Ron Paul NYT Editorial on Unconstitutional Killing

[chizzle]

Due process versus due process

Very good. We're starting on the right path here. We have a definition. Notice that is says nothing about trials.

The questions - were there proper proceedings, did Al Awlaki know of the proceedings, did he have the opportunity to be heard before the government took action, and was the law under which the actions were ordered and taken arbitrary.

1, Were there proper proceedings?

Yes

Contrary to assertions to the contrary, there was no "secret commission". At all times between January 2010 and September 2011 Al awalaki knew or should have known that an order for his capture or death was put out by the United States government. This determination was made based upon credible intelligence gathered by multiple intelligence agiencies from multiple states.

2. Did Al Awlaki know of the proceedings?

Yes

In January 2010 the government announced they would kill or capture Al Awlaki. This was an open air announcement. In April 2010 his father sued the United States trying to have the kill order recinded. In May 2010 his father's case was dismissed.

3. Did he have the opportunity to be heard before the government took action?

Yes

Al Awlaki knew of the determination made agianst him. At any time he could have turned himself in and submitted to the US justice system, facing the allegations against him. Instead he chose to evade American jurisdiction and continue to perpetuate war against the United States.

4. Was the law under which the actions were ordered and taken arbitrary?

No.

The law under which Al Awlaki was passed by Congress as a result of the attacks on 9/11. It authorized action against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as any and all combatants engaged in combat with the United States.

There. Due process.

While I don't always agree with SemperFi's posts, I do think he did a nice job of objectively laying out his argument here. My question would be, how does one decide if a terrorist that is an American citizen gets "due process" (i.e. arrest, trial, etc.) like Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kacynski, or that an American citizen gets "due process" (killed by a missle). It's not like McVeigh or Kacynski exactly surrendered themselves to the authorities either, so I'm curious as to where you think we should draw the line.

 

[chizzle]

While Ralph Nader isn't my favorite guy, here is an interview with him talking about this issue (half way through) and discussing Libya too.

http://youtu.be/f6k2SOaEWsw

 

[rambone]

While I don't always agree with SemperFi's posts, I do think he did a nice job of objectively laying out his argument here. My question would be, how does one decide if a terrorist that is an American citizen gets "due process" (i.e. arrest, trial, etc.) like Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kacynski, or that an American citizen gets "due process" (killed by a missle). It's not like McVeigh or Kacynski exactly surrendered themselves to the authorities either, so I'm curious as to where you think we should draw the line.

The same logic can be used to justify any summary execution. America is not supposed to be run like the mafia.

I gave him Due Process that he couldn't refuse.

 

[Bummer]

Due process has nothing to do with trials. You can receive a trail and not receive due process, and receive due process without a trial. Happens all the time.

I have no doubt you're absolutely correct. It does lead me to a question or two regarding the source of this authority, but I see no reason to drift that far from the original post.

Still, what you have there remains a series of excuses.

In the end, I don't care. Not my issue.

He wasn't indicted. He was determined to be at war with the United States by act and association. It's totally fine that you think we should have "chosen the High Road" as you put it. But the plain fact is that he engaged with an enemy of the United States in the time of war. We were not required to indict him. He was given due process. He paid for that decision. No liberty lost, no tears shed. Bad (terrorist, enemy combatant, whatever you want to call him), no virgins.

Yes. The War card. The Congress chose to sort of, but not exactly, declare war. Anything goes. I get it. I really don't need to hear the excuses. What's done is done.

Do I shed tears for Al Awlaki? Nope. For us? Yes. Even though many can not, or will not see it, individually they may lose their battle but together they did not lose their war. We have changed. That was their stated intent. Sure, we do it all the time, but this was a pretty large drop. We are not who we were. We are not who we like to tell ourselves we are. That's sad.

Oh, and regarding the virgins, the word in Al Qur'an is not gender specific. Could be girls. Could be boys. While I consider it one of several rank superstitions, I do find some amusement in thinking of these guys being chased around paradise by a mob of sexually frustrated teenage boys.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

"It was only legal if the citizen couldnt be taken alive"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/w...o-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1

 

[Bummer]

LOL - you can't be serious. The Spanish Inquisition took place in the 14th century.

