Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112

Thread: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

  1. #11
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,155

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    That's for the Commander in Chief to determine.
    and he sought a legal opinion to assist that determination when it was found that the enemy combatant was also of American birth
    and his decision appears consistent with the proffered legal reasoning
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  2. #12
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    I saw a proposal to create a special court to review the cases if any Americans overseas. The evidence would have to meet certain standards and "adequate proof" that capture was not plausible.

    I agree with that approach as long as the committee was truly bi-partisan.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    so, you agree that this target was viewed as the 'enemy' of our nation
    making him a legitimate military target, no matter his birth heritage
    Yes I do.

    Anwar-al-Awlaki was a terrorist and was guilty of treason - a charge that carries the death penalty.

    It's not like the guy was a militiaman defending the Bill of Rights - he was conspiring to destroy civil liberties.

    As a libertarian I'm not a big fan of our government and it's policies, however they did right killing Anwar-al-Awlaki even if it wasn't for him being a tyrant. Of course his treason had nothing to do with him being blown to bits, he was just a simple enemy of the government that dared to say "no."

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    I saw a proposal to create a special court to review the cases if any Americans overseas. The evidence would have to meet certain standards and "adequate proof" that capture was not plausible.

    I agree with that approach as long as the committee was truly bi-partisan.
    Sometimes the evidence against an individual is so overwhelmingly blunt that due process would be moot. Anwar-al-Awlaki is a good example of that.

    Does someone who murders someone on video tape then goes bragging about it and admitting it proudly really need due process?

    It's not exactly like Anwar-al-Awlaki was shy about his plight....

  5. #15
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    and he sought a legal opinion to assist that determination when it was found that the enemy combatant was also of American birth
    and his decision appears consistent with the proffered legal reasoning
    So did Bush in many of the instances that legally defined his presidency. But I am far from believing that you view such legal opinions on par with law, or failed to see how such could be totally self serving

  6. #16
    Advisor TML's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    09-23-15 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    520

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Anwar-al-Awlaki was a terrorist and was guilty of treason - a charge that carries the death penalty.
    Article 3 Section 3
    “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court… …The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Sometimes the evidence against an individual is so overwhelmingly blunt that due process would be moot.
    How do you know what the evidence is if it was never presented in a court of law? Are you saying that media convictions, or the Executive simply saying so, under arbitrary legal precedent (as the OP points out) is sufficient?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    Does someone who murders someone on video tape then goes bragging about it and admitting it proudly really need due process?
    It is a crime that must be answered for, of course, but is targeting such a criminal for execution, prior to conviction, consistent with the rule of law? If someone murders someone else on video tape and then goes bragging about it, and admitting it proudly, do we really dismiss due process and execute him on the spot?

    I think the point of the OP was saying that the same civilian rights which exist in a time of peace, must yield to precedent in time of war. I can agree. However, that is what leads me to insist on a definition of who we are at war with, and if we are legitimately at war at all.

  7. #17
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Targeting terrorists in foreign lands require some extreme measures. If they were hiding out in Michigan...then they would have been entitled to protections of the Constitution and subject to the law of the land. By becoming a terrorist and hiding out in foreign lands...well...all I can say is "Nice shootin' Tex." Obama should ABSOLUTELY continue to target terrorists at home and abroad. The rules change based on the playing field. Would you have been aghast had a republican president aggressively targeted terrorists in other lands, regardless of nationality?
    If you don't respect the sovereignty of another country's territory, one that you are not at war with and are marginally friends with, how can you expect others to respect the sovereignty of your country's territory?

    It is perfectly acceptible to use an armed drone in Afghanistan to take out Taliban and Al Quida operatives whom you are at war with. It is also acceptible to take them out the same way when they are travelling or hiding out in disputed or lawless territories in neighboring countries, such as in the mountainous regions of Pakistan. It is, in my view, an entirely different circumstance to enter another country you are not at war with, thousands of miles away, using an armed drone, to take out an American citizen you suspect of terrorist activities. Not only is it terrible PR in the war to win "hearts and minds" to the justice of what America is doing, it is also a free pass for any other country to use the same technology to take out any other American, anywhere in the world, whom that country considers an enemy of their nation. Be prepared for drone attacks on American embassies and America economic interests throughout the world in the near future.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by TML View Post
    Article 3 Section 3
    “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court… …The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason”



    How do you know what the evidence is if it was never presented in a court of law? Are you saying that media convictions, or the Executive simply saying so, under arbitrary legal precedent (as the OP points out) is sufficient?



    It is a crime that must be answered for, of course, but is targeting such a criminal for execution, prior to conviction, consistent with the rule of law? If someone murders someone else on video tape and then goes bragging about it, and admitting it proudly, do we really dismiss due process and execute him on the spot?

