Skip to main content

View Diary: Does the US have the right to kill its on citizens without trial? (303 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That is an opinion piece that leaves out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PinHole, CoyoteMarti

    many relevant facts.

    Such as his history of recruiting young Muslim men to wage global jihad, and his correspondence with every Islamist who attempted or successfully launched an armed operation against the US in the past three  years.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 12:21:37 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If you are concerned about those who have (4+ / 0-)

      recruited young Muslims into waging global jihad against us, then by far the top culprits worthy of assassination would be the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George W. Bush (etc.).

      Just wondering, when are their houses going to be targeted with drone missile strikes?

      •  Dick Cheney has committed no crime (0+ / 0-)

        according to the folks posting their outrage in this thread.

        After all, there has never been a trial.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 02:31:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed, that is a major failing of the judicial (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marie, Brown Thrasher

          system.

          Legally speaking, Cheney has not committed any crimes.  He's admitted to approving torture, but until someone prosecutes, then there are no legal sanctions that can be taken against him.

          No trial, no sanctions.  I'm glad you're getting it now.  So you're on our side now, right?  Without a trial, Al-Awlaki should not have been executed.

          Reality has a liberal bias.

          by Hayate Yagami on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 02:51:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the last time: (0+ / 0-)

            Al Awlaki was killed because he was plotting and preparing for future attacks.  It was his current operational role that mattered, not his criminal liability for past actions.

            You can choose to stick your head in the sand and pretend there's no factual predicate for a finding that he was involvedin such activities, but that runs contrary to both the public record and the assessment of multiple nation's intelligence services.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 02:53:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  According to you, that type of naunce is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hayate Yagami, Brown Thrasher

          completely irrelevant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site