meantime, everyone secretly hoping that this will bring Obama down for purely political reasons can eat a dick.

Especially if they were part of the whole "love it or leave it, GWB, perpetual war fanclub."

 

[Liability]

What does a Yemen air strike by Yemen Air Force have to do with this issue? After all that is their country and we aren't at war with them.

Nothing. This was a legal killing. You may not like it. But it's legal. and I have no sympathy for the dead terrorist.

Agreed. I think the law needs to be challenged and clarified. This will be a good test case to do it. The world is not going to miss this asshole while we get this all figured out.

In the meantime, everyone secretly hoping that this will bring Obama down for purely political reasons can eat a dick.

Especially if they were part of the whole "love it or leave it, GWB, perpetual war fanclub."

Personally, I have to confess that I "get" the concern expressed by guys like bigreb and Oddball. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I certainly see that their motivation is proper.

And while I am far from a fan of this President, I can say that using this particular incident to take swipes at him is pretty unfair.

For my part, instead of seeking to "use" this thing as another political tool against him, I have no qualms in offering him some thanks and congratulations over it.

Again, I really do "get" the concern of those who, on Constitutional grounds, worry that we have no right to sanction an enemy leader who happens to be, nominally at least, an American. But I still disagree. The enemy at war with us is still the enemy regardless of his place of birth.

 

[geauxtohell]

Does the end (ever) justify the means?

Consider as you would an essay question. Partisan posts = an 'F'

Yes.

Putting a pillow over Hitler in his crib, while morally reprehensible, would later save the deaths of tens of millions of people.

I am a Lockian like that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

.....But, it was different for....

....The DICK; Cheney....

.....right?

You'd prefer....

....Anwar al-Awlaki ....

.....was tortured-to-Death, like BUSHCO used-to-do?

​

 

[Jackson]

I can understand where these thoughts are coming from. It is possible someone without the integrity we would hope our president would have could be making thise decision.

Perhaps the Patriot Act could be usefuil in adding language that would insure that it would be more than one person to declare an American citizen a great threat to our nation that his death, if found should be immediate. The Secretary of Defense, Secret Service, CIA may qualify, but should be three people involved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Military intel is not subject to legal formulations like "hearsay." You are misusing that legal term quite fully.

We don't evaluate military intel and the need to act upon perceived threats based on what our judicial system might have to say IF it were ever called upon to have a say in the matter.

You see libilty that all they had on him was intell fromn the CIA, and just how accurate has the CIA intell been in regards to WMD's? or even 9/11?

Incorrect.

They had more on him. They had his tapes. He didn't do his propagandizing routine in a dark, secret safe location. It would have been a difficult trick to rally people to his cause if he had recruited and propagandized in secret.

Libiaty you have knowledge of the judical system you know that information is worthless unless it's submitted in a court of law, it's hearsay tapes can be altered to make it look and sound different then what was originally said, only an expert swron under oath in front of a judge can determin that.

 

[Liability]

You see libilty that all they had on him was intell fromn the CIA, and just how accurate has the CIA intell been in regards to WMD's? or even 9/11?

Incorrect.

They had more on him. They had his tapes. He didn't do his propagandizing routine in a dark, secret safe location. It would have been a difficult trick to rally people to his cause if he had recruited and propagandized in secret.

Libiaty you have knowledge of the judical system you know that information is worthless unless it's submitted in a court of law, it's hearsay tapes can be altered to make it look and sound different then what was originally said, only an expert swron under oath in front of a judge can determin that.

Come on. Don't get silly. Outside of the judicial system, information is gathered and USED all the damn time. Information is not only quite wholly useful even when never submitted to the judicial system, but that is the norm for society. Submission of information TO the judicial system is outside the norm.

This has almost been ALWAYS true for military intel. If our spy in the sky cameras see a facility under construction, or an amassing array of tanks or rocket launchers, they NEVER go to Court for "mother may I?" permission to use that intel. They ACT on it without ever even contemplating going to Court. That is as it should be.

