Skip to main content

View Diary: Hello! You've been targeted for a U.S. drone assassination! (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Assuming the Security Council has information (0+ / 0-)

    that they think is reliable and indicates the situation is as portrayed, what would you have the President do?

    •  Not kill people without due process (5+ / 0-)

      Do people really not understand the precedent this sets?  The government can decide to kill American citizens in secret and with no judicial oversight.  

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:01:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the precedent this sets. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pozzo

        I'm asking how you would act as President if an imminent threat and al Quaida connections are offered to you with sufficient proof to convince your entire Security Council, as seems to be in this case.  Would you  allow plots to continue to be attempted?

        There has been very little secret about this situation.  And how do you see judicial oversight being addressed?

        •  There has been no mention of an imminent threat (5+ / 0-)

          Only that the people are supposedly "planning" something.  If there is an imminent threat then you go catch the person.  Are we really not able to go to Yemen?  I mean, were good friends with the president.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 06:45:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I refer again to the Slate article (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pozzo

            [The administration’s legal argument in the case of Mr. Awlaki appeared to have three elements. First, he posed an imminent threat to the lives of Americans, having participated in plots to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and to bomb two cargo planes last year.]

            Assuming this is correct information, as the Security Council has evidently decided; would you allow plots to continue to be attempted?  

            How much do you know about Yemen and the ability to capture someone like Awlaki?  Given the bin Laden operation, do you think it wouldn't have been attempted if practical?

            And how do you see judicial oversight being addressed in this situation?

            •  In other words you trust the government enough (6+ / 0-)

              to kill people with no due process.  I most definitely do not.

              You claim to understand the precedent, but you really don't seem to.  As someone else noted Terrorism kills a negligible number of people in the US and yet we spend literally billions on preventing it.  We waste people and money.

              To answer your question.  If we can't capture this guy then how is he actually a threat?  If planning these things is the problem then every Afghan has a moral right to assassinate the president give the vast amount of damage our troops have inflicted on them.

              Given the bin Laden operation, do you think it wouldn't have been attempted if practical?
              I don't know, and that's the problem.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 07:25:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do understand the precedent. (0+ / 0-)

                And I'm not talking about moral equivalencies, I'm asking - assuming an American citizen has been and continues to be a viable threat to other American Citizens and there is no way to capture him and you have a way to stop him, what would you do if you were President?

                The fact that he can't be captured doesn't make him less of a threat, of course.  I assume you would not want to let him continue.  If you don't want the President to do this, what do you want him to do?  What action would you suggest?   What due process would you envision?  

                •  You do know that we try people in (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ek hornbeck

                  absentia all the time.  You don't need the person there to convict them.  I don't see why this is so hard.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 07:26:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, we don't try people in absentia all the time. (0+ / 0-)

                    In fact it is extremely rare because the person has to be physically present at the trial and then flee voluntarialy to be tried in abstentia.  U.S. civil code would have to be changed to try a person in absentia when they are not physically present.  I, also, wondered why they didn't have a trial and see if he was convicted if that could be done.  It can't.

                    Even the Rome Statute which governs the ICC requires the accused to be physically present at the trial - which makes for problems getting any American citizen tried for war crimes.

                    What other action would you suggest?  What due process would you envision?

                    •  So why can't we make it more common? (0+ / 0-)

                      Why can't we have trials for these people?

                      And if the alternative is "Take the word of a secret government panel that dude totally has to be killed" then yeah, I'd go for nothing.

                      I mean, we are doing far less about so many things that kill millions in the US right now.  How many lives could the whatever million we spent on hellfires have saved if we spent them on bike lanes or alternative energy.

                      Apparently you want me to come up with some exact process based on information that I have never and will never see.  That's not going to happen.

                      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Sat Mar 17, 2012 at 09:15:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You've hit on it exactly. (0+ / 0-)

                        None of us has an answer but lots of us are willing to blame the President for not coming up with an answer.

                        This whole exercise has been to illustrate that there are no easy answers to such a complex question.  The President is damned if he protects his country and damned if he doesn't protect his country and fails in his duty.  I find that very unfair to the office.

                        It's not like anyone can be killed anywhere anytime as some would say.  But it is still a dangerous precedent and the laws should be revised to cover situations like this.  For instance, AUMF could be revised to prohibit or approve targeted killings.  Getting such a revision passed is probably not going to happen.

                        So the answer is - there is no answer and the President is required to protect the country by dubious legal means.

                        •  I'm blaming the president for comng up with (0+ / 0-)

                          the wrong answer.

                          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                          by AoT on Sun Mar 18, 2012 at 06:52:58 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site