Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The AUMF authorized lethal force (0+ / 0-)

    against the Al Qaeda network.

    That's not even an opinion.  It's a fact.

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

    by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:09:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  AUMF (4+ / 0-)

      as I remember it, authorized specific actions in Afghanistan not all over the world for all time to come.

      •  It made no mention of Afghanistan. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pozzo

        It simply stated that the President had the authority to use military force against individuals and organizations that carried out the 9/11 attacks.

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

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

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which our friend in Yemen (0+ / 0-)

          clearly post-dated; hence my comment.

          •  His dumb choice to join with the organization (0+ / 0-)

            behind the 9/11 attacks, thus making himself a target.

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

            by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 02:52:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, remember that the USA (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Brown Thrasher, Code Monkey

              doesn't get to decide what is right or wrong depending on whether someone foolishly puts themselves in jeopardy or not. You cannot rig a booby-trap on your property and then claim that you are justified in killing someone because they stupidly climbed over your fence. I get that you are happy this man is dead, but spare a thought for the rights that we guarantee every citizen no matter how, stupid, evil, or mis-guided they are. You either respect the Constitution or you don't. No half measures. I can't believe I am writing this because I think lots of the Constitution is utter bunk. But one of the truly golden, universal things about it is the enshrining of the rights of citizens. Take that away and all you have is a fusty old piece of paper written by provincial slave-owners, nothing more.

        •  "that carried out the 9 11 attacks" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hayate Yagami, Brown Thrasher

          does not mean "was associated somehow much later with people who carried out the 9 11 attacks"

          what I've always hated about this type of legislation:  it's fucking elastic; once you give an inch, someone will take a mile.  Spread it out to include everyone who ever criticized U.S. Middle East policy, why don't you.

          Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:13:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It includes the organization (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kayfromsouth, Pozzo, cfm

            that carried out the attack.

            Which Al Awlaki was stupid and evil enough to join.

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

            by Geekesque on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:18:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so, even though somebody (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hayate Yagami, Brown Thrasher

              was in no way involved in the attacks on our people, in fact had not killed one american citizen, we're going to shoot him in the head and that's fine.

              Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:45:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just because he didn't succeed in killing people (0+ / 0-)

                doesn't mean he wasn't trying. He certainly puts himself out there as a soldier in the fight against America. Soldiers get killed in war. Too damn bad.

                •  Criminal Law (0+ / 0-)

                  And if you're going to take the criminal law analogy to its logical end this POS was guilty of murder and attempted murder - whether or not he ever succeeded because he was part of a conspiracy - namely, Al-Quada's war on the USA an our soldiers.

                  That makes him liable for everything the the organization did whether or not he personally took part in it.

                  But criminal law has no place in this discussion - war cannot generally be treated the same as criminal matters - soldiers are not cops, they don't gather evidence on a battlefield -- and do you really think someone who belongs to AQ should have the right to discovery (of intelligence files) or the right to cross-examine their accusers? Nothing would kill our intelligence efforts faster and last time I checked their amazing performance over the past ten years is what has prevented more bloodshed on American soil.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site