terriorist denied due process ???

[Oh Shoot]

Let's spin this just a little. Suppose we're still in the middle of the Iraq war, and this same guy is a division commander in Saddam"s army. Is it OK to send a missle up his ass then?

Spin it this way, too, then, to follow Crimson's misgivings: is it okay to snuff him if he's spouting and recruiting the same Al Qaeda stuff from his bedroom in Peoria? If not, exactly how does his physical location change the equation?

- OS

[DaveTN]

Spin it this way, too, then, to follow Crimson's misgivings: is it okay to snuff him if he's spouting and recruiting the same Al Qaeda stuff from his bedroom in Peoria? If not, exactly how does his physical location change the equation?

- OS

Peoria cops would bust a cap in his azz in a heartbeat…. Just ask Richard Pryor.

[mikegideon]

Peoria cops would bust a cap in his azz in a heartbeat…. Just ask Richard Pryor.

Or just carry him to jail.

[Rightwinger]

Peoria cops would bust a cap in his azz in a heartbeat…. Just ask Richard Pryor.

Spin it this way, too, then, to follow Crimson's misgivings: is it okay to snuff him if he's spouting and recruiting the same Al Qaeda stuff from his bedroom in Peoria? If not, exactly how does his physical location change the equation?

- OS

We all know which police agency to enforce US and Local laws operates in Peoria. Which one operates in Yemen?

[G27]

Let's spin this just a little. Suppose we're still in the middle of the Iraq war, and this same guy is a division commander in Saddam"s army. Is it OK to send a missle up his ass then?

Sure, he's an active combatant at that point.

This is akin to a cop killing a confessed murderer instead of arresting him. If the murderer had a gun pointed at the cop, then it would be a good shoot. If the murderer was eating dinner alone at the time, it would be a bad shoot.

The problem with this sort of thing is it blurs the lines a little too much, imo. If we decide pragmatism is more important than the constitution, we've already lost.

[Guest HvyMtl]

In actuality, location does matter. This is why the shoe bomber went to court, instead of in front of a firing squad. If it is on U.S. soil or U.S. territory, the U.S. Constitution does apply. (Even if the soil is in Gitmo.)

So, if this fellow was in say, Albuquerque, or Pulaski, they would have "tried" to arrest him. Even if he was not a citizen of the U.S.

[Guest HvyMtl]

double post, my internet is wonky tonight...

[DaveTN]

We all know which police agency to enforce US and Local laws operates in Peoria. Which one operates in Yemen?

Whoever was flying that drone.

[Oh Shoot]

In actuality, location does matter. This is why the shoe bomber went to court, instead of in front of a firing squad. If it is on U.S. soil or U.S. territory, the U.S. Constitution does apply. (Even if the soil is in Gitmo.)

So, if this fellow was in say, Albuquerque, or Pulaski, they would have "tried" to arrest him. Even if he was not a citizen of the U.S.

The shoe bomber's offense actually happened over international air space, AFAIK?

- OS

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

...................

Edited October 1, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter

[gregintenn]

In actuality, location does matter. This is why the shoe bomber went to court, instead of in front of a firing squad. If it is on U.S. soil or U.S. territory, the U.S. Constitution does apply. (Even if the soil is in Gitmo.)

So, if this fellow was in say, Albuquerque, or Pulaski, they would have "tried" to arrest him. Even if he was not a citizen of the U.S.

How about in Waco Texas?

[Oh Shoot]

....

The problem with this sort of thing is it blurs the lines a little too much, imo. If we decide pragmatism is more important than the constitution, we've already lost.

Yeah, I'm always extremely leery of any precedent that smells the least bit Orwellian.

Remember, all you servicemen on here are already declared as "likely home grown terrorists", eh?

There could be a lot of folks who don't need a trial before execution, since the Patriot Act lets damn near anyone be declared an "enemy combatant", defined by the powers that be.

Of course, I have all confidence in Eric Holder and the rest of the justice Dept, Hildebeest and the State Department, etc etc. Don't you?

- OS

[E4 No More]

SwJewellTN - I did not state I thought the argument was valid, merely that some have raised that argument.

In addition Rand Paul is now speaking out against it. As well as several GOP members. Isn't this the same GOP that argued not to give rights to those in Gitmo? (I exclude Rand Paul from the Gitmo comment.)

http://www.hulu.com/yahoo/http%3A%2F%2Ftv.yahoo.com/embed/RCufyLkjEU9GeNnrOOwBXw

My apologies. I misinterpreted your point.

[Guest HvyMtl]

The shoe bomber's offense actually happened over international air space, AFAIK?

- OS

In a U.S. flagged aircraft. Therefore, U.S. jurisdiction, maritime law, I think... but, don't quote me on that.

No apology needed SWJewellTN, I needed to clarify. Thank you.

[mav]

If no one else has a problem with this, then I guess I'm in the minority, but the 5A exists specifically to keep this sort of thing from happening - especially a 'hit', not on the battlefield.

