(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

[thies.livejournal.com]

and down the slippery slope to a fascist police state we go!

He is a US citizen. Justice is blind and he has the same rights under the constitution as any other citizen. If he is a terrorist, it can and should be proven in court.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Agreed. And this isn't the first step down that slippery slope. The first step is when we called terrorists "enemy combatants" and stopped treating it as a criminal matter.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Hmm, That definition would have fit for "Victor Charlie" too, not the guys who came down from the North. Trust me those terrorists (which they were) were also enemy combatants. Perhaps the law can define guerrila warfare as terrorism as opposed to actual warfare but then if it does "the law is a ass"*
(sorry, I just don't agree terrorism is a "criminal act)

*Dickens not snark (as you prbly know :D)

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Guerilla warfare and targeting civilian populations in asymmetric strikes are two different things. Was Tim McVeigh an enemy combatant? Why didn't we gun him down instead of arresting and trying him?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily in real life, perhaps the law has different definitions.
All guerilla warfare means is not fighting pitched battles.

If he would have been caught in the act or even fleeing the scene, he prly would have been. Altho, yeah, he was. Meh symmetrical strikes against civilian populations (Dresden fire-bombing, the London blitz) are no different. War is war, and you fight it how you can. And you better by gosh be fighting to win, because you can bet your life the other guy is.

Actually comparing TMV with a member of an organized group that has to all intents and purposes declared war is like comparing apples and rutabagas.

I will grant you one can parse all you want, and the law has a tendency to do that, but it's like a friend of mine, who worked in the anti-gang units said, it may only be a police action but it seems like a war to me.

Sorry I'm on a rant. I greatly respect what you bring to the discussions, and I mean no disrespect, I freely admit this is a hot button for me.

[thies.livejournal.com]

Dresden bombing isn't the best case as there were german military units present in the city at the time which was employed as legitimization. Of course the stated intent was to demoralize the enemy through massive devastation of centers of civilian populations. I'm quite sure the same justification could be applied to bombing London though. Look hard enough and any city during war time contains elements of the armed forces.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I know, I suppose there can be a military justification for most anything during a "real war". My point was any war, even an undeclared war, (which this isn't really) one does what is necessary to win. Probably the better example would have been the dropping of the atomic bombs. The problem with that is too many people 60 years after the fact feel that was unnecessary, and was in fact terrorism. You see my point isn't to fault them for the way they are waging their war, my point is, is that they are enemy combatants, even if they happen to have US citizenship.
I'm not even arguing you (and *new_machine*) don't have good points. I just think you are wrong. (note: before VN got mentioned my main comment was more for clarification.....I pretty much planned on staying out of it ;) )

[thies.livejournal.com]

different times, different wars. Toppling an empire armed to the teeth at the other end of the world 60 years ago? Two nukes made that far faster than fighting it out in a landing operation and fighting your way across the country.

A few individuals without an army hiding in third world countries? I really don't see what the problem should be in trying to taking them into custody once they are found as opposed to shooting them.

And they can have secondary labels applied to them all day, this guy remains a US citizen and the protection of the BIll of Rights apply to him.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Actually comparing TMV with a member of an organized group that has to all intents and purposes declared war is like comparing apples and rutabagas.

Well, he was a member of the anti-government militia movement, and though I'm not aware of any specific declarations of war on the part of those movements, I'd wager that many of them would agree that they are willing to commit acts of war on the US government.

it may only be a police action but it seems like a war to me.
Well, sorta. I mean, there are certainly a lot of military tactics used in anti-gang enforcement efforts (see SWAT teams, use of intelligence operatives/undercover agents/CIs, etc.) but in the end, drug dealers and gang bangers get trials, with juries, free counsel, and all the rights and privileges of every other US citizen.

I guess my main argument would be that justice and defense are separate, and justice has a value far beyond mere defense. To do justice one must prove for all to see that the accused is guilty, and apply a punishment that represents society's judgment. Sure, the justice system may not be perfect for that goal, but it does it a helluvalot better than a sniper does. The role of defense is to see to it that the nation does not perish. The role of justice is to keep it vital. Now if you really think this guy is an existential threat to the United States, then I'd say sure, take him out. But he's not. He's a cleric, with some awful ideas and an unfortunately receptive audience. Killing him will not save the nation, though it may save some lives. Apprehending and trying him helps to preserve what the nation's about, though. At least in my eyes.

I dunno, call me a doe-eyed idealist, but the justice system has a value beyond mere deterrence and process.