Thread: Obama approves the killing of an American citizen.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

High value enemy target? Nothing about him appears to be high value except that he was American, possibly an enemy.

According to Wiki, he's a "regional commander" for Al-Qaeda who is responsible for recruitment and training. He also had close ties with three 9/11 hijackers, the Nigerian shoe-bomber and that guy who killed a bunch of soldiers on the military base in Texas.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

According to Wiki, he's a "regional commander" for Al-Qaeda who is responsible for recruitment and training. He also had close ties with three 9/11 hijackers, the Nigerian shoe-bomber and that guy who killed a bunch of soldiers on the military base in Texas.

Wow, you used wiki as a reliable source of information?

Really?

Anyways, how long has he been mentioned in the media? After he was killed? If not, how long before he was killed was he mentioned in the media?

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Wow, you used wiki as a reliable source of information?

Really?

Anyways, how long has he been mentioned in the media? After he was killed? If not, how long before he was killed was he mentioned in the media?

If you need a more specific source...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-1938723.html

US terror investigators have become convinced that since going into hiding in Yemen, Awlaki has become highly active as the effective chief of al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate in Yemen and Saudi Arabia to the main terror network based in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The focus on Awlaki intensified after links were found between him and Major Nidal Hassan, who was charged with the killing of 13 people at the Fort Hood army base in Texas last year, and with the young Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day.

It doesn't matter how many sources you list, because all of them got their information from the same source; the CIA. It all comes down to whether or not you trust the CIA. They don't have a very good track record;

http://www.enotes.com/central-intelligence-article

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9703a/ciaconfront.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and...king_in_the_US

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

It doesn't matter how many sources you list, because all of them got their information from the same source; the CIA. It all comes down to whether or not you trust the CIA. They don't have a very good track record;

http://www.enotes.com/central-intelligence-article

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9703a/ciaconfront.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and...king_in_the_US

All the commotion isn't because his terrorist activities are in doubt, it's because he's US born. Americans shouldn't show any more leniency or attention to detail towards him than any other terrorist.

Right, we don't care when we kill someone from another country whether they are guilty or not. This is evidenced by the massive amounts of civilian casualties we are willing to cause. The whole reason why it is an issue that he is American is because he did not get a trial. If it wasn't a possibility that he might be innocent, then a trial would not be an issue.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

he did not get a trial.

According to your government, he's not a criminal, he's an unlawful combatant. Why should he get a trial and other terrorists get remorselessly assassinated?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

According to your government, he's not a criminal, he's an unlawful combatant. Why should he get a trial and other terrorists get remorselessly assassinated?

I don't agree with any of it. The issue with him being an American is that it sets a precedent in the minds of the American people so that now any of us could potentially be targeted. If I say things the government doesn't like, and then figure out I've been marked and successfully flee the country, I now know my countrymen won't give two shits if the government hunts me down and drops a bomb on my head.

It was already legal for the government to label anyone they want an unlawful combatant under the patriot act. The issue is not what the government is doing, it is how the American people are reacting, or not reacting. We have been successfully coraled, and there is virtually nothing that will incite us to stand up for ourselves, short of complete overt totalitarian take over; and if it goes that far it will already be too late.

Personally, I don't see how nationality fits in here at all. It's about actions and where those actions take place. The US constitution does not protect him in Yemen. The military isn't hunting him down because of what he did in the US (as if he was trying to escape prosecution there), but for his ongoing activities in a war zone.

What if Bin Laden, the indisputable leader of Al-Qaeda was American born. Intelligence gives you reliable evidence that he's in a house, but will leave before any ground forces could get to him, so your only option is an air strike or you risk losing him altogether. Would you proceed or not?

Originally Posted by juroara

I'm gonna have to agree with spartiate on this one. I'm not saying I think we should kill this person. All I am saying is this is how the system works. It's how it's always worked.

Our justice system can't just march in a soverign country and say "Okay were going to drag this person back to our country to put them on trial, thanks".

Marc Emery.