You persist in misusing the term "hearsay." For use in Court (like a criminal proceeding) it is OFTEN true (but not always true) that statements made outside of Court cannot b e offered into evidence at trial for the truth of the matter being asserted. But if, outside of Court, a defendant happens to have said, "Yeah, I killed her. I'm GLAD I killed her. Give me a chance and I'll kill her fucking DOG, too. And I'll shoot that bitch right between the eyes just like I killed the other bitch!" then it CAN be introduced into evidence against the accused. The objection "HEARSAY" would be laughed out of Court.

And you know what else? It could serve as a basis for a perfectly valid (rock solid) conviction, too.

IF unsworn out of court statements CAN sometimes be validly used as evidence IN a criminal trial, then what makes you think that intel can't be used outside of Court for its military purposes?

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway. When the asshole made tapes, playing those tapes is not "hearsay." It's solid evidence.

 

[geauxtohell]

no nor would I..my son fought on a battlefield in Afghanistan against the Taliban and other terrorists that was a real battlefield...and neither did Awlaki he was a propagandist...and was in a car in Yemen, not in a battlefield..in fact he flew to the US and we released him from custody because he was not indicted or charged with any crime.

So Goebbels wasn't a legitimate target in World War II? You think that MI6 or OSS weren't trying to kill him at every turn?

Propagandists, "back-biters and syndicators", financiers, and other assorted jokers make up the AQ. They are all legit targets. We don't limit our offensive actions to combat arms soldiers in conventional wars, so why would we do so in unconventional conflicts? In fact, these people become that much more important.

I fought in Afghanistan too. I recognize the modern battlefield exceeds the boundaries of any one single nation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Stalin was also a legitimate target just as much if not more then Goebbels. He did a thousand times worst. That is for sure.

 

[hortysir]

no nor would I..my son fought on a battlefield in Afghanistan against the Taliban and other terrorists that was a real battlefield...and neither did Awlaki he was a propagandist...and was in a car in Yemen, not in a battlefield..in fact he flew to the US and we released him from custody because he was not indicted or charged with any crime.

And BinLaden was asleep in his bed in Pakistan.
Since Pakistan isn't Iraq or Afghanistan and since he wasn't engaged on the battlefield we shouldn't have stormed his compound and put a bullet in his head?

 

[geauxtohell]

Nothing. This was a legal killing. You may not like it. But it's legal. and I have no sympathy for the dead terrorist.

Agreed. I think the law needs to be challenged and clarified. This will be a good test case to do it. The world is not going to miss this asshole while we get this all figured out.

In the meantime, everyone secretly hoping that this will bring Obama down for purely political reasons can eat a dick.

Especially if they were part of the whole "love it or leave it, GWB, perpetual war fanclub."

Personally, I have to confess that I "get" the concern expressed by guys like bigreb and Oddball. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I certainly see that their motivation is proper.

And while I am far from a fan of this President, I can say that using this particular incident to take swipes at him is pretty unfair.

For my part, instead of seeking to "use" this thing as another political tool against him, I have no qualms in offering him some thanks and congratulations over it.

Again, I really do "get" the concern of those who, on Constitutional grounds, worry that we have no right to sanction an enemy leader who happens to be, nominally at least, an American. But I still disagree. The enemy at war with us is still the enemy regardless of his place of birth.

I "get" the concerns, I just think making a logical leap to "the government can now attack U.S. citizens at any time or place at the President's whims" is completely absurd.

 

[MikeK]

no nor would I..my son fought on a battlefield in Afghanistan against the Taliban and other terrorists that was a real battlefield...and neither did Awlaki he was a propagandist...and was in a car in Yemen, not in a battlefield..in fact he flew to the US and we released him from custody because he was not indicted or charged with any crime.

And BinLaden was asleep in his bed in Pakistan.
Since Pakistan isn't Iraq or Afghanistan and since he wasn't engaged on the battlefield we shouldn't have stormed his compound and put a bullet in his head?

No. I would have no problem with killing him if it were necessary but it wasn't. He could easily have been wrapped up and brought back alive. But the order was to kill him and there is something seriously wrong with that.

He was silenced.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Agreed. I think the law needs to be challenged and clarified. This will be a good test case to do it. The world is not going to miss this asshole while we get this all figured out.

In the meantime, everyone secretly hoping that this will bring Obama down for purely political reasons can eat a dick.

Especially if they were part of the whole "love it or leave it, GWB, perpetual war fanclub."

