Blayne: Looks like we have some full circle from freedom to despotism
Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’
Read another article HERE
Duke:
Personally, I don’t think “American citizenship” should be a bullet-proof shield that a terrorist should be able to hide behind. I think the key factor is that good judgment be exercised in any such decisions. Members of the US military take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and I think an overseas American-turned-terrorist falls within that… ah… scope.
I don’t know any behind-the-scene specifics about al Awlaki so I can’t reliably say whether targeting him was good judgment or poor judgment. But note that since taking office, formerly anti-war Obama has authorized precisely the kind of military action that he was previsously quite critical of. His critics of course call it hypocricy, but I disagree. I think Obama simply now has much more information about the threats we face than he did back when he was a senator, to the point where he is now taking actions that would normally be against to his nature.
Dan Yeah, any “citizen” that incites/instigates terrorist plots against his own people/country, can pretty much expect to no longer be considered a citizen of that country (unless he’s a complete idiot 🙂
Murder is murder, foreign or domestic 🙂 if he was a good (bad) ‘target’ if a foreignor, citizenship doesn’t really change that assessment. A rabid dog will kill you, doesn’t matter that yesterday he was your favorite housepet.
Blayne’s Dialog:
Sh Personally, I don’t think “American citizenship” should be a bullet-proof shield that a terrorist should be able to hide behind.
Blayne Its not but it requires a fair trial and a guilty conviction to execute an American citizen.
Sh I think the key factor is that good judgment be exercised in any such decisions.
Blayne The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial.
SH Members of the US military take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and I think an overseas American-turned-terrorist falls within that… ah… scope.
Blayne If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on.
(Duke Correction: This statement obviously was not very well thought out; Hitler perpetrated the holocaust during wartime.)
SH I don’t know any behind-the-scene specifics about al Awlaki so I can’t reliably say whether targeting him was good judgment or poor judgment.
Blayne That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple.
Sh But note that since taking office, formerly anti-war Obama has authorized precisely the kind of military action that he was previsously quite critical of. His critics of course call it hypocricy, but I disagree. I think Obama simply now has much more information about the threats we face than he did back when he was a senator, to the point where he is now taking actions that would normally be against to his nature.
Blayne That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree.
Duke’s Response:
Blayne: …it requires a fair trial and a guilty conviction to execute an American citizen.
SH: Under normal circumstances, yes. The present circumstances are not normal. The late Anwar al-Awlaki and his group are at war with the United States. How do you propose to apprehend him so that he can be given a fair trail? And if it is not possible to apprehend him, what’s the next best thing a president can do, assuming the threat is real, and assuming his duty is to protect the citizens of the United Stages?
I’m not a lawyer, but what if there is a law on the books that says, once a person has joined a terrorist group dedicated to killing Americans, he no longer enjoys the rights of US citizenship. Would that make a difference to you?
Blayne: The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial.
SH: Neither of us are privy to classified information so neither of us can judge whether the circumstances warranted the drone strike or not. So it goes back to whether we trust our elected officials. Would it have made a difference to you if the strike had been authorized by George W. Bush instead of Barack Hussein Obama?
Blayne: If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on.
SH: No better than Hitler and Stalin? Let’s take a look at that:
1) The strike to kill an overseas American terrorist at war with the United States was authorized by a democratically elected president.
2) This particular president happens to be generally anti-war; he is certainly not a mass murderer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He has neither a history nor a policy of genocide.
3) Obama authorized the killing of one outlaw terrorist citizen, not millions of innocents, and did so to protect the citizens of his country, rather than to oppress them.
4) Obama can be openly challenged and criticized, and the other two branches of our government can bring action against him, including impeachment. Or we can simply vote him out. Not so with Hitler and Stalin.
5) This is wartime, we don’t have the luxury of due process of law for all citizens who join with the enemy and are bent on our destruction. Neither did Lincoln in his day. Hitler and Stalin primarily conducted their genocides during peacetime.
6) Obama did not try to hide or cover up the strike after the fact.
Blayne, I really think you’re going over to the emotional side a bit too far in saying this is “no better than Hitler and Stalin”.
Blayne: That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple.
SH: In this case, waiting until the bad guy can be apprehended and brought to trial is impractical and irresponsible if the threat is credible. And Obama is not a dictator; I can argue that in more detail if you really think he is. It is unreasonable to expect any President to reveal classified information in order to verify wartime decisions with the American public. How successful do you think the Normandy landings would have been if there had been public debate about them in advance?
Blayne:
That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree.
SH: Obama can be impeached, suit can be brought against him, people can take to the streets and demonstrate if they’re outraged. None of these things could happen if Obama was a Hitler or Stalin or dictator, as you have stated.
In my opinion Obama is doing the right thing to promote the spread of democracy in the Libya, even if he did not get congressional approval in advance. There is a very good chance the Republicans would have voted against him just because of party politics. Perhaps Obama felt that it was more important to do the right thing than to follow the right procedure. Democracy in the Islamic world may well be this planet’s best hope for avoiding a nuclear terrorist attack, and for eventual peace between the nations.
You accuse Obama of “murdering citizens”, and I believe that he “killed a US-born terrorist”. Remember, arresting the bad guy and bringing him to trial simply was not a reasonable option in this case.
Let me ask you this: Would you be happier if al Awlaki was able to carry out his plans, with his US citizenship granting him the immunity necessary for him to do so?
Larry W Re:
Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’
I agree with SH on this one. Once Awlaki joined himself with a group who take up arms against American soldiers, his citizenship is toast. If he gets killed in a fire fight with those enemies with whom he joined that’s ok with me. If he had been arrested in America, then we could investigate respecting normal protections. But he got killed out on a battlefield. Our soldiers cannot be expected to sort out such matters in the field.
I might take this opportunity to comment on one other related item too. The terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo. For those taken on the field of battle, they should not have any right to the protection of civilian courts but must face only military jurisdiction. For those apprehended in non-battlefield situations, they might possible qualify for civilian court jurisdiction. The one-size-fits-all solution applied to them which granted them all the protections of American citizens disturbs me. By the way. Military courts under the UCMJ and under International requirements are quite respectful, in many way even more respectful than civilian courts. But military courts recognize status as combatants and the obligations of combatants. For example, combatants are not allowed to hide by blending in with the civilian population. This form of using innocent human shields is a war crime. The Guantanamo detainees who committed acts of war should have all faced International law of war.
