Obama administration authorizes killing US citizen

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

"waging a war on terrorism"
"sworn enemy of the US"

These are nice emotional catch-phrases but what do they mean, in concrete terms?

A law-abiding society does not accept "make it up as you go along" as acceptable. If terrorists which present a real threat are using citizenship as a loophole, then we find a legal way to close that loophole and deal with the situation. This procedure should have clearly defined conditions which could cause any US citizen to have their right to exist revoked. If we don't recognize this as a fundamental right, then what the ƒuck. You can't say that being a US citizen has no relevance because that means it NEVER has any relevance.

[Cloud]

we kill traitors, don't we?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Cloud

we kill traitors, don't we?

Yes, and we have a defined procedure for that. A law-abiding society maintains stringently defined legal procedures and definitions.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Flint

A law-abiding society maintains stringently defined legal procedures and definitions.

fuckin A men

[xoxoxoBruce]

We pretty much do for every citizen in the country, and some non-citizens in the country. It's spelled out in mind boggling detail.
Anwar al-Awlaki, however, falls in neither category and as far as I'm concerned has forfeited his citizenship to become a traitor, the enemy.

[Cloud]

more concerned about lots of other stuff. like . . . dustbunnies.

[Flint]

Yes, because unthinking, visceral reactions are always better than following things through to their logical conclusion.

We are dealing with an interaction between two entities: the government of a nation and ANY citizen of that nation. Those are the categories. We are also dealing with an extraordinary circumstance. This is the point in the decision making process where you can #1 roll up your shirtsleeves do some hard work, or... you can #2 make a really stupid decision with far-reaching consequences.

Option #2 is easier, and "feels" better.

[ZenGum]

I'm (mostly) with Clod and Flint.

The British tried a number of Irish terrorists in absentia, many were convicted and sentenced to death. At least one (and probably many) of them remarked "They can hang me in absentia too".

I acknowledge that, in this imperfect world, there are times we need to hunt someone down and catch-or-kill them. So be it; but then we must have and follow a judicial procedure.

Shining light on the hill? Or most heavily-armed gangster? I go for the shining light, with a precise little death-ray laser mounted on it.

One of the biggest casualties of the war on terror has been the system of checks and balances that worked so well for so long.

[glatt]

I don't see how this is any different than an undeclared war like Vietnam. I don't particularly like it, but history clearly shows that the President has the power to blow things up and do random violent shit in other countries without Congress declaring war. That's what we are talking about here. How does it matter who is being blown up?

The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.

International law may be another issue, but that only matters if somebody enforces it. Also, if Congress passes a law that says you can't do something specific, like support the Contras, you might get in trouble if you do.

[Griff]

It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It started way before Truman. There has always been threats to the US that the Federal Govenment has had to deal with, the only difference now is we know more about it.


Some people just need killin'.

[Griff]

He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)

Originally Posted by Griff

It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.

As a result of CIA excesses from Truman through Nixon, legislation resulting from the Church Committee restored some level of control and accountability over the CIA.

As a result of presidential actions by Johnson/Nixon in Viet Nam, Congress enacted the War Powers Act (Resolution).

Since 9/11, those Executive Branch excesses and/or unilateral interpretation of US laws and treaty obligations, have returned.

The Executive Branch alone should not be able to adjudicate on the rights of citizens or what constitutes legal enhanced interrogation as opposed to torture or other abuses we have seen (extraordinary rendition, improper use of National Security Letters by the FBI, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.

For example, if you took your family on vacation, outside US borders? At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason? Or should we, maybe, specify exactly what the acceptable parameters are here?

Doing something "just this once" because it "feels right" is a stupid way to make decisions in any area of life, and this is no different. If something seems like a "no brainer" it is because you aren't USING your brain.