I suppose I could have mentioned the snake kissers, but they don't seem to be much of a threat to anybody but themselves. Or I could have mentioned the Mormon penchant for sex with underage girls, but then that's not actually murder. I thought a bit of historical distance would be soothing for you, but since you insist: How about the guys who hang out in front of Women's Clinics and murder physicians? And Hitler claimed that he was doing God's Will. ("I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." - Mein Kampf) And there was more than one Inquisition. And how many murderers claim to be Christians? Less murderous than some? Yes, it would seem, but not always.

Muslims have been killing Christians in the name of islam since before that time, and they are still doing it.

Actually the whole purpose of Islam was to make Mohammad the ruler of all he surveyed, and killing everybody who did not bend a knee to his wild claims was a part of it. They've never simply picked on Christians, so ease off the martyr complex.

Come on, you gotta do better than that Mr. Bummer.

Seems you haven't learned yet.

 

[Bummer]

"It was only legal if the citizen couldnt be taken alive"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/w...o-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1

I've never seen a drone firing hellfires take prisoners.

 

[Zoub]

If you're in the bank still robbing it. If you manage to get home, the police will not bomb your house. Nothing has been put forward that awlaki was an active shooter -- ever. They'll surround it and attempt to take you alive. Bad example.

Like Waco?

If you have the ability to end a conflict peacebly and don't, don't assume the other side will either. There are no guarantees in life, not even the ones in writing that say we will try to take alive a fugitive from the law. If he was hiding behind the fact he was a citizen, the point was already made earlier that his Father lost that law suit 2010.

One thing is for sure, he will never directly have a hand in planning the death of others.

Nazi concentration camps had a lot of logistics experts, not everyone was a trigger puller but all were guilty of war crimes.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

While I don't always agree with SemperFi's posts, I do think he did a nice job of objectively laying out his argument here. My question would be, how does one decide if a terrorist that is an American citizen gets "due process" (i.e. arrest, trial, etc.) like Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kacynski, or that an American citizen gets "due process" (killed by a missle). It's not like McVeigh or Kacynski exactly surrendered themselves to the authorities either, so I'm curious as to where you think we should draw the line.

1. At the water's edge. NO ONE should EVER be targeted for death while inside the borders of the United States, no matter how heinous the crime.

2. Never against a mere criminal regardless of where they are in the world.

3. If the actor has engaged in executing war against the United States and there is credible evidence the actor intends to pepetrate future acts of war against the United States, they should not be safe anywhere in the world except on US soil or in the custody of a friendly nation state.

I've never seen a drone firing hellfires take prisoners.

You haven't? It's pretty awesome. They say "Halt or I'll shoot". Then they shoot.

 

[Bummer]

.. they should not be safe anywhere in the world except on US soil or in the custody of a friendly nation state.

So once we declare sorta war we get to invade anybody we want? That's pretty convenient. Just wondering how we'd react if it happened to us... Utterly irrelevant, I'm sure.

You haven't? It's pretty awesome. They say "Halt or I'll shoot". Then they shoot.

Nope. Hellfires are too new for me. Iron bombs, sparrows, folding-fin aerial rockets, tactical nukes (though I don't think they called them that at the time), yes. Hellfires were just beginning development as I was getting out.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So once we declare sorta war we get to invade anybody we want? That's pretty convenient. Just wondering how we'd react if it happened to us... Utterly irrelevant, I'm sure.



Nope. Hellfires are too new for me. Iron bombs, sparrows, folding-fin aerial rockets, tactical nukes (though I don't think they called them that at the time), yes. Hellfires were just beginning development as I was getting out.

Don't understand the obsession with "sorta war". There is not such thing as "sorta". It is or it isn't. Congress authorized the Commander in Chief to engage in military action in legislation. That satisfies constitutional requirements. Are you upset because the title wasn't "Declaration of War"?

I didn't say invade. There are many ways to tackle such problems short of a full blown invasion, wouldn't you concede?

How would we react? According to history we would return the favor. Why is that irrelevent?

 

[rambone]

"It was only legal if the citizen couldnt be taken alive"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/w...o-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1

Sounds like the flimsy excuse for "due process" was not even followed. The internet terrorist couldn't be taken alive? Seriously? Were they worried he would write a nasty email to them as they breached his door?

