US citizen murdered by government without trial

Hmm...my question:

Was extradition and trial even a possibility?

The man was a direct, proven crafter of threats. I think extrajudicial killing of any terrorist threat should never be the preferred method of dealing with them...

On the other hand, my wife pointed out, had we captured and tried Bin Laden (would have been very tricky to catch him alive I think) Al'Qaeda would have gone into terror overdrive while the trial was going on.
This would have been bad in that things would have gotten nasty in the short-run.
Good in the long run though, now that I think about it.
The org would have shredded itself trying to get OBL out, and we'd end up having a lot more of them in the brig.

I guess the same could be said of this man, at least to some degree. So, I think I would have preferred him captured and tried, even though this would increase terrorist attacks for a time.

But Al-Awlaki was in hiding. Just because we knew where he was in time to blow him up does not mean we would have had time to get a team there to pick him up.

Did he have contacts in the government? If so, he would have fled before we got there, while we were getting permission to go in. Unless we just did it, like we did in Pakistan. Do y'all realize we basically invaded a nuclear power there? Just sayin'.

It's not that I don't have questions, but I need answers to those before I really judge this act. The rightness of the action falls on particulars for me.
 
@Chimpkin

But that's precisely my point, this guy wasn't mac-daddy, he didn't even register on the radar. He was a propagandist. Foreign intelligence organizations didn't even seem to know who he was, he was considered a 'low level common cleric'.

Yemen is one of the most cooperative nations there is in terms of US relations on what they will allow the US to do in their country, they surpass Saudi Arabia and Pakistan by leaps and bounds in how cooperative they are with the US on this issue. If the US had wanted him extradited since he was after all an American citizen that would have happened.

Why would trial be an issue with a guy who was so low level that other agencies didn't even think he was worth the time of day? If he was such a bad ass then why didn't the US even bother to place a charge against him?
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
I know its a long shot but I'll try. Does anyone here care that Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen, was targeted and killed by a drone for basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine?

Is there anyone left in the US besides the measly 6 congressmen who signed Kucinich's 'the government should not be able to kill its own citizens without due process' bill, care about the fact that the government, Obama's government, feels its okay to kill its own citizens without even a public trial? Hell even Bush never took such liberties.

It seems the punishment laid out against Osama is being unleashed all over the place.

If you believe that the tyranny you allow to be unleashed abroad eventually boomerang's back to the home-front then you should be concerned that a US citizen can be targeted and killed for his ideas.

Anyone? Anyone still in the land of the living? Or is pod action almost complete in creating zombie nation?
Click to expand...

You write as though this act was done in central park, and as if the person wasn't the at the top of the most wanted terrorist list.

In fact I'm glad that they got him.
 
Believe said:
You write as though this act was done in central park, and as if the person wasn't the at the top of the most wanted terrorist list.

In fact I'm glad that they got him.
Click to expand...

No. I am questioning why he wasn't given due process which the american system is based on. YOu say you are glad 'they got him' but you don't know why they got him, there were no charges presented by the US government so you are just accepting what the government tells you when they exercise this order. In other words the US government no longer needs due process to execute someone, they don't even need to wage charges. They just have to say so and so has done such and such and then they can kill him if they so choose, there is no oversight and they do not have to back up their argument with evidence in a court of law.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
I know its a long shot but I'll try. Does anyone here care that Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen, was targeted and killed by a drone for basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine?
Click to expand...

Except:

U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.

Pete Williams said:
Anderson, of American University's law school, said it's important to note that al-Awlaki was not targeted because of his role as an al-Qaida propagandist.

"The U.S. is not justifying this on the basis that it's going after him for incitement. He was being targeted because he had gone operational," Anderson said, adding that he believed the killing was entirely legal.
Click to expand...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...aki/Call-for-assassination-of-a-US-cartoonist

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
Except:

U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.



http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...aki/Call-for-assassination-of-a-US-cartoonist

Arthur
Click to expand...

They say they say they say, I'm saying they can 'say' whatever they like now because they don't have to present any evidence in a court of law. No due process. In other words we are supposed to accept whatever they say as a point of fact, they don't need to show evidence of their claim.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
No. I am questioning why he wasn't given due process which the american system is based on.
Click to expand...

U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force are legitimate MILITARY targets, even if they are not on a battlefield.

When you are a military target you no longer come under our legal system.

Which seems to be what you are asking for, that the military stop shooting people and arrest them instead.

Doesn't work that way.

Arthur
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
No.
Click to expand...

The better question is, why do YOU consider him to be a US citizen deserving of his rights as a US citizen considering what he has done. 3 terrorist plots linked to him and he's a senior al-Qaeda recruiter, I am totally ok with the CIA taking away his due process.
 
chimpkin said:
Hmm...my question:

Was extradition and trial even a possibility?
Click to expand...

