Anwar al-Awlaki killed

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Except it would be accepted, because it would be "collateral damage" just like every soldier's death in the War on Terror by now. By accepting the procedure all that will happen down the like when this becomes normalized is that people will ask the President to "double check his facts" next time and continue to go about their day sad that an innocent died, but accepting of the situation of "the world we live in" or some other horse**** that I hear people say all the time when deaths are reported.

People are divided on THIS guy. You think they'll accept it if someone innocent is killed?

We tried to assassinate Bin Laden without trial too. If we'd succeeded, what would you have said?

Disagree. Acceptance of the ability for one man to be judge, jury and executioner over anybody, citizen or not, makes a big significant link to the ideas that the Constitution was based upon.

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,"

There's the judge and jury part...but intentional misreadings aside, the Constitution is written so that the president has the ability to act. It's the point of the executive branch. He can send men into battle. There's a long history for that.

What is the difference? Constitution tries to approximate the principle of checks and balances and yet, one man deciding to take a life whenever he feels prudent doesn't run contrary to this?

Err, it has a system of checks and balances. But the principle behind that system is to create a government that can function but has restraints on it. Limiting a function is something that has to be answered for. Restraints are not inherently better.

And yes, my reasoning does make it a moral principle. It is our government, the government works for us. It does not decide what values we place on certain ideas or principles. We do.

It's not important what values we place on things. What matters is what's actually valuable. The south may not have valued equality, but...

This seems like a non sequitor. because I know you can't be saying, "People are too opinionated and stubborn. So just let the guys in charge handle everything and decide what is best all the time."

No more than you're saying "the government shouldn't decide everything, they should do a poll everytime"

[a completely inoffensive name]

People are divided on THIS guy. You think they'll accept it if someone innocent is killed?

Like I said, how many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed, and how many soldiers. They are all "collateral damage", to be lamented but not dwelled upon because there is a "bigger problem" at stake. When innocent US citizens start getting killed, how do you know that they won't be "collateral damage" either? I could argue that we already treat our neighbors as such in the war on drugs. US prison population is enormous, but at least we are keeping the kids safe from the pot, all those posts that CR makes in the police abuse thread are unfortunate but accepted.

We tried to assassinate Bin Laden without trial too. If we'd succeeded, what would you have said?

Same thing I said here, same thing I said in the OBL thread. Is the bloodshed of those we hate worth the downside of the process we now subject ourselves to?

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,"

There's the judge and jury part...but intentional misreadings aside, the Constitution is written so that the president has the ability to act. It's the point of the executive branch. He can send men into battle. There's a long history for that.

He has the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for Offenses as determined by the judicial branch. Are you telling me that as long as we perceive threats, the president has full reign to do as he pleases? Why bother have a judicial branch if the president is the judge and jury? No, I'm sorry Sasaki, I'm just not getting it this time around.

Err, it has a system of checks and balances. But the principle behind that system is to create a government that can function but has restraints on it. Limiting a function is something that has to be answered for. Restraints are not inherently better.

And why wouldn't the government function by simply having some sort of procedure for the president to satisfy before sending the assassins? I disagree on what needs to be answered for. Removing restrictions is what needs to be answered for. We do not start with unlimited power granted and work our way down. We start with no power and then we grant more and more power for the government to use accordingly based on proper reasoning, justification, and common sense towards political blowback domestically and internationally.

It's not important what values we place on things. What matters is what's actually valuable. The south may not have valued equality, but...

I see your point. But ultimately how valuable is safety, and why should we let safety triumph over an emphasis on due process? For more or less, the values the people subscribe to, in regards to what they take from the Founding Fathers are good, valuable ideas. Not great, certainly not perfect, but for the most part, roughly on target. Bad values like slavery under the pretense of "states rights" have been slowly removed in part of because of a greater adherence to the more valuable ideals, all men created equal, and whatnot. I really don't think this is that kind of situation here however.

No more than you're saying "the government shouldn't decide everything, they should do a poll everytime"

Well of course not. No where would I say that the public needs to vouch for every action, but this is about the life and death of individuals, guilty or not. This is not something to completely bow out of.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Like I said, how many people in Afghanistan and Iraq have been killed, and how many soldiers. They are all "collateral damage", to be lamented but not dwelled upon because there is a "bigger problem" at stake. When innocent US citizens start getting killed, how do you know that they won't be "collateral damage" either? I could argue that we already treat our neighbors as such in the war on drugs. US prison population is enormous, but at least we are keeping the kids safe from the pot, all those posts that CR makes in the police abuse thread are unfortunate but accepted.

But these are like my example, where I said this was at worst the war on terror being run badly and could at worst be criticized on those grounds. The same way you can criticize the war on drugs for targeting marijuana users. But the analogy to this case is the government busting a cocaine dealer overseas and you saying "Where will it end?"

Same thing I said here, same thing I said in the OBL thread. Is the bloodshed of those we hate worth the downside of the process we now subject ourselves to?

I don't see how you can see at as anything other than a huge positive.

Oh man, I was going to reply to the rest but I'll just stop at this one, there's too many quotes after all. You just said that if we'd killed Bin Laden back in the 90's, preventing 9/11, you would have said that his bloodshed was not worth the "downside of the process" that we subjected ourselves too.

You're trying to talk these downsides up into some giant proportions. You're being too abstract to think about it with any clarity. Try to describe things in realistic terms.

Don't say "safety" instead of "preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people". Don't say "bloodshed of those we hate" instead of "killing a terrorist leader who caused the deaths of thousands". Don't talk in wild terms about the president being allowed to do anything when what's at stake is a modest expansion of his powers to run a war.

There's a reason these things are done openly and talked about in speeches by the president you know

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see how you can see at as anything other than a huge positive. Oh man, I was going to reply to the rest but I'll just stop at this one, there's too many quotes after all. You just said that if we'd killed Bin Laden back in the 90's, preventing 9/11, you would have said that his bloodshed was not worth the "downside of the process" that we subjected ourselves too. You're trying to talk these downsides up into some giant proportions. You're being too abstract to think about it with any clarity. Try to describe things in realistic terms.Don't say "safety" instead of "preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people". Don't say "bloodshed of those we hate" instead of "killing a terrorist leader who caused the deaths of thousands". Don't talk in wild terms about the president being allowed to do anything when what's at stake is a modest expansion of his powers to run a war. There's a reason these things are done openly and talked about in speeches by the president you know

After looking back on my posts, I see that my terms are not the best or most accurate. I will re-evaluate what I have been saying later tonight, with the terms you are suggesting I use.

[Brenus]

“The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern.” Interesting reading…

So when UK was protecting the financial man involved in the attack in France (1995, Network of Khaled Khelkal), France would have been allowed to selective killing in the UK territory, or drone attack?

[econ21]

So when UK was protecting the financial man involved in the attack in France (1995, Network of Khaled Khelkal), France would have been allowed to selective killing in the UK territory, or drone attack?

Well, if the UK was like Yemen and David Cameron was suffering 40 degree burns after a terrorist bombing in London, two armored divisions had mutinied against him and much of the country was in open revolt, hundreds of people were dying every month in armed conflict, the financial man was protected by armed insurgents, France had drones and the UK did not, the financial man had planned to bring down airliners over France (after 3000 people died, when 3 airliners crashed into La Défense and Hotel de Brienne), then absolutely, en avant mes amis!

In such circumstances, I am sure we would declare it a Yemeni, I mean British operation.

On the other hand, if Britain were not like Yemen, then I would hope my country would assist in bringing the man to justice without the need for an outside military operation. I am sorry if that did not happen.

But I understand you are an ex-soldier, Brenus: how do you think governments should deal with AQ leaders such as OBL and al-Awlaki who take refuge in failed states? Would you send in drones and SEALS or would you wait for a French judge to issue an extradiction request? How do you understand French (or international) law in these kind of circumstances?

[These are genuine questions, not rhetorical.]

[Ronin]

So when UK was protecting the financial man involved in the attack in France (1995, Network of Khaled Khelkal), France would have been allowed to selective killing in the UK territory, or drone attack?

well...there is no "allowed"..because there is no authority to decide what is and isn´t allowed.
you either have the ability and the power to do something like that without being concerned about the consequences or you don´t.