The President does not have my support on this..

[Peacetrain]

Contrary to my Peacetrain moniker.. I am not a particular pacifist.. I just like the song.

But pre-emptive assassination, even of the vilest of criminals is not something I can support. Even in the heat of battle in a hot war, soldiers are called not to assassinate the enemies who have surrendered.

To capture Anwar al-Awlaki and try him, yes I am for that. If he were killed resisting arrest, I have no problem with that, (it was his choice)..

This is an American citizen. Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen, I could go on forever the despicable characters who are American citizens who deserve death, but have the protection of our constitution. A man or woman is innocent till proven guilty.

That is why we have laws as we do, to help us circumvent stormy seas of emotions in passionate times. It gives us a guideline, that we should not throw away so easily.

I am not a stupid person, I know our government like other goverments have carried out assassinations before. But it is not something we want, we promote, and we codify.

Maybe some government official misspoke. I do not know. But this is not a policy I will try and defend. Not now, not ever.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/07/feds-target-american-born-muslim-cleric-for-kill-or-capture/?hpt=T2

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. That's fine.

No one here expects you to. Frankly, I don't think it's a black-and-white situation at all. I don't agree with it, but I'm somewhat ambivalent and would've been if Bush did it with Adam Gadahn. I think where I part ways with the administration is the emphasis on killing him instead of prioritizing arrest and accepting it if he got killed in the pursuit of doing so.

The major difference between this situation and McVeigh is that McVeigh wasn't joining a foreign group at war with the United States operating in a war zone. I'm not saying that's apples and oranges, but it's fairly close in my opinion. The enormous shades of gray in this situation is what causes my ambivalence. Either way, I'm not going to criticize anyone on either side of the debate (within the boundaries of reason) - they both have merits.

[DevonRex]

2. I haven't made up my mind on this completely, but...

This is something I posted earlier today, and put in my journal, about this issue:

AFAIK he has not been charged with treason, so delving into the
process of law required to prove treason and punish him for it if convicted is not relevant here. It's a distraction from the real issue.

The ACLU says we need more information on how a person is put on this list and I agree with that. From a Common Dreams article posted here earlier, which doesn't give a link to this ACLU statement:

"The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today's report raises serious questions about the legal standards that govern targeted killings. The American public deserves to know what standard the government uses and how much evidence is required when it decides, in the name of self-defense or otherwise, to place U.S. citizens on a kill list. In order to assess the moral, legal and strategic implications of the program, the public also needs information about how the program is overseen and what its consequences are in terms of civilian casualties." "


From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/mi...

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

From WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

"He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." The official stressed that there are "careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens."

Aulaqi corresponded by e-mail with Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., last year. Aulaqi is not believed to have helped plan the attack, although he praised Hasan in an online posting for carrying it out.

Concern grew about the cleric's role after he was linked to the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day by detonating an explosive device he had smuggled in his underwear. Aulaqi acknowledged teaching and corresponding with the Nigerian but denied ordering the attack.

From the LAT: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/31/wo...

"Over the past several years, Awlaki has gone from propagandist to recruiter to operational player," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official.

Awlaki's status as a U.S. citizen requires special consideration, according to former officials familiar with the criteria for the CIA's targeted killing program. But while Awlaki has not yet been placed on the CIA list, the officials said it is all but certain that he will be added because of the threat he poses.

"If an American is stupid enough to make cause with terrorists abroad, to frequent their camps and take part in their plans, he or she can't expect their citizenship to work as a magic shield," said another U.S. official. "If you join the enemy, you join your fate to his."

[Arkana]

3. I would have been more comfortable with a "kill or capture" order

but I can understand their thought process.

And it's certainly not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

[NJmaverick]

4. I have been pondering this issue for some time

I consider this:

In the Civil War Union soldiers shot and killed American citizens (who had joined the confederacy) regularly. Trials were not an issue.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that Al Qaeda is at war with the US. So attacking and killing members of that group would fall under the standard operations of war.


On the other hand it is troubling to think that a President can put citizens on a list to be killed.

