• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.


Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?
 
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

Has he lost his citizenship b/c of terrorist activity?
 
When you take up arms against your country, you lose all citizen's rights.

It's the Donovan McNabb rule.
 
When you take up arms against your country, you lose all citizen's rights.

It's the Donovan McNabb rule.

Um, no, you don't, not unless you brandish a deadly weapon within lethal distance of a citizen, soldier or peace officer.
 
Well here's the catch 22 of this whole terrorism thing regarding its place as either a matter of civil law enforcement or if its a military issue, or if its some of both.
If its a civil law enforcement issue, it would be illegal to tell police officers to go in with the explicit purpose to kill a person, regardless of how they acted when confronted.
However the "mission" to kill a person without trail can be accomplished by the military without being illegal, which is why no one bats an eye when people are killed by military personnel in conflicts without trail or any other reasons besides "he's wearing the wrong uniform."

So is this kind of terrorism, crime or an issue of national defense?

Personally, I rather issue an arrest warrant because I'm assuming that the case is strong enough because he has been declared guilty without trail. For example Saddam and Bin Laden were declared guilty without a trail, and if a military person kills Bin Laden its part of a war and thus no trail is necessary. I do think this cleric would fall under the "war" category, even being a US citizen. However I would still go with an arrest warrant because if can be caught then a trail is all for the better, he isn't a martyr and we can put him on display for everyone to see what we are fighting. If he cannot be captured without killing him, police should have enough firepower to accomplish that if he makes a last stand.
Lastly, police have much more experience operating in the US like this, and many times these cases are resolved through police work, something which the police are better at than the military, especially domestically. AND using police will not be controversial like using the military would be.

So the end result is the same either way, he's either killed by police or military, or captured and tried by the police or military. Either way the job will get done and the sentence will be undoubtedly be the same, but using police is less controversial and they are better equipped for the job.
 
Do we allow the government to define when we are no longer citizens then?

Why not? We should be able to strip citizenship based on one's personal actions.
 
Why not? We should be able to strip citizenship based on one's personal actions.

Because then there is little point to the designation of "citizen". Basically you're arguing that whenever it is convenient to the government, the government should not be bound by the rules, regulations, and constraints of the Constitution. I'm saying that's a dangerous mindset.
 
Because then there is little point to the designation of "citizen". Basically you're arguing that whenever it is convenient to the government, the government should not be bound by the rules, regulations, and constraints of the Constitution. I'm saying that's a dangerous mindset.

I'm not saying the GOVT should be able to arbitrarily strip citizenship for any reason. But a terrorist who has plotted against the US can hardly expect sympathy.
 
Because then there is little point to the designation of "citizen". Basically you're arguing that whenever it is convenient to the government, the government should not be bound by the rules, regulations, and constraints of the Constitution. I'm saying that's a dangerous mindset.

Welcome to the PATRIOT Act.
Told you it was a bad idea.
 
I'm not saying the GOVT should be able to arbitrarily strip citizenship for any reason. But a terrorist who has plotted against the US can hardly expect sympathy.

He doesn't have my sympathy.

He does have the same rights and protections as I do until they are stripped from him via due process in a court of law.
 
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

Unfortunately, where national security and terrorism are involved ... those lines blur.

If the scumbag in question is participating in attacks on the USS, he is a terrorist and he is subject to the treatment a terrorist receives.
 
Some of you might be of a mind to cheer, but before you do, consider this:

By what authority does President Obamacommand the US military?

That granted by the Constitution.

How is it not a violation of the 5th Amendment to hunt down and execute an American citizen without a trial?

I have mixed feelings about this. I do not think the government should be snatching US citizens off the street and assassinating them or sticking them in US secret prisons. On the other hand if that citizen left the country to go join up with some terrorist group then that is a different story like John Walker Lindh. Some one who has done something like that should not ever be considered a citizen because that individual has switched his allegiance and is no longer on American soil, he should be treated like any other terrorist.If that individual has not left the US then he should be afforded all the same rights as any other American.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, where national security and terrorism are involved ... those lines blur.

If the scumbag in question is participating in attacks on the USS, he is a terrorist and he is subject to the treatment a terrorist receives.

Um, no.

If he's not on deadly ground (i.e. pointing a lethal weapon at someone) and he is accused of participating in attacks on the US, he is entitled to a trial wherein his accusers may attempt to prove his guilt.
 
Two words enemy combatant. He stripped himself away of the rights to America by saying innocent Americans are fair game. The constitution allowed for Jesse James to be brought in dead or alive and he never left America. Its is a question of rights provided to American citizens but this guy hates everything America stands for and he clearly acts as well as let the world know his intent. Which is to destroy democracy and civilians with the aid of foriegn terrorist. Therefore he himself has picked which side of the battle he will fight and kill for so he can be killed as an enemy combatant because he had choice through American freedom and choose to be an enemy of no restraint to you and I.
 