Duke:
The idea I had in mind, but the right words really didn’t come to me at the time, is that Hitler and Stalin largely conducted their genocides on people they were able to take into custody and could have put on trial if they so chose. In the al Awlaki case, as I’ve said before, taking him into custody was not a reasonable option.
Blayne:
Where is the proof convicting this man of all the accusations? Why are you just taking some secret panel or the presidents word for it?
> I’m not a lawyer, but what if there is a law on the books that says, once a person has joined a terrorist group dedicated to killing Americans, he no longer enjoys the rights of US citizenship. Would that make a difference to you? >
If there were such a law it would violate the constitution. But of course this is a hypothetical and does not apply. Show me the law that allows the President to target and assassinate anyone much less an American citizen? Again where is the proof the man is what he is accused of? There is no accountability. Apparently you think it is ok for some secret panel or the president to kill an American citizen with no accountability.
> Blayne: The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial. > > SH: Neither of us are privy to classified information so neither of us can judge whether the circumstances warranted the drone strike or not. So it goes back to whether we trust our elected officials. Would it have made a difference to you if the strike had been authorized by George W. Bush instead of Barack Hussein Obama? >
Again where is the accountability? Where is the authority for the president to target and assassinate American citizens? There is none. And no I am not a partisan So it does not matter. GWB has done plenty of illegal things as president he has never been held accountable for. of course this set the precedent for Obama. However it shows me you are partisan. If it was GWB I doubt you would be defending this at all.
> Blayne: If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on. > > SH: No better than Hitler and Stalin? Let’s take a look at that: > > 1) The strike to kill an overseas American terrorist at war with the United States was authorized by a democratically elected president. >
Again where is the authority for the president to authorize the targeted assassination of an American citizen with no proof and no trial?
> 2) This particular president happens to be generally anti-war; he is certainly not a mass murderer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He has neither a history nor a policy of genocide. >
I never said he was in the same class as Hitler or Stalin as far as Genocide is concerned however as for being anti-war he has expanded both wars and started another illegal war that pretty much shoots any notion that he is anti war.. The fact remains Secret panels authorizing assassinations of citizens without trial is no different then what Hitler and Stalin did in that regard. Just because he has not massacred millions of his own citizens does not make this act any less dictatorial or pernicious.
> 3) Obama authorized the killing of one outlaw terrorist citizen, not millions of innocents, and did so to protect the citizens of his country, rather than to oppress them. >
Again prove this guy was an outlaw terrorist. And show the authority of the president to authorize assassinations without trial? Just taking thier word for it sets a very bad precedent.
> 4) Obama can be openly challenged and criticized, and the other two branches of our government can bring action against him, including impeachment. Or we can simply vote him out. Not so with Hitler and Stalin. >
He has been by some congressmen for this action and others however the majority refuse to act. Just because congress does not do thier job does not make his actions oklegit. Congress has been failing to do thier job for decades and that is why he can get away with this stuff.
> 5) This is wartime, we don’t have the luxury of due process of law for all citizens who join with the enemy and are bent on our destruction. Neither did Lincoln in his day. Hitler and Stalin primarily conducted their genocides during peacetime. >
Really when was war declared? This guy was not caught on the battlefield taking up arms as an enemy combatant and killed. He was declared a threat in secret and assassinated period. That is unlawful and against everything America stands for.
> 6) Obama did not try to hide or cover up the strike after the fact. >
Yeah because he knows he can get away with it because congress fails to do thier duty and the majority of citizens don’t understand the principles of freedom.
> Blayne, I really think you’re going over to the emotional side a bit too far in saying this is “no better than Hitler and Stalin”. >
Let me get this straight. You are willing to accept some secret decree that this guys is guilty without any evidence no trial and no accountability. I ask where is the evidence and the trail proving this guy is what they claim and convicting him, and where is the authority to assassinate an Americana citizen without trial and I am the one being emotional… Sorry but I have to chuckle on that one…
> Blayne: That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple. > > SH: In this case, waiting until the bad guy can be apprehended and brought to trial is impractical and irresponsible if the threat is credible. And Obama is not a dictator; I can argue that in more detail if you really think he is. It is unreasonable to expect any President to reveal classified information in order to verify wartime decisions with the American public. How successful do you think the Normandy landings would have been if there had been public debate about them in advance? >
Like I said this guys was not caught taking up arms on the battlefield he was targeted and specifically assassinated based on thier word and nothing else. The fact that people cannot see the danger in such a precedent is very troubling.
> Blayne: That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree. > > SH: Obama can be impeached, suit can be brought against him, people can take to the streets and demonstrate if they’re outraged. None of these things could happen if Obama was a Hitler or Stalin or dictator, as you have stated. >
Of course they can happen even to dictator, Just Ask the Former Egyptian dictator and Libyan dictator. Just because our society has not reached the level of Hitlers or Stalins does not justify any dictatorial act like ordering assassinations of American Citizens and is all the more reason to be vigilant when we see such acts so that we never reach that point of a Hitler or Stalin.
> In my opinion Obama is doing the right thing to promote the spread of democracy in the Libya, even if he did not get congressional approval in advance. There is a very good chance the Republicans would have voted against him just because of party politics. Perhaps Obama felt that it was more important to do the right thing than to follow the right procedure. Democracy in the Islamic world may well be this planet’s best hope for avoiding a nuclear terrorist attack, and for eventual peace between the nations. >
Pakistan is has Nukes and they are ruled by a dictator why haven’t we attacked them? Same with North Korea. The myth of the nuclear terrorist attack still prevails. First of all there are no nukes small enough for terrorists to smuggle into the country. The infamous suitcase nukes require aggressive maintenances if they even exist and lost thier viability decades ago again “if” they exist.
Your opinion that the president did the right thing is based on emotion period for you have no idea if anything said is true you are simply blindly trusting him and trying to justify the complete lack of evidence and accountability on his decision.
