Skip to main content

View Diary: Was Al-Awlaki A Citizen When He Was Killed? (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Give me a break.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul1a, johnny wurster

    Save the tears for someone deserving. Not an American born terrorist and his jihadist son.

    ...the GOP seems perfectly willing to hold their breath until the whole country turns Blue.

    by tommy2tone on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 08:43:53 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  you need to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nowhere Man, Bisbonian

      rethink your views. What you're saying is what the teapartyiers and the Republicans say.

      Do you really want the government deciding who should be killed based on completely secret information?

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 08:52:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "You need to rethink your views." Here are mine. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Buckeye54

        If 'TeaPartyiers' and Republicans say the sky is blue, we reality-based progressives don't deny it.

        I'd be happiest if no-one was trying to kill Americans, of course! :-) And that's the goal to work towards, not towards us killing more people. Meanwhile, it would be nice if they could be caught without violence, and tried in a court of law as with Bin Laden's son-in-law. For the vast majority of terrorists, I don't see the resources for this being made available (though I'd like to see many more resources devoted to this, instead of to weapons systems). Barring these two better outcomes, I have no objections if every terrorist who is actively trying to kill Americans is himself killed.

        There are some really evil people out there. They see themselves at war with the US, and they seek violence against us, including civilians, and at times they achieve it.

        I have in mind the War of 1812. During that war, if an American citizen was trying to kill other Americans in support of the British, then killing him/her as part of the war seems like a no-brainer and is non-controversial to me. No trial is required. It's war. It's hell. Questions of treason and trials occur only after the war is over. War is the ultimate extrajudicial circumstance.

        Asymmetrical warfare is complicated by the absence of an opposing state. We need to be smart about how we respond (like, um, not invading Iraq in 2003, when Al Qaeda was based in Afgh-Pak), but we cannot respond with 1970s torpor.

        When: 1) the governments who house them are truly helping the US to capture and bring these evil people to justice (unlike, say, Pakistan, who not only hid Bin Laden for 8 years but is to this day persecuting the doctor who helped the US find and kill him!), and 2) the vast majority of those who supported violent Islamist actions against the US have renounced this, and so 3) there is no significant violent Islamist threat to the US, then we can switch mainly to trials, judicial process, and criminal prosecutions.

        Until then, if they can't be captured without loss of life, but they can be killed without significant loss of innocent lives, then I support killing any terrorist who aligns with Al Qaeda (and any groups posing a similar threat) and is trying to kill us. That holds true whether or not they are American citizens, in my view.

        It's a stretch to imagine a situation in which such a person is on US soil but can't be captured alive, but it's possible: e.g., another 9/11 in which they hijack a plane, make no demands, and are flying it straight towards a major city only minutes away. Does the President (not the Vice President!) have the authority to order it shot down (perhaps by a drone), if we can't force it to land any other way? Of course (in my view)! It's a terrible, terrible tragedy -- one we work around the clock to prevent -- but it may be necessary to prevent even more innocent deaths.

        So, does the President have the authority to order the death by drone of an American citizen on US soil, without a trial? Yes, decidedly so (in my view)!

    •  And your evidence for this is based upon what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Bisbonian
      jihadist son
      You know that because........      ?

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 09:01:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  how biblical; so now we root out our enemies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Bisbonian

      trunk and branch, stem and seed.  If there are cousins or if there are siblings, do we also go after them?  If so, at what age do we stop?  Do we stop at age 16 or 6 or for the son of a jihadist is there no age limit?

      I think this sort of thinking led to the internment of American Japanese in WWII and the refusal of their service until the Nisei units were formed  

      •  I Remember A Doonsbury "Baby Terrorists" (0+ / 0-)

        strip set in a family of Palestinians in Gaza IIRC. I think the strip was apt and this "who's-a-terrorist" and who's a citizen and who's renounced citizenship or been declared a non-citizen is all so much BS.

        IMHO al Awlaki was a US citizen that we killed outside the US and who was not immediately engaged in hostile action against the US: an action by the president of highly dubious legality.

        As undesirable as this man was, it's a mighty slippery slope if we start taking out his relatives.

        What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

        by TerryDarc on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 09:14:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "No attainder of treason... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, Bisbonian

      ...shall work corruption of blood."

      We do have a Constitution, and sometimes it says relevant things.

      "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

      by JR on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 09:26:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah yes.... (0+ / 0-)

      "Nits grow up to be lice."  Very human of you.

      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

      by Johnny Q on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:13:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The tears (0+ / 0-)

      are for the rule of law.

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:25:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site