Skip to main content

View Diary: "Anwar al-Aulaqi was assassinated for what he said, not what he did." (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem with your thinking (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laker, vcmvo2, priceman, Shahryar, fou, marina

    is that we are forced to accept what the government has told us about al-Awlaki -- we don't have any judge or oversight committee to review their reasoning, their intelligence and evidence before they act. How do I or you know that capturing al-Awlaki was impossible? The government landed next to Bin Laden's house and left under the cover of darkness after assassinating him -- you mean to tell me they can't capture someone they want??

    I don't doubt that al-Awlaki was a bad guy but there are a lot of those in the world. We can't claim the right to kill them all. I don't believe the Obama administration would use this power recklessly BUT who is to say what a future administration might do? During the Bush years several conservatives tried to tie the Left with terrorism, even accusing some of aiding the enemy if they opposed Bush Admin actions. This drone policy is simply too much power to give to any President without strict oversight.

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:44:37 PM PST

    •  as i wrote, unintended consequences (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fou

      that can bite us in the ass

      Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?

      by AntonBursch on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:51:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the other problem is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler, marina

        the drone policy is based on the same thinking as the preemptive war policy. That preemptive war policy lead us into war in Iraq where there was NO WMD. It was a political and legal excuse/rationale. A future president could do the same with this drone policy -- such-and-such enemy leader was thinking of attacking us, so we have the right to take him out from the air. Who could stop the U.S. from doing that?

        The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

        by LiberalLady on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:56:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but what if the group already attacked us (0+ / 0-)

          and have stated quite clearly that they are never going to stop attacking us.

          isn't that a situation in which we are defending ourselves from that group?

          Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?

          by AntonBursch on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:00:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You make a lot of sense, LiberalLady, ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      ... with your arguments, but the problem seems to be the very nature of a "slippery slope" argument. Some slippery slope arguments are simple-minded, such as Scalia's broccoli argument against ObamaCare, and yet others turned out to be excellent oracles about what would pass in the future.

      The thing is, we have courts and people like you and me to stop the future targeting of actual American citizens for simple speech on our soil. If that happened there would be mass riots. It would cleave the government in two.

      The distinction here is so big in my mind (Person who was not an American citizen because he actively pursued the overthrow of the American government w/numerous and deadly plans versus a person giving rabble-rousing speeches on our soil who could be arrested much more easily and brought to court) that I'm cognizant of the slippery slope, but not worried about it.

      Additionally, I would like someone to spell out exactly what due process was afforded to Anwar al-Aulaqi. Who knows the actual steps, 1, 2, 3...? Nobody here knows that. There are people who believe that governments should keep no secrets from the people. Granted my trust for President Obama cannot be compared to my suspicion for Cheney, but I still realize that all governments have to keep some secrets.

      I'm betting that there was a court hearing on the citizenship of Anwar al-Aulaqi, he was found to have voluntarily relinquished his American citizenship, and a second tribunal decided that he was so great a threat to American citizens, he became a target.

      What proof do I have of that? None. If I had the proof, I would likely be tried for leaking top secret information. That's just my best guess, and that's pretty much what everyone else here is doing. (Although I do appreciate a reasonable mind like yours when I "read" it)!

      I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

      by Tortmaster on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:48:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site