The American system was specifically set up so as not allow blind trust in a leaders but with checks and balances to hold leaders accountable. If the majority of people accept this sort of lack of accountability and precedent what will they accept next? This is what leads to totalitarianism eventually.
> You accuse Obama of “murdering citizens”, and I believe that he “killed a US-born terrorist”. Remember, arresting the bad guy and bringing him to trial simply was not a reasonable option in this case. >
So why do we have courts? Why not just allow the police to take criminals straight to jail or execute them since they must be guilty of an officer says so? After all do you not trust the police?
Where is the evidence arresting this man and bringing him to trial is not reasonable option? You have nothing but an emotional albeit irrational belief here.
> Let me ask you this: Would you be happier if al Awlaki was able to carry out his plans, with his US citizenship granting him the immunity necessary for him to do so? >
You are making a false argument. First of all you have no evidence of any plan. Second Citizenship does not grant any citizen immunity from committing any crime. There is ample punishment for many crimes however citizens must be tried and convicted of accused crimes first. The fact that people are so willing to set this aside so easily is very troubling.
Again it boils down to evidence accountability and authority. No evidence was ever presented of this mans crimes. There is no accountability of this secret panel and the president has no authority to order the assassination of an American citizen much less anyone else.
John walker was an American citizen caught on the battlefield taking up arms and even admitted he was fighting with the Taliban and the courts ruled he was entitled to a fair trial as a citizen. He ended up taking a plea deal. Jose Padilla was another American citizen who was being held as an enemy combatant and was granted a trial by the courts. The courts have so far consistently ruled American citizens have the right to a fair trial despite the military commissions act. So it looks like the Administration will now just bypass the courts and kill whomever the want on thier word alone…Sigh!
Blayne: Except this guy was not on a battlefield taking up arms.He was specifically targeted and assassinated for allegedly being an Al-Qaeda leader etc. He wasn’t even declared an enemy combatant as far as I can tell. So where is the evidence he was any of these things and where is the authority for the President to order assassinations? Again evidence accountability and authority are all lacking setting a very bad precedent here.
Duke:
Blayne, you’re insisting on things that are simply not practical under the circumstances (publicized proof before taking action, capture & trial instead of drone strike). I don’t have the time to go through a point-by-point again, and I’m fairly confident you wouldn’t agree with me anyway.
If you believe the killing of an alleged terrorist who was a US citizen is such a terrible crime, what are you doing about it?
DaJudge
One quick comment: On America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty as judged by a jury or our peers. For a corpus delecti there must be a crime, ie harm or violation of right AND damage. “Our” “government” has just proved it is an evil gang of thugs and murderers.
Blayne:
Quoting Duke: Blayne, you’re insisting on things that are simply not practical under the circumstances (publicized proof before taking action, capture & trial instead of drone strike).
Nonsense they do not have to publicize anything first, if he is a suspected terrorist they can arrest him and bring thier evidence to trial pure and simple. There is nothing impractical about that. Drone strike executions should not be replacing trial by jury.
This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.
> > If you believe the killing of an alleged terrorist who was a US citizen is such a terrible crime, what are you doing about it? > > sh
So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty.
Duke Response:
Quoting Blayne: Nonsense they do not have to publicize anything first, if he is a suspected terrorist they can arrest him and bring thier evidence to trial pure and simple. There is nothing impractical about that. Drone strike executions should not be replacing trial by jury
It simply is not practical to insert a sufficient force at the right time and place to arrest him if he’s in a foreign country and has a network protecting him.
Quoting Blayne: This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.
Deadly enemies of the US shouldn’t be off limits because of their citizenship. Capture wasn’t feasible, so that only leaves one option if he’s bad enough that he should be stopped before he can orchestrate a deadly attack on the US.
Quoting Blayne: So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty.
No proof has been provided to you, but that does not mean there is no proof, nor does it mean there isn’t strong evidence even if it fell short of absolute proof.
Sometimes it’s stupid to wait until you have irrefutable proof, or to not act to prevent an attack before it happens. And sometimes the only options available are likely to piss off people who think guilt cannot be ascribed under any circumstances without proof in a court of law.
Elizabeth Joyce:
Did anybody see the movie “the Day Of The Jackel” or “The Spy Who Came In From The Cold?”
This event is not unprecedented – it just got the “gossip” of publicity.
Blayne: Yes Elizabeth that is what I meant. This is a first in American history where a president announces publicly an assassination of an American without any due process and acts like it is perfectly normal.
Blayne: Quoting Duke: It simply is not practical to insert a sufficient force at the right time and place to arrest him if he’s in a foreign country and has a network protecting him. >
So wait him out what is the rush?
> > > > This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America. > > Deadly enemies of the US shouldn’t be off limits because of their citizenship. Capture wasn’t feasible, so that only leaves one option if he’s bad enough that he should be stopped before he can orchestrate a deadly attack on the US. >
And who do you know he is a deadly enemy? You do not seem to realize you are advocating the execution of an American citizen without trial without evidence on the presidents word alone. What part of that being wrong on every level do you not understand?
> > So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty. > > No proof has been provided to you, but that does not mean there is no proof, nor does it mean there isn’t strong evidence even if it fell short of absolute proof. >
No proof has been provided to anyone period! That is why our tradition of jurisprudence provides for no citizen being punished UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. What part of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY do you not understand?
You are advocating that the president has authority to murder people on his word alone. Where does he get such authority? it certianly is not written into any document lawfully defining his authority. Apparently you have no sense of Justice in accepting such unlawful executions. Once again it boils down to Authority accountability and evidence.
> Sometimes it’s stupid to wait until you have irrefutable proof, or to not act to prevent an attack before it happens. And sometimes the only options available are likely to piss off people who think guilt cannot be ascribed under any circumstances without proof in a court of law. >
Proof? There is not even any evidence much less proof. I guess some people will never understand until it happens to them or thier loved ones. So are you talking about the proof that Iraq had WMD’s? Or how about the proof that Bin Laden was the master mind of 9/11 and the supposed Hijackers were all Saudi Arabian yet we attacked Afghanistan? If you do not see the need for proof here in the wake of the governments track record of lying and or lack of proof I don’t know what to tell you.
