(no subject)

[thies.livejournal.com]

Using the constitution as toilet paper - again. The Obama administration authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki who holds US citizenship. There is some nefarious precedent being created by allowing the President to order the killing of American citizens, regardless of their alleged crimes, without granting them their 5th Amendment rights. Bush with his renditions, and the implications of the Patriot Act was bad enough, but ordering a US citizen to be assassinated as Obama now did takes it to a whole new level. I bet Stalin would be proud of Barry Soetoro. Anyone want to wager which other parts of the constitution will be considered void by Obama until he gets kicked out of the white house?

(source)

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

What did you wake up just yesterday and forget the past 8 years or so that we've been at war against islamic militants?

[thies.livejournal.com]

As just written in another comment: Khali Shaikh Muhammad gets a trial and isn't even a citizen. Nadil Hasan is a terrorist, citizen and is getting a trial. This guy is supposed to not get one. Eight years of war is now enough to disregard the constitutional rights of citizens? Nice.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

He is a terrorist. Your fundamental premise is wildly mistaken.

[thies.livejournal.com]

oh ok, so it is fine with you to disregard the constitutional rights of citizens and just execute them.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

now THAT is a strawman.

[thies.livejournal.com]

how so? the disregard for protections granted by the 5th amendment are the core argument. When arguing that, providing examples of were others received what Awlaki is being denied, the comeback was "he is a terrorist". The implication is that someone being accused of being a terrorist makes it ok to assassinate them.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

and you're suggesting Rukh is ok with it.

That's the strawman part.

[thies.livejournal.com]

From his previous comments I got the notion he is, his lack of outright stating his position one way or the other led to this post hoc/begging the question situation which isn't really a strawman.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

sigh. That's an assumption.

[thies.livejournal.com]

*ding ding ding* and not the diverging I'll-skullfuck-your-argument-and-twist-it-around-on-you-until-you-weep kinda strawman deal

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

We're at war with his organization. He's participated in murder and attempts at destroying the U.S. He's a traitor, a murderer, and military target. His U.S. citizenship doesn't make him a special snowflake.

I don't want the U.S. killing non-citizen innocents, I don't want the U.S. killing citizen innocents.

This guy is neither and I don't see how where he was born gives him more special privilege than Osama.

[thies.livejournal.com]

you got it backwards, his US citizenship grants him the same protections as any other citizen, there is nothing special about it.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

So a bunch of citizens could band together to create an army to try to kill civilians and overthrow the government, and the government wouldn't be able to kill or punish any of them until each had gone through a fair trial, just because they were citizens?

[thies.livejournal.com]

that is essentially correct. example: hutaree militia members who are accused of being in the process of doing just that, which is what they were arrested for about a week ago.

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

What if congress declared war against their group first? (I know we haven't technically done this for Al Qaeda, but just hypothetical)

Also, what in the constitution gives the government the right to kill non-citizens in any circumstances (eg, being at war)?

[thies.livejournal.com]

are we still talking a domestic group or a foreign group like al qaeda?

preamble of bill of rights "provide for the common defense" would be my first guess

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

For the hypothetical, a domestic group.

[thies.livejournal.com]

I don't think that'd be possible unless it is another civil war scenario where one/multiple states secede. Any group of civilians beyond a situation of that scope would be a criminal case and be about arrest instead of killing.

[thies.livejournal.com]

given how hard Fischer tried and failed to get rid of his citizenship I doubt this guy actually lost his

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

He's confessed, in his own words to helping with terrorism. He's been caught on tape counseling many terrorists, and he's well known as the primary recruiter for Al Quada. Its funny how many people suddenly want court cases for every single American enemy now that we have a democratic president.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Should make the trial a slam-dunk then. But it still needs to happen first.

Its funny how many people suddenly want court cases for every single American enemy now that we have a democratic president.

It's funny how many liberals don't any more.

And for reference, I've ALWAYS said that terrorists are not enemy combatants, they are mere criminals that need to be tried in court.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

It's funny how many liberals don't any more.

This. As someone who is against summary assassinations against those not engaged on the field of battle, regardless of who or what party has the White House, an ounce of consistency on the part of all would be a breath of fresh air.

After reading the comments in this thread, I am really disappointed in the decidedly 'meh' reaction to something which sets a new low in word parsing to break down the just barrier which compels the state to make a positive case before an independent judge before it can strip an individual of his liberty, let alone his life.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

oh my god why are you arguing that basic rule of law is a partisan issue