No.
Our police don't work in Yemen so this isn't a legal issue.

It's a MILITARY issue.
Dealt with by the CIC of our military.

If you take up arms against the US, as Al Qaeda has done, then we can send a drone to blow your ass off the map and it doesn't matter if all you do is make the coffee for the big boys.

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
No.
Our police don't work in Yemen so this isn't a legal issue.

It's a MILITARY issue.
Dealt with by the CIC of our military.

If you take up arms against the US, as Al Qaeda has done, then we can send a drone to blow your ass off the map and it doesn't matter if all you do is make the coffee for the big boys.

Arthur
Click to expand...

Don't play naive, there are extraditions in countries where the US police or military are present ALL THE TIME! Shouldn't the government have to show evidence that a person is about to 'take up arms'? All we really know for a fact is that he published propaganda against the US, but even the charge of treason needs to be presented in a court of law.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Ok so are you down with that? Does your government have to justify anything to you, joe public, or are they simply to enact whatever they will above the people they govern?
Click to expand...

Yes.

And if the Congress thinks that Obama has turned rogue and is using his awesome power as CIC inappropriately, then they can impeach him.

Alternatively the people can dump him come Nov 2012.

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
Yes.

And if the Congress thinks that Obama has turned rogue and is using his awesome power as CIC inappropriately, then they can impeach him.

Alternatively the people can dump him come Nov 2012.

Arthur
Click to expand...

LOL! Really? They thought he went rogue when he invested in the Libya affair. Remember?

They can dump him but can they control who gets into office. I mean I'm just saying. And of course i asked you would you agree knowing full well you would, why would you change your MO. I understand that you would support it Adoucette, I just don't understand why. I mean I thought that being a conservative had something to do with backing your constitution and the rule of law but obviously those are obsolete functions concerning what guides US actions at home and abroad .
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Don't play naive, there are extraditions in countries where the US police or military are present ALL THE TIME! Shouldn't the government have to show evidence that a person is about to 'take up arms'? All we really know for a fact is that he published propaganda against the US, but even the charge of treason needs to be presented in a court of law.
Click to expand...

US police and the FBI have no jurisdicition outside the US.

Typically extraditions are because somebody did something illegal here and flees and the foreign govt arrests them and sends him back to the US for trial.

But this isn't a legal issue, this is a MILITARY issue.

Obama acted as head of our Military and called a tactical strike on an identified Combatant of the US.

And no, if you are an active member of Al Qaeda, you are a legitimate military target, no matter what your role is, just like if you are in the US Army in a war and all you do is drive a truck.

Your role is not important.

Arthur
 
Yanno...

For these people we claim are being treasonous overseas...no, THe US court does not do trial in absentia, do they?

I was thinking we could potentially try them in absentia at times when we can't capture them...when they appear to have committed treason. But no.
 
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
LOL! Really? They thought he went rogue when he invested in the Libya affair. Remember?

They can dump him but can they control who gets into office. I mean I'm just saying. And of course i asked you would you agree knowing full well you would, why would you change your MO. I understand that you would support it Adoucette, I just don't understand why. I mean I thought that being a conservative had something to do with backing your constitution and the rule of law but obviously those are obsolete functions concerning what guides US actions at home and abroad .
Click to expand...

They could impeach him in almost no time if they felt he deserved it.
Clearly they don't.

And I'm all about the Constitution.
So far I've not seen anything he has done that has violated any part of it.

What you don't seem to understand is that being part of Al Qaeda is sufficient by itself to find a drone's missile heading your way.

Arthur
 
adoucette said:
US police and the FBI have no jurisdicition outside the US.

Typically extraditions are because somebody did something illegal here and flees and the foreign govt arrests them and sends him back to the US for trial.

But this isn't a legal issue, this is a MILITARY issue.

Obama acted as head of our Military and called a tactical strike on an identified Combatant of the US.

And no, if you are an active member of Al Qaeda, you are a legitimate military target, no matter what your role is, just like if you are in the US Army in a war and all you do is drive a truck.

Your role is not important.

Arthur
Click to expand...

They don't need to, that's why there's such a thing as 'extradition'. You are wrong on what extradition entails, I know for a fact that breaking a law in foreign lands can also lead to extradition. That's what happens with pedophiles in Cambodia, they are charged in Cambodia and then extradited back to the US.

Now for the 'military' issue. Are you suggesting that military action is above the law? Above due process and the constitution itself? You are only a military target if you are a combatant, there was no evidence given that he was a combatant, but of course to prove that you would need due process wouldn't you? That's why they have this antiquated thing called 'due process'.

'Your' role is not important either, fascist systems often make the public and their wishes, desires, needs and concerns 'unimportant', that's how it works. That point you make is exactly why civil liberties are becoming more and more unimportant or at least of secondary order, a 'discretionary' concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top