The only time a court is not necassary is when someone is taking up arms on the battlefield. This man was not he was simply labelled a terrorist with a plot and summarily executed with no evidence even presented. Your whole argument is based on pure assumption this man was a threat and not only do you not have any proof you do not have a single shred of evidence and no way of verifying the presidents word precisely because he has bypassed over 200 years of American jurisprudence designed to give American citizens as fair a trial as possible.
That fact that any American would accept this is just amazing and sad…
Elizabeth Joyce:
Back in the time when the Secret Service was truly secret.
It has been common and unfortunately necessary at times to kill those who are a danger to nations, society, as well as themselves. In a sense, sadly, it has been “normal” in the spy arena , but never publicized.
LWK > This is a first in American history where > a president announces publicly an assassination > of an American without any due process and acts > like it is perfectly normal.
In WWII there were some American citizens of German descent who went to Germany and fought against America. We killed them just like any other enemy without any particular attention to some “due process” an American citizen is supposed to have.
Maybe I am missing something important, but I personally don’t see any reasoning that says that an American who goes and publicly becomes an enemry of the United States and participates in violent acts against the United States has any rights as an American citizen anymore. I doubt the Founders intended any such thing.
I am no supporter of this President, but I had no problem with the killing of this guy, American citizen or not. If an American goes to war against America then I say he is fair game and kill him if you can. No trial, no due process, no rights. Not as far as I am concerned.
JJ:
George Washington executed problem soldiers for much less than this guy we executed. His biographies reveal some actions and discipline that would raise eyebrows today. Here is one account:
During the winter of 1780-1781, George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge, Morristown and Pompton had suffered bitter cold, hunger and inadequate clothing. Also, the soldiers had not received their back pay. The success of the Pennsylvania troops at Morristown who had mutinied in order to bring attention to their condition, encouraged the New Jersey troops at Federal Hill in Pompton to take action to help resolve their grievances. Hoping to demand justice from an apathetic Congress, they mutinied on January 20, 1781.
When George Washington learned of the rebellion, he ordered General Howe to quell it. Sergeants David Gilmore and John Tuttle were executed by a firing squad of 12 mutineers at dawn on January 27, 1781 for their part in the weeklong rebellion. George Grant was given a last minute reprieve from the same fate.
http://www.pomptonlakeshistory.com/events/pompton_mutiny.htm
Blayne: > In WWII there were some American citizens of German descent who went to Germany and fought against America. We killed them just like any other enemy without any particular attention to some “due process” an American citizen is supposed to have. > People keep bringing this up and it does not apply. This guy has not gone to war. He is accused of being a terrorist that’s it. he was not taking up arms on a battlefield, he was not killed in a strike on some enemy strong hold and just happened to be there he was specifically targeted for assassination based on an unsubstantiated accusation period.
> Maybe I am missing something important, but I personally don’t see any reasoning that says that an American who goes and publicly becomes an enemry of the United States and participates in violent acts against the United States has any rights as an American citizen anymore. I doubt the Founders intended any such thing. >
Surprisingly you are missing something very important. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. He has participated in no violent acts that we know of. His only crime worthy of death apparantly has been to be ACCUSED of being a terrorist and summarily killed on that alone.
> I am no supporter of this President, but I had no problem with the killing of this guy, American citizen or not. If an American goes to war against America then I say he is fair game and kill him if you can. No trial, no due process, no rights. Not as far as I am concerned. > So I guess its ok for the president to designate anyone he wants as a terrorist and then execute them without trial no accountability authority or evidence… Amazing… Sigh!
Blayne:
Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
This has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about. There was no constitution then and this was military justice against open rebellion during wartime. Even today soldiers sign a contract allowing military justice including execution during war time in some circumstances etc.
Also today they arrest soldiers who do this and try them instead of executing them without trial when technically in some circumstances they could. Like that soldier ho lobbed a grenade into a ten in Kuwait during the first gulf war.
Why this would be brought up at all to try and justify unlawful execution of an American citizen is beyond me.
This guy is not a soldier no evidence has been presented he has taken up arms against the US. His only supposed crime is he is ACCUSED of being a terrorist and killed on accusation alone with no evidence being presented to any lawful court of justice.
Larry W
I have not read any news report on this. But if what you say is true, then they had no right to execute him. If, on the other hand, he was supporting a known gang of terrorists and got killed while they raided the terrorist gang, then I’m ok with that, the guy chose the wrong friends. So I don’t know about this particular situation. But I totally agree with your logic here, Blayne, based upon the facts as you present them. But I also totally agree with Larry K’s logic here too, based upon the facts as he presents them. I know that you would have no problem if that guy got shot while standing with terrorists in a fire fight. So we are all totally together on principles. It’s the facts that are fuzzy.
Blayne: Exactly Larry! That is the point we have no way of knowing there is no accountability here. I have no problem with defending our selves in the manners you mentioned. What concerns me is as far as I can tell this guy was specifically targeted for execution unless I missed something. IOW the drone strike was ordered specifically to take him out based on accusations alone.
Some are leaping to the conclusion the guy is guilty WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. They seem content on one mans word and throwing out the principle of justice that men are innocent until proven guilty.
How does anyone know if this was justified? We have no way of knowing since this has bypassed every principle of justice and is just plain un-American.
This would be the same as a police officer killing a guy and saying he new the guy was going to murder his neighbor and some saying oh ok the guy was going to murder his neighbor so the killing was ok. No accountability period!
Duke:wrote: > This guy is not a soldier no evidence has been presented he has taken up arms against the US. His only supposed crime is he is ACCUSED of being a terrorist and killed on accusation alone with no evidence being presented to any lawful court of justice.
It seems that judicial procedure and following the letter of the law carries a great deal of weight for you.
The letter of the law has not caught up with the present situation. Laws sometimes fail to anticipate situations that arise, particularly if they are largely without precedent. In such circumstances, we have three fall-backs: Judgement, checks and balances, and democracy.
We hope that our leadership (the president and his advisors) exercises good judgment when there is no rule-book written in advance that covers the situation, like the case of being at war with a nationless organization capable of inflicting disproportionately high casualties on the US thanks to technology.