 

[Bummer]

Don't understand the obsession with "sorta war". There is not such thing as "sorta". It is or it isn't. Congress authorized the Commander in Chief to engage in military action in legislation. That satisfies constitutional requirements. Are you upset because the title wasn't "Declaration of War"?

Yes. The Congress wussed out as usual. Once upon a time a Declaration of War said so right in it, or in the title. Today, we have wishy washy go out and kill someone declarations. I don't care if legal scholars say it's ok, they're just making excuses because they make their money pretending law is more than the whim of the powerful. This is sorta war, the punk version.

I didn't say invade. There are many ways to tackle such problems short of a full blown invasion, wouldn't you concede?

Either you respect the other guy's borders or you don't. Invasion doesn't require everybody in a uniform.

What if someone bigger than you violated your property rights? I'm pretty sure you'd be more than a little upset and go on at length about how wrong they were for doing it.

Yes there are other ways. That was the choice I was talking about. We could have treated them like criminals. You didn't seem to like that choice.

How would we react? According to history we would return the favor. Why is that irrelevent?

Do you not get it? If we'd be full of righteous indignation if it happened to us, yet we do it to others... Well, there's a word for that - kind of long, starts with an h. Most folks find it rather unflattering. I know I'm not happy to have it apply to my Nation simply because people of low standards rule the day. (Referring to the President and Congress, of course.)

In this case the whatever of Yemen gave his ok. Pakistan, not so much. That doesn't matter because we're bigger than they are. Gotta wonder if that's why the whatever of Yemen gave his ok. Some folks are willing to let a bully walk on them in hopes of reducing the damage.

It's irrelevant because so few in this country care. We're the biggest bully on the block so we kick sand in everybody else's face. Plenty of folks swagger around defending it. We do them, then dare them to do back. Shameful.

 

[rambone]

Q: Can Obama legally kill you?

A: Yes. "Get over it."

This was apparently the first time a U.S. president targeted a U.S. citizen for death overseas, which has upset any number of people, ranging from liberals to Ron Paul.

To which I say, “Get over it.”

 

[rambone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXsbAcsuNoA

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

If this is due process, any of us are a government decree away from being an enemy and a target for assassination. The fact that they cloud this as "terrorism" makes all the sheeple roll over. The fact is that the US government, just assassinated a US citizen in a foreign country. This is murder plain and simple. Whoever approved this should be charged. IMHO we are witnessing this great country becoming a fascist dictator state and this is wholly unacceptable to me.

 

[Effingham]

So, again, I must ask.

When we shot Americans fighting for Germany or Italy in WW2, were those assassinations? Was the death of every Confederate soldier also an assassination?

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Some of you people amaze me. I don't know if you're just trying to stir the pot, or if you actually are as stupid as your posts indicate.

Fact: Muslims are murdering Christians as I type this, not vice versa.

Fact: There is no teaching of Jesus that suggests you should kill non-believers. On the contrary, Christ warned Christians that they would be persecuted and murdered.

Fact: 99.9% of terrorist acts are committed by muslims.

You can talk about the Spanish Inquisition, Timothy McVeigh, abortion clinic murderers, blah blah blah. The facts I have stated above are indisputable.

 

[GREEN607]

Q: Can Obama legally kill you?

A: Yes. "Get over it."

Depends on who you are, and what you are doing. Are you close to the line..............? I doubt it.

But, you are willing to defend an individual who had WAAAAAY crossed the line; had declared WAR against your country and it's people, including you; and an individual who would have gladly incited others to kill you, personally........... simply for your belief in liberty and individual freedom that you mistakenly feel you are defending in this thread.
Figure it out.

 

[CampingJosh]

So, again, I must ask.

When we shot Americans fighting for Germany or Italy in WW2, were those assassinations? Was the death of every Confederate soldier also an assassination?

Did the President of the United States say, "We're going to intentionally kill Freddie Schultz from Portland, Oregon, because we have reason to believe that he is fighting in the Nazi army. We're going to do it without any chance of surrender, and we're going to do it no matter what he's doing when we find him, even just walking to his car"?

No? Then I think there is a difference. Shooting whoever is currently shooting back at our soldiers is always OK. Even "good."
Intentionally attacking and killing a citizen while he is walking to his car? Murder. Not war. Murder.