http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/africa/yemen-radical-cleric/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
This totally won't set a dangerous precedent or anything
This totally won't set a dangerous precedent or anything
Oh cool, the US assassinated a citizen without a trial or anything
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
M
makare
Oh Charlie you so funny.
Yeah, and he was such an innocent nice guy too!
A more serious response: While I understand your concerns about setting precedent, I think in this case the US will be able to draw a line between a terrorist traitor and someone who disagrees with the administration. In a perfect world he would have been captured and brought to trial, but I don't think that was a valid option. So, the US did the next best thing.
A more serious response: While I understand your concerns about setting precedent, I think in this case the US will be able to draw a line between a terrorist traitor and someone who disagrees with the administration. In a perfect world he would have been captured and brought to trial, but I don't think that was a valid option. So, the US did the next best thing.
While he was a us citizen, and I fully understand the danger and outrage that such an act can cause in government relations among it's people, he was not a civilian. That is the important distinction.
While I don't like any killing, in the name of war or otherwise, I understand the reality if the world we live in. He was an enemy combatant.
While I don't like any killing, in the name of war or otherwise, I understand the reality if the world we live in. He was an enemy combatant.
I'm not championing a member of Al-Queda as a freedom fighter. I just don't like the idea that the government can straight up kill a citizen of the US without proving their guilt in a court of law.
For that matter, I don't think they SHOULD kill a citizen no matter how much they prove the guilt, but this is demonstrably worse.
For that matter, I don't think they SHOULD kill a citizen no matter how much they prove the guilt, but this is demonstrably worse.
C
Chibibar
I see where you are getting at.
I wonder how does the status of enemy combatant applies.
If we were in a civil war (today), everyone fighting in it is a citizen, wouldn't each fight have to stand trial? would the military have to hold court for each "enemy" citizen?
(I am being very serious cause it does set precedent.)
What about situations where US citizens go overseas and join opposing armies, leading them to attack US soldiers? While it is rare, it has happened. In that scenario is it okay for the military to kill a US citizen? And if that is okay, what is the main difference between that and Anwar al-Awlaki?
Maybe we were hitting the enemy combatants in the jeep with him.
sorry, sixpackshakerCNN said:
I've been following the story for a long time. Ever since he started popping up on the net recruiting people to kill Americans. Then he moved up to helping the people he recruited to kill Americans plan their attacks. Then the POTUS put the capture/kill order out on him.
But those were enemy combatants in the truck with him.
Sorry, Charlie a terrorist is dead.
But those were enemy combatants in the truck with him.
Sorry, Charlie a terrorist is dead.
This seems far too reasonable. Where is the real Gasbandit?
And for the record, Charlie, I'd like to see the abolishment of the death penalty too, but that's an entirely different discussion.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hey, you know me, in my ideal world the government works to limit itself.
Well, the citizen in question would probably lose every time. Think about it, what kind of lawyer would be willing to defend a reprehensible scumbag who wants to kill innocent people that won't be able to pay him?
I don't want to see what President Rick Perry nor any future president does with this power.
Assuming this is a "power" that will be used frequently by presidents in the future is a lot like saying that letting gay people get married will lead to marrying children and dogs. It's all the same slippery-slope fallacy.
GasBandit
Staff member
That we believe him impossible to defend does not mean we should forgo the trial.
C
Chibibar
Also we have to differentiate between oversea and U.S. soils. If this guy was on U.S. soil and assassinated, that is a whole different ball game.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, I don't believe that means we can forgo a trial, it means we have to have longer notice before the start of the trial. The decision to mark a US citizen for death, be it at home or abroad, should not be a decision made in back rooms, but in an open courtroom.
C
Chibibar
I agree with you there.
Well there are lawyers out there who will work pro bono. It probably be good experience for new lawyers to "get experience"
Dave
Staff member
I'm not sure i can get behind this. I understand it from a military point of view (sometimes it's impossible to ensure a target is alone) and agree that it probably had a lot to do with timing and when we could strike, but when you are ending someone's life without a trial you'd better be damned sure what you are doing. Just being with a person does not make you a bad person. And even if you are, is it enough that you should die because of it?
Actually we got 2 Americans with one Hellfire. Samir Khan was also in the vehicle. Maybe he should pick his traveling companion more wisely.
Is there any historical precedence for this?
C
Chibibar
Bad day to carpool.
In all seriousness, it is kinda scary that guilt by association. I mean what if (picking on Dave here) that Dave becomes enemy of the states, does this mean that everyone on this forum is also target dead by associating with him? what if we actually have a gathering at Dave's place to check out his TV and spending a weekend?
These were not people ignorant of who he was. I'm very sure if anyone here found out that Dave was a wanted person by a government entity, everyone with half a brain would distance themselves very quickly. Everyone here is acting like these people were with him, not knowing who he was or what he was doing. They weren't passengers, they were accomplices.
Of a government assassinating a citizen of it's own nation? I'd almost say that current world politics is an aberration in that this hasn't happened in a developed nation for a long time. Stuff like this used to be the norm: You'd speak out against the King and he'd send his soldiers out to murder you and your family in your sleep, then burn the house to the ground. Anyone who survived would have their titles and deeds stripped and essentially made an unperson. This was an expected reaction.
What are the laws that surround this issue?
Are we at war?
Have we declared him a traiter?
If we determine that he is aiding and abetting the enemy and causing the deaths of other US citizens, do we have the power to kill him?
How far away does a person have to be from a committed crime in oder to be implicated?
If he's holding a gun to the head of a citizen, we can kill him. If he's holding the phone to give the kill order to have a school bombed we can kill him. Both in order to prevent the immediate loss of human life. How far away from an incipient attack does he have to be before killing him becomes something that is "wrong"? How about actively training those who will carry out future attacks? Is that so far away from the "attack" that we aren't able to stop it?
What powers does the president have to revoke the citizenship of a person, or to target them, given the relatively recent patriot/terrorist acts that have been passed and updated over the last few decades?
This will be an interesting test case. Now that the kill has occurred, one or more lawsuits will surely be filed, and after a few years we will doubtless have our answer.
Are we at war?
Have we declared him a traiter?
If we determine that he is aiding and abetting the enemy and causing the deaths of other US citizens, do we have the power to kill him?
How far away does a person have to be from a committed crime in oder to be implicated?
If he's holding a gun to the head of a citizen, we can kill him. If he's holding the phone to give the kill order to have a school bombed we can kill him. Both in order to prevent the immediate loss of human life. How far away from an incipient attack does he have to be before killing him becomes something that is "wrong"? How about actively training those who will carry out future attacks? Is that so far away from the "attack" that we aren't able to stop it?
What powers does the president have to revoke the citizenship of a person, or to target them, given the relatively recent patriot/terrorist acts that have been passed and updated over the last few decades?
This will be an interesting test case. Now that the kill has occurred, one or more lawsuits will surely be filed, and after a few years we will doubtless have our answer.
I'd say that a legal case would primarily revolve around whether he committed treason, or if it can be shown that al qaida is a foreign army and that he served in them. But perhaps the patriot act give them more leeway in killing US citizens.
- Status