Anwar al-Awlaki killed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Its newish. <10 years old. Point is that it shouldn't be something to be tolerated.


Not what I said. If we all said it was ok to rape, does that make the make the act of rape in and of itself ok? Do you think it is perfectly fine to say that rape is bad in the US because we say it is bad, but it is ok in some tribal land where they think differently?

---

Why is it either bad or good in and of itself? How do we know? Why should we care?

Quote:

---

I believe what I believe because they are (or at least I try to have them be) logical conclusions stemming from undeniable axioms. Of course, you would probably deny them, but I doubt you would have a solid reason to refute them.

---

Undeniable? How so? "Logical" and "undeniable" are excuses.

Quote:

---

Not angered, not weary. Linear algebra wearies me when I have to do 5x5 matrixes all night long. This perspective intrigues me because it seems self defeating. If we all believed x was acceptable than it would be acceptable to us. So if we all believe that our standards and morals were not arbitrary, then our standards and morals are not arbitrary.

---

They would not be arbitrary - to us. Correct. What I said was tautological: if you believe something, you believe it.

I also said that arbitrariness is subjective - like your moral axioms.

Supposedly the Justice Dept issued a confidential ruling on this guy, stating that he was fair game. Not the same as a trial, but at least this was done within some sort of legal framework.

If we're going to get upset about the treatment of American citizens in the GWOT, I'd much rather get worked up about Jose Padilla, who appears to have been tortured until he went utterly insane. Sigh.

-edit-

Ah, here it is:

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said. [...]

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.

So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.

Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.

At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.

Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.

At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.

---

If you don't cry when somebody cuts of your head. Civil law isn't meant for a war. He chosed his path

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Why is it either bad or good in and of itself? How do we know? Why should we care?

---

Ahhh, I love the landscape where this is heading.

The human biology is on average probably well approximated by a constant. Human biology appears to have built-in concepts of innocence and justice, and so basing moral on moral feelings (and a bit of logic), we can deduce it objectively to be wrong when the victim is innocent. The subjective part is here the definition of moral. However, the definition used here is not abitrary, regardless of subjectivity. Arbitrary morals would let being e.g. the current weather decide whether the act you are currently thinking of is either moral or immoral.

As for rape as a bad thing in itself, that's a more complicated topic. In an eye for an eye-moral, rapists could get raped as punishment, just as murderers could get murdered (executed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.

Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.

At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.

---

So someone who helped to organise a few terrorist attacks, or attempted attacks in not fair game?

There is a big difference between someone who has committed a crime against other people and what you are describing. If he had his way, he would also attack you, since you are an infidel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.

Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.

At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.

---

I DO NOT believe this is ok. America has unequivocally failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

America has unequivocally failed.

---

Why is that, the backward blitzbeard is sucking goat:daisy: in hell, now the rest of them. Good show, one less

This is not how justice is supposed to be served. It is an absolute perversion of the laws that we have held ourselves too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.

---

I didn´t squeal about any of those things...the media did...but they have to fill up tv shows and newspapers somehow I guess....but they are internal matters of each country that make no practical difference to me.
as for the backpackers thing...that one is a joke....they were backpacking? really? in the Iran-Iraq border? when a cover story is made up it should be minimally reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Civil law isn't meant for a war. He chosed his path

---

exactly...the law is a polite logical construction for polite everyday situations in a society....there are circumstances when politeness goes out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

This is not how justice is supposed to be served. It is an absolute perversion of the laws that we have held ourselves too.

---

Oh. Just because he didn't roll of a Yemeni mountain doesn't mean he isn't your enemy. Why care where he hurt his head when his mother pooped him out

Quote:

---

as for the backpackers thing...that one is a joke....they were backpacking? really? in the Iran-Iraq border? when a cover story is made up it should be minimally reasonable.

---

Why not? There's a guy in our Persian class that plans to go walking in Iran as well.

Quote:

---

Oh. Just because he didn't roll of a Yemeni mountain doesn't mean he isn't your enemy. Why care where he hurt his head when his mother pooped him out

---

Ladies and gentlemen, western civilisation. Yes, 200+ years of humanistic philosophy have led to the fact that people on the internet can still go back to deterministic nonsense like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Ladies and gentlemen, western civilisation. Yes, 200+ years of humanistic philosophy have led to the fact that people on the internet can still go back to deterministic nonsense like this. [/COLOR]

---

Isn't like he was very secretlive about it. You really don't have to protect them all Hax, you are confused with Pokemon

The question is whether or not he himself posed any direct threat to the lives of others. If he did that, then there is the question of feasibility for the various options when it comes to stopping him. If physical detention is either 'impossible' (e.g. on a necessary time scale), an unacceptable risk to the servicemen that would apprehend him, or simply an enormous drain of resources, then taking him out in a drone strike is no different from shooting a hostage taker making a run for it with his hostage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Why not? There's a guy in our Persian class that plans to go walking in Iran as well.

---

I might have to redact my statement and take into account that serious mental illness is more prevalent that I thought it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So everyone agrees that this is ok. Just dont squeal like pickets when Russia next radiates someone or China nominates an ethnic minority leader as a terrorist. And do not cry about backpackers in Iran.

Don't complain in a generation when India and China knock off disidents internal and external.

At the top of your game you changed the rules for the worse. Perfect for the next superpower to play on.

---

Would you describe this guy as a "dissident"? Did we "nominate" him as a terrorist? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Isn't like he was very secretlive about it. You really don't have to protect them all Hax, you are confused with Pokemon

---

We don't convict, let alone execute, people without a trial. Make of that what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

[/COLOR]

We don't convict, let alone execute, people without a trial. Make of that what you will.

---

Got a better idea? Would kinda have to kidnap him to bring him on trial. And proffesional activists would be just as outraged over kidnapping him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Supposedly the Justice Dept issued a confidential ruling on this guy, stating that he was fair game. Not the same as a trial, but at least this was done within some sort of legal framework.

---

The Justice Department is the executive branch. The same guys who brought us enhanced interrogation techniques. This is essentially the prosecutors determining guilt and passing sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The Justice Department is the executive branch. The same guys who brought us enhanced interrogation techniques. This is essentially the prosecutors determining guilt and passing sentence.

---

Yah, I know this is not exactly great, but like I said, at least it was done inside some sort of legal framework. One which Congress should probably examine, and won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yah, I know this is not exactly great, but like I said, at least it was done inside some sort of legal framework. One which Congress should probably examine, and won't.

---

Justice Department doesn't really work inside legal frameworks. They just take words and redefined them to allow for any policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

We know that there are organised groups of armed men out in the world, planning terrorist attacks on other countries: notably the US, but also any "Western" or even vaguely "allied" state; unquestionably including my own (the UK). In essentials, I don't see such men as different from soldiers the US (the UK or whoever is their declared target) is at war with. I don't see a legal requirement to prove their status beyond reasonable doubt. I don't see a moral imperative to apprehend rather than kill them, if - as seems inevitable - trying to apprehend them would put the armed forces at greater danger. In moral terms, I see this as straightforward national defence in an on-going armed conflict.

If there is a serious case that Anwar al-Awlaki was not part of an organised group of armed men planning terrorist attacks, then I could start to share the condemnation in this thread. But I am not seeing that, here or elsewhere.

Maybe I am missing some subtlety, but when men start launching rockets or your own civilian airline planes at you, you are entitled to fire back.

Damn, I think I just signed up to the War on Terror. :wall:

Quote:

---

I might have to redact my statement and take into account that serious mental illness is more prevalent that I thought it seems.

---

Spoken like someone that doesn't know Iran at all.

Sure, walking along the border may just be a bit silly, but if you know the language and you steer well-clear off the borders, there ain't that much that can go wrong.

Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Spoken like someone that doesn't know Iran at all.

Sure, walking along the border may just be a bit silly, but if you know the language and you steer well-clear off the borders, there ain't that much that can go wrong.

---

This is true, if you don't ruffle any feathers you are perfectly safe there as a foreigner. Friends of mine went last year, and they had no problems whatsoever, nice pics

The law just hasn't caught up with the reality of war these days. It was designed for a time when conflict was primarily between sovereign states and doesn't take account for the nature of modern trans-national terrorist groups.

Killings such as this don't make me uncomfortable. It is sad that he died but I don't fear some sort of tyranny coming from it. The UK government took similar actions against members of Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries back in the day. We have yet to become a police state, in fact the 'liberties' the government took in that conflict never spilled over into areas of the law and country not affected by it, and things went back to normal after the ceasefires.

A blogger makes some good points:

What should the evidentiary standard be for determining an American citizen poses a threat even warranting discussion of assassination?

I'm not a lawyer. Not. A. Lawyer. So forgive me if there's a legal step that I'm missing.

But this is the question, the one that has to kick in before any of Ben's process — or anyone else's — gets applied. We know that Anwar al-Awlaki (and Samir Khan) are noxious propagandists who are obviously guilty of incitement to murder. We know this because of their public writings and videos. Is that enough to warrant assassination?

I refuse to accept the word of any member of the Obama administration that they are worse than that. When any member of the administration shows me evidence that they are, then I will consider that they are. But the stakes of killing an American citizen on the say-so of the government are, in my non-lawyer opinion, too grave to accept the mere assurance of a government official. To believe otherwise, in my non-lawyer opinion, is to be cavalier about both life and liberty.

Something must guard against President Whomever saying, "Oh, yeah, that guy's a dangerous terrorist. Order me up a double-tap." There must be evidence presented for that proposition. And then there must be a consideration of what the standards are for how great a threat a U.S. citizen represents. Then and only then can someone responsibly enter into a process like Ben's. I see nothing in Ben's process to guard against the whims of President Whomever; and that's the ballgame right there.

Quote:

---

My friend who goes under the Twitter pseudonym @RBStalin asked if a North Waziristan resident (and Pakistani citizen) has the right not to be Predator'd. All I know is that if the Constitution means anything, it means that Anwar Awlaki has more rights than that guy. You can kill Usama bin Laden all day long and I will never, ever have a problem with it. (I might even pay to see it happen, were it possible -- that is how deep my hatred for bin Laden runs.) But an American citizen must possess protections from government killing that a non-citizen lacks.

---

It seems completely absurd to me to act as if constitutional principles like that only apply to Americans. Why are some people only making a fuss now that it was a US citizen? That's not in the spirit of the constitution at all. Why does he think the constitution means that AA has more rights than someone else whose only difference is that he isn't technically an American citizen?? :dizzy2: That's only true in a legal sense.

Does he really not believe there are moral principles above what the law actually says?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?

---

But what did he actually do to deserve a death sentence from the executive branch? There is no open war, not in Yemen. To the best of my knowledge, the worst thing he might have done was to talk some poor Nigerian dude into setting his balls on fire while traveling one-way to Detroit.

The real question is clearly not about the assassination of American citizens on the orders of the executive. That has happened, or at least has been ordered to happen before (the soldiers who defected during the Korea war, IIRC). The question is can you live with the damage, the scope creep of the executive, that was implemented during Bush and is still going strong under Obama?

And if not how do you fix it? Who can fix it? The conservatives appointed by Bush to sway the courts towards silent assent with PATRIOT? The myopic crowd focused on birth certificates? Surely not ambitious politicians in Congress?