Also, I tend to think anything the CIA says has to be taken with a grain of salt. As Xaqaria pointed out they have a horrendous history of lying.
I'd also question their motives for even telling anybody about this. Fear is the only reason I can think of. Next it will be an American citisen living in America and people won't even ask to see the proof.
Hell, they'd probably call the CIA if they saw him.

Originally Posted by tommo

Next it will be an American citisen living in America and people won't even ask to see the proof.

This is the problem. People are terrified that things will escalate out of reason, but it is rarely so.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

This is the problem. People are terrified that things will escalate out of reason, but it is rarely so.

It's almost always so. Overpowering zealots are the reason for the downfall of most societies. Let them get away with one thing and they'll realise they can get away with anything. Every war in history was entered in to by leaders of some form making other people think they are in danger. Fear is a strong motive to not care about anyone but yourself.

Originally Posted by tommo

It's almost always so. Overpowering zealots are the reason for the downfall of most societies. Let them get away with one thing and they'll realise they can get away with anything. Every war in history was entered in to by leaders of some form making other people think they are in danger. Fear is a strong motive to not care about anyone but yourself.

Three times has there been instances of martial law in my country. My parents remember when tanks roamed the streets and curfews were imposed. Yet every time, democratic powers were restored once the crisis had passed. Even I can think of times when the military was called upon to police my fellow citizens during my brief life. We've had anti-hate crime laws for decades now and there is no such thing as a right to bear arms. Yet this remains one of the most democratic and free societies on the planet.

I don't know if it has to do with the structure of our government, but some things that alarmists go apeshit over in other countries have come and passed here and society is all the better for it.

Well Canadian (?) government is much better than American government. They actually care about the people somewhat.

Should one be treated based upon how they act, or based upon the title they carry? Isn't that essentially the point this thread is raising?

Originally Posted by tommo

I tend to think anything the CIA says has to be taken with a grain of salt. As Xaqaria pointed out they have a horrendous history of lying.

Yes, they do. The CIA can pretty much say what ever, who's going to fact check them when the facts are top secret? I'm not saying I agree with what's going on, because I don't even agree with this war. All I am saying is, what is happening here isn't some new crazy law. It's well within the laws that are already established.

Some people are reading as meaning the government can suddenly target any american here in the states without our right our trial. No, they can't, at least, not legally. We are still protected, this activity changes NOTHING. What's happening is only happening because this man is in another country, and his 'crimes' are happening within this other country. If he had committed these crimes IN america and then fled to another country - then he has a right to trial.

It's because of this unique situation that LEGALLY he has lost his right to trial as protected underneath our constitution. That is NOT new. The real issue isn't about us being targeted by the government. This situation does not give the government the power to do so. I find the real issue has to do with information. Do we know without a doubt that this man has committed the crimes our Intelligence says he has?. . . How can we ever know?

Originally Posted by juroara

What's happening is only happening because this man is in another country, and his 'crimes' are happening within this other country. If he had committed these crimes IN america and then fled to another country - then he has a right to trial.

Again, it's possible since 9/11. It's not that long ago...
And it is basically just a way to circumvent the assassination laws.

I think you can read too much into it, but I don't find it trivial either.

Originally Posted by Invader

Should one be treated based upon how they act, or based upon the title they carry? Isn't that essentially the point this thread is raising?

hm, not so much for me.. I try to focus less on singled out examples

As for your question, the title should not be included in the judgement.
I know often times it doesn't really work like that, but I'm guessing you'd
agree? More of a rethorical question?

What I meant was that when it comes to passing judgment on a human being for a "crime," their title (American citizen in this case) should not be a factor in determining their punishment. Otherwise it means we'd be willing to inflict more severe punishments on non-citizens, which is not in line with this view of equal treatment to all. A king should likewise not be dismissed from punishment for committing crimes of their own.

But yes, it was a little rhetorical, and unfortunately our trials don't always work out ideally.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. I agree.

But also, if something unjust was done to someone 'other', often times noone cares