Personally, I have to confess that I "get" the concern expressed by guys like bigreb and Oddball. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I certainly see that their motivation is proper.

And while I am far from a fan of this President, I can say that using this particular incident to take swipes at him is pretty unfair.

For my part, instead of seeking to "use" this thing as another political tool against him, I have no qualms in offering him some thanks and congratulations over it.

Again, I really do "get" the concern of those who, on Constitutional grounds, worry that we have no right to sanction an enemy leader who happens to be, nominally at least, an American. But I still disagree. The enemy at war with us is still the enemy regardless of his place of birth.

I "get" the concerns, I just think making a logical leap to "the government can now attack U.S. citizens at any time or place at the President's whims" is completely absurd.

What obama did was equal to what king george did.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Incorrect.

They had more on him. They had his tapes. He didn't do his propagandizing routine in a dark, secret safe location. It would have been a difficult trick to rally people to his cause if he had recruited and propagandized in secret.

Libiaty you have knowledge of the judical system you know that information is worthless unless it's submitted in a court of law, it's hearsay tapes can be altered to make it look and sound different then what was originally said, only an expert swron under oath in front of a judge can determin that.

Come on. Don't get silly. Outside of the judicial system, information is gathered and USED all the damn time. Information is not only quite wholly useful even when never submitted to the judicial system, but that is the norm for society. Submission of information TO the judicial system is outside the norm.

This has almost been ALWAYS true for military intel. If our spy in the sky cameras see a facility under construction, or an amassing array of tanks or rocket launchers, they NEVER go to Court for "mother may I?" permission to use that intel. They ACT on it without ever even contemplating going to Court. That is as it should be.

You persist in misusing the term "hearsay." For use in Court (like a criminal proceeding) it is OFTEN true (but not always true) that statements made outside of Court cannot b e offered into evidence at trial for the truth of the matter being asserted. But if, outside of Court, a defendant happens to have said, "Yeah, I killed her. I'm GLAD I killed her. Give me a chance and I'll kill her fucking DOG, too. And I'll shoot that bitch right between the eyes just like I killed the other bitch!" then it CAN be introduced into evidence against the accused. The objection "HEARSAY" would be laughed out of Court.

And you know what else? It could serve as a basis for a perfectly valid (rock solid) conviction, too.

IF unsworn out of court statements CAN sometimes be validly used as evidence IN a criminal trial, then what makes you think that intel can't be used outside of Court for its military purposes?

And, by the way, you're wrong anyway. When the asshole made tapes, playing those tapes is not "hearsay." It's solid evidence.

Very well you leave me with no other way but to leave you with this

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD

Question



Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Yes and no. In an opinion backed by a four-justice plurality and partly joined by two additional justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that although Congress authorized Hamdi's detention, Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The plurality rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge. Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, concurred with the plurality that Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant. Souter and Ginsburg, however, disagreed with the plurality's view that Congress authorized Hamdi's detention. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissent joined by Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[Ravi]

I can understand where these thoughts are coming from. It is possible someone without the integrity we would hope our president would have could be making thise decision.

Perhaps the Patriot Act could be usefuil in adding language that would insure that it would be more than one person to declare an American citizen a great threat to our nation that his death, if found should be immediate. The Secretary of Defense, Secret Service, CIA may qualify, but should be three people involved.

From what I understand Obama authorized this....which means that the intelligence and military requested it. As CIC, the president has this power. You don't water down the president's power simply because you don't like him.

 

[Xchel]

I can understand where these thoughts are coming from. It is possible someone without the integrity we would hope our president would have could be making thise decision.

Perhaps the Patriot Act could be usefuil in adding language that would insure that it would be more than one person to declare an American citizen a great threat to our nation that his death, if found should be immediate. The Secretary of Defense, Secret Service, CIA may qualify, but should be three people involved.

From what I understand Obama authorized this....which means that the intelligence and military requested it. As CIC, the president has this power. You don't water down the president's power simply because you don't like him.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking him..I voted for him and he is still very wrong. So you think the president has the right to order the assasination of citizens? Interesting. Simply because he is the CIC does not give him a license to kill.


For the comment about bin Laden being in bed...Bin Laden was not ordered assasinated he was ordered captured. They killed him because he was armed. Also, Bin Laden is NOT a US citizen which makes these two situations very different.