We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch that can take steps to oppose the actions of the president.
We are a democracy, so we can vote, demonstrate in the streets, write letters, blog, criticize, whatever. Sufficient public outcry will have an effect.
The nature of fighting the world’s premier terrorist network, often operating from countries in which we have little or no presence, precludes such niceties as sending the cops to arrest suspects. The need to maintain operational secrecy means that “proof” is not going to be given to the satisfaction of critics and conspiracy theorists. The enemy’s footsoldiers (the ones who pull the triggers or detonate the suicide bombs) may well be lower-value targets than their leadership. And, time is of the essence if one or more plots are under development or in motion.
At some point it comes down to whether we trust our elected civilian leadership and the intelligence community that is its source of inside information. I do not believe the president and the intelligence community are infallible, but I also believe they know far more than you or I, and that they are trying to do the right thing in carrying out their duty to protect the US. Personally, I’m glad they are not hamstrung by an allegiance to the letter of the law which would allow an American-born terrorist leader to operate with immunity as long as he’s in a country where we can’t send the cops to his house.
Blayne: > It seems that judicial procedure and following the letter of the law carries a great deal of weight for you.
What carries a great deal of weight with me is the principle of freedom and justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Here is the facts
The man has not taken up arms. There is no evidence presented he is plotting. There is no evidence presented there is any immediate threat. There are only accusations with no accountability and an execution based on accusations alone.
Based on the known facts there was no justification to murder him immediately as there was no threat. This would be like a cop shooting your family member and then saying he knew the person was plotting to murder your neighbor. And you saying oh ok I trust your word that killing him was justified….
And seriously do you believe murdering this guy stopped any threat? Like others could not carry out what ever the plot was? Now days you’d think there was a terrorist behind every rock but all the government good guys have stopped every plot. That is ridiculous if terrorists wanted to put us into the stone age it would be a simple matter to take out our power grids with just a few small teams.
The terrorist bogeymen have been the excuse to trample our rights for a decade now and now the president is ordering hits on American citizens with drone strikes on nothing but accusations… Sigh it is amazing we are even having this conversation…
> > The letter of the law has not caught up with the present situation. Laws sometimes fail to anticipate situations that arise, particularly if they are largely without precedent. In such circumstances, we have three fall-backs: Judgement, checks and balances, and democracy. >
You are incorrect this situation has ignored the principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. You have to keep inventing a false scenario to try and justify your emotional belief that this was right. There are no circumstances in this situation that required this action as I have illustrated several times now in my responses. None of the circumstances you describe to try to justify this have occurred in this case.
> We hope that our leadership (the president and his advisors) exercises good judgment when there is no rule-book written in advance that covers the situation, like the case of being at war with a nationless organization capable of inflicting disproportionately high casualties on the US thanks to technology. >
Again you create a false argument based on illusion. There is a rule book for this situation it was ignored. The situation you describe and try to assign to this situation is an illusion. We do not need to hope the leadership has good judgement we have a system of checks and balances that if followed tell us one way or another. When those are ignored and bypassed then we are just flying blind. Putting blind trust in any leader is putting trust in the beast.
> We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch that can take steps to oppose the actions of the president. >
If they do not then they are in collusion with these unlawful actions
> We are a democracy, so we can vote, demonstrate in the streets, write letters, blog, criticize, whatever. Sufficient public outcry will have an effect. >
We are not a democracy we are an oligarchy. Voting has not changed anything significant but made things steadily worse. But the public has to actually make the outcry. However of they do not understand the principles of freedom and justice then they just allow themselves to become slave and thier rights trampled.
> The nature of fighting the world’s premier terrorist network, often operating from countries in which we have little or no presence, precludes such niceties as sending the cops to arrest suspects. The need to maintain operational secrecy means that “proof” is not going to be given to the satisfaction of critics and conspiracy theorists. The enemy’s footsoldiers (the ones who pull the triggers or detonate the suicide bombs) may well be lower-value targets than their leadership. And, time is of the essence if one or more plots are under development or in motion. >
Another false argument, you have not addressed a thing I have said. You just keep repeating the same things over and over that I have already put to bed that do not apply to this situation
> At some point it comes down to whether we trust our elected civilian leadership and the intelligence community that is its source of inside information. I do not believe the president and the intelligence community are infallible, but I also believe they know far more than you or I, and that they are trying to do the right thing in carrying out their duty to protect the US. Personally, I’m glad they are not hamstrung by an allegiance to the letter of the law which would allow an American-born terrorist leader to operate with immunity as long as he’s in a country where we can’t send the cops to his house. > > sh
That’s the problem you “believe” blindly because there is no way to verify that belief as they have ignored the principles of freedom and justice and the checks and balances in our system to ensure they are heeded as much as possible. You have further gone to great lengths to create illusionary scenarios to justify your blind belief. Such blind trust is indeed very troubling.
JJ
Blayne: Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?
JJ No. That’s not what I said. I posted that example from George Washington’s execution without trial to illustrate that much worse has been done by our heroes. The men Washington executed appears to have been less of a threat than Anwar al-Awlaki is to us.
I agree with you that the law needs to be followed. It does look liked he could be tried for treason as he apparently is advocating a violent overthrow of the United States openly on his web site. Treason has carried the death penalty in the past.
If this guy is a threat that needs taken out then Obama should work within the law to accomplish this. If there is no way to bring him in then perhaps he could be tried in absentia or have his citizenship revoked and treated accordingly.
So, do you agree with George Washington’s executions I cited? If not then what should he have done?
Blayne; Glad to hear it. George Washingtons situation was completely different. There was no constitution and these guys were mutinying.and had a military unit at thier disposal and openly were opposing thier contract as soldiers. I do not necessarily agree with How Washington handled it but he may have had no other choice with a military unit threatening physical revolt. Still if they were able to be captured they should not have been executed without trial.
Duke: hawkiye@…> wrote: >… you have not addressed a thing I have said. You just keep repeating the same things over and over that I have already put to bed that do not apply to this situation
Well that’s not the way I see it, but I’d rather not argue about arguing.