So I think what we have here is a conflict of moral and ethical principles. The principle to protect the lives on innocent Americans is coming into conflict with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that Al Qaeda avoids the conventions of standard warfare, like wearing uniforms, makes it all the more difficult.


Now on a practical level you had other considerations

Al Qaeda's tactics and operations makes it nearly impossible to capture and try their ranking officers

The intelligence is being provided by the same agencies that either misreported or allowed their information to be twisted into selling the American public on Iraqi WMDS


Now I also have some of my own personal beliefs:

If you join a group at war with our nation your actions should be construed as effectively renouncing your citizenship and all rights that go with that.


Now while I would feel more comfortable with completely objective standards that ruled who could and couldn't be targeted, I just don't see that as practical.

So we are left with the option of allowing former US citizens operate with impunity in their efforts to kill our citizens and destroy our nation

OR

We allow the President to exercise some judgment when it comes to these rare situations.

In this particular case what I find telling is that the issue is news world wide. Anwar al-Awlak has not issued any sort of statement (We have seen Al Qaeda is skilled at releasing statements) where he disputes his activities or denies the accusations against him. So considering the evidence against him and his failure to dispute any of the charges or accusations, I think it's reasonable and prudent to take him out before he can kill any more Americans or other innocents.

[treestar]

5. I'm going to find out more before deciding anything

Because I know on this board they are ready to jump to conclusions about things that turn out to be routine.

For one thing, I don't care about citizenship, everyone has rights, so if this guy has the right to a trial first, so does Osama and any other member of Al Qaeda.

[quiet.american]

6. Peacetrain, I see your side of it, but agree with the views expressed so far in this thread. nt

[grantcart]

7. His citizenship is completely irrlevent

He is a declared combatant and has entered the field of war and wants to kill you and your wife to make a political point.

Assuming that the statement in the article is true:

"We would be remiss if we didn't find ways to pursue someone who is a serious threat to this country and has plotted against Americans," the official said.


He is a significant part of an operation to kill Americans and as such the President should be impeached if he didn't go after him.

This isn't like going after Saddam Hussein who was not attacking Americans and was not a threat, this guy was the designer of the Christmas Day bomber and the evidence of his involvement comes from the testimony of the bomber.

Killing American citizens who are a credible threat is a common, almost daily occurence.

In San Diego Sunday police shot and killed an American citizen

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Family-of-Poway-Shooting-Victims-May-Sue-the/Gl7omag4zUGuCpJ6Ori1xQ.cspx

Investigators say Robert Reed opened fire on Mitch and Dianne Cunnyngham's home (map A) as they celebrated Easter Sunday with their family including their 8-year-old granddaughter. The couple was killed.

Minutes after the murders, Sheriff Deputies arrived at Reed's home (map B), shooting and killing Reed after investigators say he refused to put down his gun.

The man had a history of advocating violence, had been involved in violence in the past and was known to have been involved in murder. The police tried to get him to surrender and when he didn't shot him.


It is an on point comparison for the case Anwar al-Awlaki. Try to get him to surrender but if he resists kill him.

And like the police shooting there should be a review outside of the Executive branch to ensure that it meets a legal standard.

Now if your still not convinced imagine that you next week your children are on a plane next week and sitting next to them is someone who has a device from Yemen.

Adherence to a rule of law is not an invitation to suicide. In the face of a real threat the President has the right to take action, in fact it his duty. People in GD and GDP who compare this with what Bush did are simply advertising their own ignorance. That he is an American citizen is irrelevent, that he is a trying to kill American citizens is.

[sandnsea]

8. Sending drones to take out terrorists, IS assassination

That's the same as a sniper and I've got no problem with it in the midst of a war. I certainly don't condone random assassination all over the world, but within the confines of a war zone or war, I support it.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I went to the link you provide,

and I ask, who is this "the official" that made the statement?
Do we now have more information on this?
Is there someone with a name attached who has declared this as the directive from Pres. Obama?

I haven't been following(I'm busy right now/taxes),
but thus far, I suspect there is more to this muddled message.

When did this news break? Was it before or after Barack Obama left the country
for Prague?