Last edited:
I have mixed feelings about this. I do not think the government should be snatching US citizens off the street and assassinating them or sticking them in US secret prisons. On the other hand if that citizen left the country to go join up with some terrorist group then that is a different story like John Walker Lindh. Some one who has done something like that should not ever be considered a citizen because that individual has switched his allegiance and is no longer on American soil, he should be treated like any other terrorist.If that individual has not left the US then he should be afforded all the same rights as any other American.

If the President derives his authority to hunt down this cleric from the Constitution, then as a citizen of the United States this cleric enjoys the protections afforded any citizen by the Constitution.
 
Two words enemy combatant.

That is such a load of crap. You could maybe, maybe make the argument that someone firing a gun at American troops on foreign soil qualifies, you could maybe make the argument that non-citizens on the field of battle qualify, but never a citizen of the United States who is not actively engaging our troops.

He stripped himself away of the rights to America by saying innocent Americans are fair game.

Innocent Americans are fair game.

There, does that make me an enemy combatant too? :roll:

The constitution allowed for Jesse James to be brought in dead or alive and he never left America.

That's arguable.

Its is a question of rights provided to American citizens but this guy hates everything America stands for and he clearly acts as well as let the world know his intent.

That's exactly why we have to afford this guy the protections he so disdains -- because if we can strip him of his rights without due process, we can strip anyone of their rights without due process.
 
Wait a minute... I thought the big report that came out mentioned nothing of Muslim extremists? Wasn't Hasan just some pissed off American?
 
That is such a load of crap. You could maybe, maybe make the argument that someone firing a gun at American troops on foreign soil qualifies, you could maybe make the argument that non-citizens on the field of battle qualify, but never a citizen of the United States who is not actively engaging our troops.



Innocent Americans are fair game.

There, does that make me an enemy combatant too? :roll:.
It doesnt make you an enemy combantant because you are only expressing opinion. You live. But will probably go to jail lol if you persist. The man in question provides aid and contributes ideas which create situations for the demise of people just going about their day. We have already attacked this issue in regards to Hitler. Some of his men didnt kills the Jews but were held responsible for indirectly killing jews. The scientist, the philosophers, and the clergy. I get your point and it is a good one but Im sure government has evidence that condemns him to direct acts of killing troops or citizens politicians dont stick their necks out so easily.


.


That's exactly why we have to afford this guy the protections he so disdains -- because if we can strip him of his rights without due process, we can strip anyone of their rights without due process.
I understand your point and it makes complete sense. In fact you are right to protect Americans rights. But to say we will hunt and kill terrorist where ever they hide and then say this one guy we have to bring in alive is counter productive. Its dead or Alive because just the fact that he is American can recruit more Americans creating an atmosphere that is deadly to us. When an American can learn how to build a bomb then buy all the materials in the country and create death and destruction all because that person was treated differently because he was an American. A terrorist is a terrorist who seeks to harm all that is civil and just and justice must prevail. If he can be brought in alive than good but if not you have to take the shot. It is a slippery slope but there is evidence and thus fact so the fact remains that we will hunt and kill terrorist where ever they are.
 
Last edited:
This cleric was alleged to have counseled Hasan to do what he ultimately did.

Uhh.. Then if he allegedly did that maybe we should be signing orders to have him captured and questioned. Why is the instantly jumping to death?
 
The problem is... it's nigh impossible to serve him with an arrest warrant in Yemen. Pity the poor FBI agent who draws this crappy assignment.

Even the Yemeni military avoids certain renegade provinces. Very dangerous. This is why the CIA relies on Predator attacks in Yemen. It's the safest and possibly the only way to neutralize some very bad actors.
 
He was an active threat to the American nation, hence had to be taken out on the grounds of homeland security.

Nothing immoral there.
 
The problem is... it's nigh impossible to serve him with an arrest warrant in Yemen. Pity the poor FBI agent who draws this crappy assignment.

Even the Yemeni military avoids certain renegade provinces. Very dangerous. This is why the CIA relies on Predator attacks in Yemen. It's the safest and possibly the only way to neutralize some very bad actors.

What would Batman do? Sneak in there and snatch that mutha f'r with Operation Sky hook. We should all be more like Batman. :p

Stuff that is worth our effort though needs to be met with our own humans. If it isn't worth sending in special forces or troops then we shouldn't settle for oblivion via newage mindless dragons in the sky.
 
Back
Top Bottom