Obviously I don’t have much hope of changing your mind, nor you of changing mine.
I don’t see much point in continuing. Do you?
Dan; I encourage everyone to re-read the the original article Blayne posted thoroughly (and as objectively as possible :-), there seem to be a lot of misconceptions, assumptions and outright LEAPS being made that simply are NOT supported by any information in the original article itself.
http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html
LWK hawkiye@…> wrote:
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. He has participated in no > violent acts that we know of.
However there is a abundant evidence that he was part of the hierarchy at Al Qaida. He may have not been the one actually planting the bombs, or whatever, but he was in the hierarchy directing and motivating individuals to kill Americans. Let’s say an American went to Germany in WWII and became a part of their upper echelon directing the violent acts of the Germany military. Would he be a legitimate target? Of course he would. It doesn’t matter whether he personally pulled the trigger or just helped those who did.
Like I said,I don’t think the U.S. government violated any real principles or the constitution in killing this guy. As an American citizen you don’t have a right to be part of and supporting and motivating an organization that is killing Americans without being subject to violent retribution, without a trial and without any “due process.”
The only “due process” he deserved was the one he got.
Blayne: Really??? Where pray tell is all this abundant evidence? As far as I can tell there is nothing more then accusations and the president has appointed himself judge jury and executioner and you approve.
Blayne:
As long as you refuse to face the facts of course thier is no point in continuing to plow the same barren ground. The facts are; nothing you have brought up to justify this action applies to this case. There is no evidence no accountability and no authority to justify the killing without a trial. You can create all the false scenarios you like and that does not change these simple facts.
Duke:
An attempt at explaining the likely situation (when we do not have all the facts) is not “creating a false scenario”. You dismiss with a broad wave of the hand without showing what was false in the scenario. That sort of emotional jump is dominating the discussion. But this becomes a secondary argument, that is, arguing about having an argument. So it is non-productive.
Larry Woods
At this point, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. As far as I can tell they (all elected officials and their bureaucrats) have sold us out at every turn to Special Interests. Down through the years they turned control of our money supply over to private bankers who proved over and over that they abuse us and enrich themselves at our expense. They’ve sold all public works on sweetheart deals to their cronies. They over taxed us and over regulated us to the point that my small building business was literally sending half of all that came in the front door off to government at various levels. Their taxes and regulations and the accounting and work to keep up with it made it impossible for me to keep my business. The economy they wrecked blew me out of business. Remember George McGovern? He went bankrupt after he retired from the Senate and tried to run a bed and breakfast business with his wife. He blamed his failure on over regulation and on over taxation. Would that he could have learned those lessons before he left office! And he wanted to be our President! They “bailed out” their millionaire cronies but they let me fail. They repeatedly create relationships with other governments and then turn their backs on them which has caused no end of ill will against America. Recently they shoved socialism down our throats in their health care bill that they didn’t even read despite the fact that all the polls showed 60 to 65 percent of Americans did not want it. They created an FDA that works toward anything that makes money for Special Interests and pays lots of taxes but does not allow good medicine. Result, hundreds of thousands of dead cancer victims who are really FDA victims. We have means to cure almost all of them but the FDA won’t allow it. [If you need the cure info, just let me know. Also, most any of the Keysters here can give you that info. As John told JJ in The Immortal series, there are at least four cures out there.]
I could go on and on here, Duke. What makes you think they “are trying to do the right thing”? Also as you said, their intelligence is unreliable plus they deceive us about what they think they know anyway. Actually I believe their intelligence is skewed in many ways.
I can prove by simple logic that they lie. Watch this. If you had power to connect the personal paycheck of Senators and Congressmen to a balanced budget, THE VERY NEXT BUDGET PASSED WOULD BE BALANCED. Do you believe it? You should. They claim it’s impossible and messy and whatever. But the minute their paycheck gets attached to it YOU KNOW they would conquer the problem real quick. You know this is absolute truth. Yet they continually explain they are doing everything in their power to balance the budget. So why was it anyone trusts them to do the right thing?
They are pathological liars. They are in bed with Special Interests for the purpose of taking from us and giving to the Special Interests. They are Democrats, they are Republicans. They have sold us out. They will continue until we learn how to hold them accountable.
They will continue until We the People learn how to hold them accountable. Meanwhile, I do not trust them to make decisions about killing people without due process. Nor do I trust any of their other decisions. But we are stuck with them for now. Despite all this mess, we are far better off than we were just a few hundred years ago.
In the meantime, I seek ways to actually change things for the better, to get them to answer to the majority more often. I think JJ’s book will open some meaningful dialog on this. I also think my MACH1 political plan will help. I’m reading up just now about product branding and Social networking and other ways to get MACH1 before the public so we can start garnering wins for the majority similar to the famous Real Estate tax law brought to California by the people who were sick and tired of funding their state on the backs of little old ladies who had to sell their homes just at a time when they faced their last few years on planet Earth. If the state needs money, they can find it somewhere else! I think they called that Proposition 13. It is a good law. Basically in California, you pay the same tax every year that you own the house. It never changes. It gets locked in when you first buy your house. So explosive growth does not bump out retired folks and other good folks by forcing them to sell their homes. A good law.
A similar majority win was the license tab fees in Washington state which I already discussed here before. I want MACH1 to provide the game plan so many people can pick up the ball around America and make touch-downs for the majority. I want to empower the majority and simultaneously point out the politicians who blatantly go against majority will. WE FINALLY HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!
Ultimately, after we get good momentum, we go after Read the Damn Bill. Posting every bill for 30 days on the Internet before they are allowed to vote on it will fulfill Obama’s broken promise about a transparent government. But the Special Interest politicians will fight it with everything they’ve got. It will be the hardest won political battle since the Revolutionary War. But it will change the political landscape like a continent wide 9.0 earthquake.