Shouldn't we first wait to see what Pres. Obama is saying on this,
prior to choosing sides?

Personally, I don't believe it would be wise for the administration to come out
and make such a statement, because I don't believe that this President looks upon
the constitution in that way......and so, until futher clarification,
I will register as questioning the veracity and accuracy of such.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. Kill or capture....

If they can take him alive, they can. If Awlaki places himself in a situation where killing him is the only reasonable option (i.e., surrounded by armed guard), then he gets killed.

I really don't see the outrage here. Awlaki is considered an enemy combatant, regardless of his citizenship (which I'm sure he has long-since renounced) and so he shouldn't be treated any differently.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. The article appears to say "Kill OR Capture"

I didn't see anything about straight-up "pre-emptive assassination". Why would President Obama order Anwar Al-Awlaki to be killed OR captured if he didn't have any plans to at least TRY to take them alive? Isn't that basically what police do everybody with violent suspects? Isn't "Dead or Alive" bascially standard procedure? :shrug: What's the controversy exactly-based on linked article?

[Cha]

12. Yes, we have to be careful

of not falling into the trap that's set by so many who are just itching for the chance to jump on something reported in the "news" to make the President look bad.

They have to fill that red meat quota and get those bucks flowing into their coffers, doncha know.

"Kill or capture" does not mean assassinate..and who the hell said this anyway?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. I've been following this "manufactroversy" for the past week but not fully understood it

There seems to be a tendency for some people to quickly jump on an inflammatory article that claims that President Obama is doing something "Bushian" (or worse) but completely leaving out the context of whatever news article they're citing and/or adding a dash of speculation to make things seems worse than they really are.
President Obama is certainly no liberal/progressive hero (nor did I expect him to be) however he is NOT "Bushian" by any objective standards. Even GWB was only continuing some of what Clinton was already doing (although he got too late of a start IMHO) in regards to fighting terrorism although his neocon cronies (presumably with his consent) pushed things WAY too far- to the point GWB apparently realized that things had gone too far and he cleaned out most of his (mis-)administration of neocon cabal and started pulling back on some of the overreach during his *second* term in office.
To me, issuing kill or capture (or capture or kill depending on how you want to look at it) orders seems like standard practice to me and is little different than what happens when police officers confront violent suspects. Attempt to apprehend/capture, kill if necessary (in order to protect themselves and/or ensure public safety).
I think that some people are (over-)reacting because of the fact that the aforementioned (alleged) terrorist is an American citizen but as I understand it, the military is still not treating this guy any differently than local police might. Now, if and when President Obama (or any future POTUS) unleashes the military on suspects residing here in the US and/or targets an American citizen for what genuine "pre-emptive" assassination, then I'll start worrying. Until then, this is nothing new IMHO.

[Cha]

14. Thanks for addressing this PLD.

There's an op in another forum now that's making this false claim..it's too much for them to only deal in facts..where's the red meat in that?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. There have been several threads/articles about this on several blogs/websites

You're right about facts- not fun, which is a HUGH reason the corporate media sucks!!! :puke:

[Cha]

16. Yes, it's like they don't know the difference between assassination..

and "Kill or Capture"..willfully ignorant, perhaps?

And, those with an agenda just run with it. "Assassinate"? Where do they get "assassinate" from kill or capture?

It's more attention getting..it's more red meat and controversary for their readers..but nothing to do with reality.

In the end..they can go with their fiction but that's all they'll be left with when the reality exposes them for the fraudulent barkers they are.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. Who honestly just comes right out and PUBLICLY orders ASSASSINATION anyway????

Even George W. Bush (*ugh* I hate to say it) probably wouldn't even publicly call for somebody's assassination (the closest I believe he's come is to call for Bin Laden "Dead or Alive"- which is actually pretty much the same as "Kill or Capture"). President Obama- a much smarter (and sane) person- DEFINITELY wouldn't!

[Cha]

18. Good point..but those who

don't know him or want to..don't even stop to think about that.

Thanks for the sanity..I needed that.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. Glad to offer it

I need some respite myself at times