If you are looking at this as a black and white issue where there is a line and anything that crosses that line is equally unethical, then yes, the US wouldn't be any better. But, in my opinion, that is absolutely horrible internal/foreign policy. Rules are a necessity for a stable society but it should also be recognized that always sticking to the rules sometimes produces dangerous and illogical decisions.

OK, I'm following your line of thought. Things can be gray, and someone will have to decide which options to take.

Now for the "but"...

Would the US ideals (innocent until proven guilty) be lost if the President
were still required to go before a judge (i.e., Supreme Court) to make the case of guilt and
that there is no other way... that is, more or less, a trial in absentia ?

At least that way, there would be a check/balance over the decision of a single person,
who otherwise could become our equivalent of a Stalin or (whoever you want to name here)

But so far, I still maintain that capture and trial in the US is the right/best way to go.
.

As I said earlier, I agree completely that trial is better if there is a realistic way of doing capturing Al-Awlaki. If there is not, I'm not sure if this situation applies, then you have to make the decision to take him out, without due process, or let him go, possibly harming other American citizens later.


I don't have all the information, but this could be a situation where Obama had a temporary chance to take Al-Awlaki out. In that case, going before a judge and all of that is basically the same as letting him go.

OK... I get your points.

He was not a citizen.

Would you like to expand your thoughts in regards to this posting ?

As I read the link, I get more and more the impression the whole issue
is far too cloudy and uncertain to justify Holder's position and Obama signing the law.

But then, I'm still interested in your thoughts...

The U.S. government made clear that if Awlaki "were to surrender or otherwise present himself
to the proper authorities in a peaceful and appropriate manner, the United States
would immediately send a drone to visit him.

My thoughts are pretty much the same as stated previously.

While the 'War on Terror' can act as an umbrella for many power moves from the president to TSA, there are some aspects of it that I believe are good for national security. By stating we at war with Al Qaeda and similar extreme organizations it gives the administration more power and ability to make quick and direct decisions.

As long as there is discipline among the executive branch I am not opposed to the president ordering a drone strike against someone like al-Awlaki. But this means that this only applies to very extreme situations where there is strong evidence that the person is directly promoting violence against US citizens, does not represent US interests in any possible way (defecting citizenship or working in interests of other state or non-state players), and evading capture in a location where there is no realistic way of getting this person. In those extremely rare cases I do not believe due process should apply.

The US Constitution should not protect US citizens at the expense of others if they do everything in their power to harm the country.

And what about future administrations who may not be quite as disciplined?

Yes, I understand your views from our previous postings,
and I guess I was asking about your views of the arguments presented in this particular link.

Our differences are quite basic, and can be seen in the sentences above.

First, I believe it was a fundamental mistake to declare "war"
on a nebulous group (Al Qaeda) because it leads to exactly
what you stated: "similar extreme organizations".
The consequences are a never-ending "war"
... who is going to sign a document of surrender to bring this "war" to a close ?

Second, more and more it is being interpreted to have given unprecedented powers to the President.
... who or what is going to assure "discipline among the executive branch" ?

Third, I believe we base our entire form of government on that aspect of the Constitution
just the opposite of the idea that it "should not protect US citizens..."
The Constitution is the primary protection of the minority,
and the individual, from the emotional wiles of the majority.
... if not the Constitution then who/what will provide that protection ?

OK, so much for my back and forth.
... I am interested in how you view the content of the article in your link... if you care to expand on it.

I apologize for the late response. I have been busy.

Yes, that argument shows just how complicated and subjective the issue is. On one hand, it would be more transparent and objective if the scope of the 'war on terror' was the destruction and dismantling of certain terrorist groups (Al Qaeda). On the other hand, terror and resistance groups are very fluid and counter-terrorism also needs to be fluid to appropriately respond to threats. For example, if we declare war on GroupA and five years later, GroupB is a big threat while GroupA fell out of importance, would we need to get a new declaration of war on GroupB? I would personally prefer the fluid option.

Then there is another question of the government powers associated with the declaration of war but I really don't feel like getting into this right now because it is a tangent.

Even though the executive branch has been given unprecedented powers, the president is still on a leash. The article talked about this and admitted that it is a potential problem. The way I interpreted the current way of doing things is that president can make decisions without congressional and judicial approval but congress and the supreme courts can take away that power at any time.

To me, if we assume congress and the supreme court are incompetent, the most effective check right now is the media. If the president goes down a slippery slope it should be reported, putting pressure on congress to repeal the presidential powers.

I agree with this but I don't think it be so absolute. Yes, the Constitution protects minorities as it should. If a citizen has an unpopular opinion (neo-Nazi or communist), the Constitution does a great job at protecting that citizen. That protection allows non-mainstream views to spread and be discussed, which I feel is important for any free society.

Yet, I believe there are limits of how far that protection goes. I do not believe the Constitution should protect citizens in every situation. If there is a very extreme case where a citizen, al-Awlaki for example, is directly promoting violence against US citizens, does not represent US interests in any possible way (defecting citizenship or working in interests of other state or non-state players), and evading capture in a location where there is no realistic way of getting this person, I don't see the reason why the Constitution should protect them in the same why I don't believe the Constitution should protect an American citizen that joined Nazi Germany in WWII.

Honestly, not really. I feel this is an issue that has no right answer. On one side, it is important that all executive powers are checked in one way or another. This prevents the president from going down a slippery slope and attacking citizens that should be protected by the Constitution. On the other side, to be effective, counter-terrorism needs to be fluid and efficient, and getting congressional and judicial approval greatly slows down this process and can allow people actively plotting against the US to survive and escape possible death.

I personally believe that counter-terrorism should be fluid and efficient, at the sacrifice of congressional and judicial review for every decision, but I also believe that the president needs to be kept on a leash. There should be a thorough investigation after every attack, even more so on American citizens, that forces the executive branch to justify every decision. That way they can make quick decisions in the name of national security but it also forces them to make sure they can justify their decision. If they can't justify it, their powers should be taken away.

Is this realistic? I have no idea.

Although I support Obama in so many ways, I've said before I believe
Obama's decision to kill of Anwar al-Awlaki and others was the worst mistake of his Presidency
... maybe even an impeachable offense.

Well, here's one judge challenging the idea that the Executive branch has such authority...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us...ings.html?_r=0
NY Times
SCOTT SHANE
July 19, 2013

Judge Challenges White House Claims on Authority in Drone Killings
And if you don't think an Attorney General can give a really stupid reply to a judge, this guy gave two in one breath...

Wow. Let's hope that nutter never rises above deputy assistant. I see how he got there though, being a yes man with complete disregard for civil rights.

He was not a US citizen.