Anyway, Duke, I know your principles are sound. But the facts in this case are hidden so we just do not know if Obama made a responsible decision or not. The fact that the facts remain hidden gives us a pretty strong clue. I could go into much detail about how the states and the federal government are hiding much. About how they bypass due process more and more. One obscure but very telling point is that they no longer require politicians to carry a real bond. The state bonds elected officials now so they don’t have to put up with all those messy restrictions. One more layer of due process out the window. They are going backwards eroding the protections we put in place to protect ourselves from them. Long ago they took away any responsibility they once carried. If their decisions screw you over it turns out it was their mistake, you have no recourse. This is true with judges and with every other layer of government. Another example, they almost never bother any more getting actual warrants for search or seizure. They just get “certificate of warrant” which need not be signed by an elected judge. In effect, they no longer need to show probable cause. Then they can confiscate your stuff under Ill-gotten-gains laws and never return them and they don’t even have to charge you with a crime. This includes properties, autos, airplanes, whatever. There are a million stories circulating on the net with tons of witnesses and victims.
When I was young my heart swelled with pride when I saw a cop or a fireman. Now I see symbols of those who abused my niece because she simply asked for a warrant before she let them in. I see those who abused my brother by throwing hundreds of dollars of vitamins in a sink full of water so they would spoil because a neighbor thought they might have seen a marijuana plant in the window. This was at a time when marijuana was equivalent to a speeding ticket in Washington state. They also totally destroyed lots of stuff like cutting up his mattresses and throwing everything on the floors. For those of you who thought the Gestapo was defeated in WWII, you’re wrong. I like Jefferson’s approach to all of this. Our job is not to empower our government more, but to bind their hands from mischief. I could go on for hours like this but what’s the point? Just stating the problem over and over won’t help. But MACH1 and Read the Damn Bill can help and JJ’s insights can help. So that is where I put my thoughts and energies now. Using the platform that my music brings, The Brotherhood of Light Muse, I support these political measures so at least my energy does not just go away with the wind.
Duke:
I don’t believe our leadership is all evil, nor all good. Few people and organizations are entirely one or the other, so that leaves open the possibility that their motives are good in this case.
If you google “Al Awlaki”, you’ll see that he apparently was a very competent bad guy, considered largely responsible for the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda becoming its most active branch and generating several recent attacks on the US. But there is no “proof” in a form that would satisfy a determined skeptic.
Blayne:
On the contrary I have addressed each of your scenarios in detail several times now and have brushed nothing aside. You admit there is no evidence and then claim your pure speculation is not false…
It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored.
Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating. yet I am being emotional?
Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened? Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc.
Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?
Blayne:
Good post larry!
Duke I am not praising Larry’s post here because it agrees with me so I can get one up on you. I am praising it because it is truth.
You have fallen for a trick the government has been using for decades to justify their subversion of the principles of freedom.
The demonize someone then kill them. Like the Waco incident. They Said Koresh was a child molester and had illegal weapons. Then they laid siege to them and attacked but claimed they were shot at first etc. It came out later no illegal weapons were found and there is no evidence he was a child molester. Also evidence was shown that the government fired first. People knew it was BS but then they made it look like they were defending themselves etc Their are thousands of cases like this that did not get the notoriety of Waco.
Here they just did the deed and demonized the man after the fact and even admit they targeted him for assassination. this is a significant step further away from the principles of freedom and justice. At least with Koresh they tried to act like they were defending themselves. Now they just order a hit and claim he was a terrorist.
Even if this guy really was a terrorist we cannot allow this sort of thing to continue. Can you not see the potential for abuse here? And with the governments proven track record of lying cover ups and false flag operations this is is particularly troubling.
Duke:
hawkiye@…> wrote: > > > On the contrary I have addressed each of your scenarios in detail several times now and have brushed nothing aside. You admit there is no evidence and then claim your pure speculation is not false…
You have not addressed the impracticality of capturing an Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. You have not addressed the possible time-critical aspect of stopping him. You have not addressed the issue of enemy leadershp being a higher-value target than footsoldiers. You have not addressed the need for operational secrecy in counter-terrorist operations. You have not addressed the fact that your position would probably have Al Awlaki operating at will indefinitely, safe behind his American citizenship.
> It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored.
Round and round we go. I’m all for following the law and proper procedure, but this is a highly unusual situation. Apparently it has only come up once in the ten years since 9/11.
> Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating.yet I am being emotional?
I am focusing on the specific realities of the situation, instead of at the emotional outrage at the attack on a treasonous American citizen (who obviously spits on his citizenship), not to mention the emotional disdain you’ve hinted at that someone could actually see things different from you.
> Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened?
Thank you for acknowledging that neither of us know what happened. That makes your speculation no better than mine.
> Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc.
This situation is different from your ideal scenario where the bad guy can be arrested and brought to trial, and time is not an issue.
> Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?
Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anytyhing but a false scenario? Enlighten me?
Blayne:
So if I put a up website that made you look like a terrorist and the government killed you based on that it is k with you? After all there is no proof that would satisfy a determined sceptic? Nothing like blind faith…
Come on Duke you know better then that…
Duke:
If you really think Al Awlaki’s association with Al Qaeda is a ficticious long-term elaborate internet hoax, then there is a very large disconnect between your perception and mine.
I’m starting to think that if the government told you the evidence they had against Al Awlaki, you would have already made up your mind to reject it in advance.
Blayne:
I have addressed it several times. But one more time for you. Your speculation and assumption there is a real threat is not grounds to kill an American Citizens. Therefore there is no expediency in capturing this guy. You are basing this scenario on speculation with no evidence to support it what so ever so it is not a valid argument. Also as I have said do you really believe that even if this guy was who THEY CLAIMED he was that killing him somehow removed the threat and others would not continue to carry it out?
> > It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored. > > Round and round we go. I’m all for following the law and proper procedure, but this is a highly unusual situation. Apparently it has only come up once in the ten years since 9/11. >
You do not believe in following the law you are trying to justify circumventing it. No its not unusual again you are basing your conclusions on assumptions with no evidence ever presented anywhere period. So your argument is not valid. Every time we go around on this you continue to speak as if it is a forgone conclusion that his guy is what he is accused of. It is not that is the point of trial.
In America we do not kill people based on assumption speculation and accusations. Your continued dodging of this fact speaks to your emotional attachment to the issue. I don’t care what your beliefs are about our leaders. I and every other America should not have to depend on yours or anyone’s “belief” for our safety from our own government. We should be able to depend on a fair hearing of all the evidence and a fair chance to defend ourselves. That has slowly been eroded away and this is a huge spike in the coffin of such fairness freedom and justice.
> > Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating.yet I am being emotional? > > I am focusing on the specific realities of the situation, instead of at the emotional outrage at the attack on a treasonous American citizen (who obviously spits on his citizenship), not to mention the emotional disdain you’ve hinted at that someone could actually see things different from you. > No you are not focusing on any reality of the situation. You are not sticking to know facts. You have projected your own huge assumptions into the situation creating a false scenario and then used it to try and justify you emotional belief. >
You keep bringing up that you think I am being emotional yet I am the one sticking to known facts while you speculate and project your feelings into the situation. You need to take a good hard look in the mirror my friend.
I have nothing against you personally my friend. We have met and I think you are a good guy. My astonishment is that any American could not see the danger in allowing the president to order a hit on an American citizen based on unsubstantiated accusations.
> > Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened? > > Thank you for acknowledging that neither of us know what happened. That makes your speculation no better than mine. >
What is it I am speculating on? I have stuck to the known facts name something I have speculated on
> > Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc. >
> This situation is different from your ideal scenario where the bad guy can be arrested and brought to trial, and time is not an issue. >
You keep saying this but there is no evidene much less proof to support it. The situation is only different in your fantasy scenarios. Therefore there is no evidence there is any time factor. You whole argument is based on a fantasy Duke period and is defeated right there.
> > Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me? > > Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anytyhing but a false scenario? Enlighten me? >
Absolutely I will deny it. It is not speculation to say someone should not be killed without a fair trial and the evidence presented etc. it is a fact! Also there is no need to disprove something that has not been established as fact in the first place by any reasonable means of establishing a fact. That is the whole point of innocent until proven guilty. You can’t prove a negative it is up to the accuser to prove guilt not the accused to prove innocence.
That would be like me saying you are guilty of theft now prove you are not. You would say I you don’t need to prove I am not because you have not proven I stole something.
Blayne:
Oh there is no doubt there is a huge disconnect between you and me on this one. I never said I think the government did a fictitious web site. I was just making a point on the need to verify evidence. If you think because something is on the internet it must be true then I have some everglades land in Florida I’s like to make you a deal one… 😉
> I’m starting to think that if the government told you the evidence they had against Al Awlaki, you would have already made up your mind to reject it in advance. >
Why would you think that? Seems you are projecting your emotions on to me now…
My whole point has been that before we allow the government to order hits on Americans willy nilly the evidence needs to be presented FIRST accordance with law. If we just take the governments word for it that everything was on the up and up then we are nothing but slaves to dictatorial powers.
Blayne:
Quoting Blayne ” Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?”
Quoting Duke “Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?”
Blayne I thought this deserved more attention. Duke claims I am speculating why this killing was NOT justified.
Fact: this man is “accused” of being a terrorist and plotting against the US.
Fact: No evidence is presented in any lawful manner to support the accusation.
Fact: The president has no authority to Kill Americans on Accusation alone nor does any other American government officer or otherwise.
Fact: The man was not killed on a battlefield taking up arms against the US.
Fact: He was not killed as collateral damage on a strike on some enemy enclave.
So Duke my question is how are these facts speculation?
Speculation: He is a terrorist and or Al Qaeda leader
Speculation: Time was of the essence or he would harm Americans
Speculation: He was guilty and deserved it.
Hopefully that clarifies what is fact and what is Speculation.
Duke:
If nothing else, I think we’ve proven that there’s no point in my repeating myself yet again. Someone has to get off the merry-go-round at some point. You may have the last ride my friend.
Ruth:
I had a look at this man’s photo.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-killed-yemen
For what it’s worth, from viewing this above picture and this man’s eyes I feel that he is a very sad man and that he is also a very scared man. His aura or face is a lot softer than say a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden. I get the feeling he was forced into doing what he had to do in his life, and that if not for his Father and connections, then he would have taken an entirely different path in his life than the one he had to have and live. (But of course, I could be way off base here.)
I think that he knew he was going to die, either by the Americans or the Terrorists and that is why he had such sadness in his heart because his choice to live was going to be an early death either way?
Perhaps the 7 year old boy within him loved America, but then when he moved back home, he grew up in that institutionalized mind set of hating Americans?
It seems that quite a few people who develop into or are terrorists are sent to America so that they become seen as Americans and learn as much as they can about Americans or have dual citizenship. If you want to get at your enemy or beat your enemy then you have to dress up like your enemy and learn as much about their lifestyle etc as possible.
Here is an interesting thing:
“Al-Awlaki was called an Islamic fundamentalist, and accused of encouraging terrorism.[41][49][53][54] He developed animosity towards the U.S. and became a proponent of Takfiri and Jihadi thinking, while retaining Islamism, according to one research paper.[55] While imprisoned in Yemen, al-Awlaki became influenced by the works of Sayyid Qutb, an originator of the contemporary “anti-Western Jihadist movement”.[56] He would read 150–200 pages a day of Qutb’s works.
He described himself as “so immersed with the author I would feel Sayyid was with me in my cell speaking to me directly”.[56]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
He may have been possessed by Sayyid Qutb? Which would account for this statement made about him on Wiki:
“Douglas Murray, executive director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a right-wing think tank that studies British radicalization, says his followers “will routinely describe Awlaki as a vital and highly respected scholar, [while he] is actually an al-Qaida-affiliate nut case”.[11]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
It would definitely influence his mind set by studying so intensely the Qutb’s works.
So he might have like two different personalities. He could have swung between the two extremes of the pendulum between his love for God and his incorporated beliefs and hatred for Americans which was influenced by Sayyid.
Blayne, I believe you like Ron Paul from what I remember reading from your past posts?
Do you feel that your thinking could have been influenced by Ron Paul’s accusations at all in this matter?
“Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an “assassination.” Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44730771/ns/politics/
Robert:
The Bastard was a GOD DAMN TERRORIST, he deserved what he got.
Blayne:
Thanks for bolstering my point Robert. All you that have disagreed with me now realize you are in agreement with good ole Robert here so take that… LOL!