Yep, you are in the minority, but so am I. Some of the salesmen at work were laughing at me when I questioned the entire situation. I was likened to a terrorist sympathizer.

What I find so strange is how so many people believe that our federal government is as pure as the driven snow and infallible. Defending this nation's honor and defending the actions (not just in this case) of our federal government are two entirely separate things.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Where does that say the Constitution applies to all people outside the US?

On this topic, I am always intrigued by the total lack of understanding people have about the concept of rights as conceived and understood by our founders and the political philosophers who inspired them. The argument that people who are not US citizens do not have the same rights as we do is a total misinterpretation.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It protects them. Our Declaration of Independence (the statement of the political values our country was established on and the Constitution reflects) clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Note that it says "all men" - not just US citizens. It also says that governments are supposed to SECURE these rights, not grant them solely to US citizens or decide to whom they apply. Our system of government was founded upon John Locke's Enlightenment concept of natural rights, rights that all people possess by being born (hence the statement "endowed by their Creator). ALL PEOPLE have these rights and of all the nations of the world, we should be the ones that lead by example and demonstrate that we actually believe what we say we stand for. When we allow government to pick and choose those who these natural rights apply to based upon an arbitrary label, then none of our rights are safe because people cal always craft justifications to limit them or take them away.

Do I feel sorry for the douchebag we killed? Not one bit, but I do question the ethics of our nation choosing to assassinate people instead of making every legitimate effort to capture them. The excuse that the guy was a terrorist is a justification that people have come up with to make it OK to ignore our laws, our national values, and quite possibly international law, which we expect other nations to follow when dealing with our citizens. The government says that they had been tracking Al-Awlaki for three weeks. Seems like plenty of time to snatch the guy up to me. If we really aspire to live up to the values contained in our founding documents, that means we have to follow those ethics in all cases, especially if it is distasteful.

Edited October 1, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[mikegideon]

You mean, snatch him up like they did Bin Laden? Do we even have that ability in yemen? Were we wrong to kill Bin Laden? In my view, there is NO difference between the two scumbags

[Oh Shoot]

You mean, snatch him up like they did Bin Laden? Do we even have that ability in yemen? ...

I hope so, since we've paid Yemen half a billion dollars to fight terrorism. Surely that includes our having at least a few special forces fellers in there? If not, seems an extra mil or two would persuade the Yeminis to grab him rather than just drop the dime.

- OS

[Mike.357]

i follow all the 5A concern, but the dude was KIA in a military action. Did anyone else die in this strike?

I am guessing if there was any chance at all he would turn himself in or could be captured they would have gone that route.

[94user]

I can see Crimson and Mav's point on this. If he was still indeed a United States citizen he was denied his 5th amendment rights and illegally executed without due process of law.

Was he or was he not a citizen of the U.S. ? All of the info I have found on the web is clear as mud on this.

[Spook]

For all those who question whacking this guy - Where have you been since he and at least one other American born guy was put on the Agency's "Kill or Capture" list? That has been well over a year IIRC and very well publicized. Was that ok? If so, why? If not, I wonder why all the sudden rush to protect their questionable "rights". This in no way puts us on any road to anarchy, dictatorship, etc. If we had the gumption to really go to war with those who want us all killed we would have ended this long ago. Imho, of course.

[gregintenn]

i follow all the 5A concern, but the dude was KIA in a military action. Did anyone else die in this strike?

I am guessing if there was any chance at all he would turn himself in or could be captured they would have gone that route.

Yes. It is my understanding that another U.S. citizen died in the attack as well. I can't gather much information about him at this point.

[East_TN_Patriot]

i follow all the 5A concern, but the dude was KIA in a military action. Did anyone else die in this strike?

I am guessing if there was any chance at all he would turn himself in or could be captured they would have gone that route.

I could buy that argument, except our government has made it clear that the 'war on terror' is not a standard military action, but one that has been carefully and strategically crafted in order to justify ignoring international law and treaties that we have agreed to abide by. Our government says that suspected terrorists are not civilians, but also not military combatants. They have been given this special designation specifically to skirt the law. It's just that sort of manipulation of law and policy that has made the US hated by so many people in this world.

Again, I don't feel sorry for these people. A part of me says "good riddance" to them. However, my ethical side requires me to question the legitimacy of our nation's policies on this issue and call out improper actions when they are in violation of law and ethics.

[Mike.357]

I am not sure how it can be both ways, not civilians but not combatants.

I am guessing that all channels were used up in trying to get him alive, once the realization was made that there was no taking him alive, then taking him dead was what happened.

Some of you know more about this stuff than I do. Are there any domestic criminals, not convicted, who are wanted dead or alive?

[Magiccarpetrides]

I'm glad they sent this traitors to fiery hell instead of risking some of our best trying to capture him. As to the other piece of trash that got vaporized he was a fellow American jihadi that ran a much publicized jihadist website out of north carolina..guess they will be looking for a new webmaster ;-)