    I think the point of the OP was saying that the same civilian rights which exist in a time of peace, must yield to precedent in time of war. I can agree. However, that is what leads me to insist on a definition of who we are at war with, and if we are legitimately at war at all.
    The problem is Anwar-al-Awlaki never denied what he did - he bragged about it - in my book that is an informal way of pleading guilty.

    Would it really have been necessary to charge him with treason, murder and conspiracy to commit murder (among a slew of charges)?

    We would have had to charge him, issue an arrest warrant - find him, capture him, bring him back to the US and once that impossible task was done and many were killed in the process, give Anwar-al-Awlaki a trial - which without question would be al-Awlaki on a soapbox....

    As a libertarian I'm all for going through the correct channels of due process but a situation like al-Awlaki is a totally different scenario and beast.

  9. #19
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,155

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    So did Bush in many of the instances that legally defined his presidency. But I am far from believing that you view such legal opinions on par with law, or failed to see how such could be totally self serving
    show that the legal opinion should be shelved because it is erroneous and i will default to the subsequent, correct legal opinion
    until that time, i would adopt the legal opinion which has been made available to be relied upon
    i suspect Obama would agree with that as would dicknbush
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: How a U.S. Citizen Came to Be in America’s Cross Hairs

    I think people are missing the broader picture where drone strikes against US citizens turned terrorist is concerned. As such, the "Constituational - value driven perception" that has formulated does tend to remain fixed in legalism rather than fighting against tyranny or subvertive efforts against your homeland. Put another way: "Where IS the line drawn between protecting the Constituational rights of Americans who happen to live abroad yet continue to espouse apersions against American national security interests and defending against tyranny?"

    It's a complex argument for sure. Let's ignore the first piece of the puzzle - who "created" Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen turned rouge Al-Qaeda propagandist. Forget for the moment that it all began with him first warning American Muslims about becoming unduly influenced by radical Muslims to fight against Americans. The question folks should really be asking themselves is "Why hasn't he come forward and turned himself in to U.S. authorities" so that he could be tried justly in U.S. courts for treason? People don't ask themselves such questions because they are concerned not with justice under the law, but rather which side is right and which is wrong based moreso on political ideology than adherence to the law.

    So, you have this American citizen who at first has good intentions but somewhere along the line things change; he turns to the dark side as it were and becomes a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda. He eludes capture several times with the aid of his Muslim broth'ren. Our intelligence agencies finally track him down held up in a safe house in Yeman, the central hub of Al-Qaeda communications and terrorist plot formulations. (See NOVA documentary, "The Spy Factory" for details)

    For those on the side of upholding al-Awlaki's "Bill of Rights", I would urge caution here. Let's not forget that in order to capture a fugitive of justice abroad you must have the cooperation of the foriegn government where the fugitive is in hiding. The Obama Administration had little cooperation from the Yemanise government until recently. But if you thing their uncooperative nature only began with the current Administration, go back to the Clinton-era post-USS Cole bombing and see just how cooperative things were. Then push forward throught the GWB years and see if that spirit of cooperation changed.

    On a personal note: I've struggle with the issue of drone strikes against Americans abroad for some time now, but only came to the conclusion recently that such strikes are justifiable but only after all other avenues to capture said fugative have been exsaulted. Think the American terrorist that was captured hiding out in an Al-Quaed training camp in Afghanistan when the War on Terror first began, John Phillip Walker Lindh. Notice from the Wiki bio where Lindh went to study Arabic prior to going to Afghanistan to fight against his fellow American soldiers...

    Yes, that's right: YEMEN!

    For those like myself who have concluded that when all else fails, go capture or kill the enemy where he may hide, I say there's only one difference between Lindh and al-Awlaki - we were able to capture Lindh (never knowing beforehand he was over there in the first place, mind you, but we did capture him) and as such were able to give him a fair trail. Thus, preserving his Constitutiona rights as an American citizen who turned against his fellow countrymen. We weren't so fortunate in our efforts to provide al-Awlaki this same right. Thus, when all else failed and the insurrection did not stop, our government authorized a drone strike to dispense justice. Now, for those who think all al-Awlaki did was exercise his 1st Amendment right to free speech, let me remind you that such rights STOP once you:

    1) flee the country;

    2) speak out against American national security interest;

    3) aid and abet the enemy;

    4) use the enemy as a sheild to protect you or elude capture; or,

    5) refuse to turn yourself in to the proper authorities.

    Taken together, I don't think the President had much choice. Frankly, I would rather we did capture the guy and give him his day in court, but apparently that wasn't possible. So, he got what he got.

    Case closed.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •