Anwar al-Awlaki killed

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?

Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.

But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?

[PanzerJaeger]

What are the differences between al-Awlaki and a Confederate?

[a completely inoffensive name]

But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?

The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.

I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.

I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.

Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.

Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.

It is not at all being isolationist for simply wanting a procedure before an assassination. The change as I have said is in what we expect from government and how we expect it. Do we follow the ideal of checks and balances between government authorities or are we going to toss aside that idea for the sake of having safer lives? A benevolent dictator with the strength and power of the US, can keep us very, very safe. Do we want to push down that road though and leave the Constitution behind? Government and society are symbiotic in my opinion. By accepting a change in how government operates, the culture and people change as well. Even if it is to a small degree.

Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).

It is a moral principle to uphold the ideals of the Constitution since they are the ideals that Americans subscribe to. If those principles clash with the principles of keeping us safe by going after the terrorists, the latter not the former are overruled. It is not up to the government to change the way it operates under such pretenses. The change should only come from when America as a whole has decided to rid itself of some of those ideals in order for the government to operate as it has done. But America has not done that. The responsibility of safety does not allow government a justification for radically changing itself without the support of the citizens.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is not at all being isolationist for simply wanting a procedure before an assassination. The change as I have said is in what we expect from government and how we expect it. Do we follow the ideal of checks and balances between government authorities or are we going to toss aside that idea for the sake of having safer lives? A benevolent dictator with the strength and power of the US, can keep us very, very safe. Do we want to push down that road though and leave the Constitution behind? Government and society are symbiotic in my opinion. By accepting a change in how government operates, the culture and people change as well. Even if it is to a small degree.

No, I don't see how you connect the dots here. If we do a few more of these over the next few years, and then the US gov't kills someone without trial who doesn't deserve it, that won't be accepted. Why would it be?

The only thing at stake here is how we treat people like this guy, and how we deal with the terrorism issue. There's no significant link back to anything else from this. Possibly the acceptance of this will lead to some foreign policy/what have you mistakes. But that's a different argument.

It is a moral principle to uphold the ideals of the Constitution since they are the ideals that Americans subscribe to.

That's a bad principle. Instead we should uphold the principles that the Constitution tries to approximate with laws. And the fact that Americans subscribe to them certainly doesn't make it a moral principle.

If those principles clash with the principles of keeping us safe by going after the terrorists, the latter not the former are overruled. It is not up to the government to change the way it operates under such pretenses. The change should only come from when America as a whole has decided to rid itself of some of those ideals in order for the government to operate as it has done. But America has not done that. The responsibility of safety does not allow government a justification for radically changing itself without the support of the citizens.

America as a whole couldn't decide it's way out a paper bag. That's why we're a republic, not a democracy...

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, I don't see how you connect the dots here. If we do a few more of these over the next few years, and then the US gov't kills someone without trial who doesn't deserve it, that won't be accepted. Why would it be?

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.

The only thing at stake here is how we treat people like this guy, and how we deal with the terrorism issue. There's no significant link back to anything else from this. Possibly the acceptance of this will lead to some foreign policy/what have you mistakes. But that's a different argument.

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.

That's a bad principle. Instead we should uphold the principles that the Constitution tries to approximate with laws. And the fact that Americans subscribe to them certainly doesn't make it a moral principle.

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?

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.

America as a whole couldn't decide it's way out a paper bag. That's why we're a republic, not a democracy...

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."