Assassination of US Citizens

[marharth]

I agree that this is violation of the Constitution but if this is a case of picking the lesser of 2 evils, it might be the better to violate the Constitution and save thousands of lives in the process. Seems all the important factors are unknown so I suppose with debate with hypothetical scenarios?

 

So here comes the concern about crossing the line and abusing this authority. Imho, one acceptable reason to risk breaking the law and kill a suspected terrorist instead of incarceration is if this was the only way to stop an impending mass destruction. The authorities will never take this lightly after 9/11 and they might not have the luxury of time for an arrest & trial.

Its debatable whether the authorities have sufficient evidence to execute an assassination and I can't think of any other reason they would need to assassinate and risk the backlash. I don't support the legality of such assassination and I believe heavy penalties should be incurred for taking the risk whether they turn out to be right or wrong. If they wish to save thousands by breaking the law, they should pay for it with self sacrifice.

That is why I think they need a trial.

 

That being said your first point is also correct imo. It is sometimes necessary to break the law to help others. Not sure if it was needed in this case though.

[myrmaad]

If they can be on a top secret kill list, you can be on a top secret kill list.

 

I don't aid terrorists, or, make videos talking about how I am going to bring down the Great Satan either. These folks may have been tried in absentia, and found guilty, and sentenced to death. Or, given the preponderance of evidence, their guilt was obvious. Also, keep in mind, these folks were actively engaged in war against the united states. We sniped an awful lot of folks without a trial in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other war we have been involved in. Simply being an american citizen doesn't give them some magical blanket of protection. If you are going to be/aid/abet terrorists, expect a bullet without a trial first. I don't care what citizenship you claim.

 

This.

 

And @Aurelius, likewise my friend.

 

@Marharth, Why would it not be needed in this case?

 

Let me share this excerpt with you:

 

In the Fall 2010 issue Khan wrote an article called “I am Proud to be a Traitor to America” in which he said, “I am acutely aware that body parts have to be torn apart, skulls have to be crushed and blood has to be spilled” in order for “Islam’s claim to power” to be realized in the world.

 

In another issue, Khan explained that he left North Carolina for Yemen in 2009 because he was upset with “America’s cowboy behavior in Islamic lands” and decided to join al Qaeda’s global struggle. “I decided to take up the pen,” he wrote.

 

“Taking up the pen” can be a dangerous game. I used the Khan case as an opportunity to talk about Julius Streicher, the editor of the popular anti-Semitic German magazine Der Strumer. The magazine — which predated Hitler’s rise to power but was later embraced by Hitler, who called it his “favorite newspaper” — had as its motto “Die Juden sind unser Ungluck,” The Jews are Our Misfortune.

 

In Streicher’s world, Jews caused the worldwide Depression, were responsible for unemployment and inflation, promulgated prostitution and were responsible for all unsolved killings in Germany, which could be explained as “Jewish ritual murder.”

 

Streicher was captured at the end of World War II and brought to justice before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, where he was tried as an “accessory to murder.” He was hanged on Oct. 16, 1946, along with nine other condemned defendants at the first Nuremberg trial.

 

In his book, “The Myth of Moral Justice,” Thane Rosenbaum writes of Streicher: “He carried no gun and wore no uniform, but in the end his malignant words and racist images made him as murderous and culpable as the Nazis.”

 

Samir Khan appears to have been collateral damage in a CIA strike intended to kill his boss, Anwar al-Awlaki. He was never brought to trial, but there is little doubt in my mind that he was as much an “accessory to murder” as other writers and editors masquerading as journalists for their own twisted and nefarious purposes.

 

Ari L. Goldman teaches journalism at Columbia University.

 

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Well and good. He most likely got what he had coming.

But maybe tomorrow it is considered a threat to the state to be too conservative, or too liberal, or too religious, or not religious enough. The precedent will have already been set and it will be too late. That's why it's called a principle.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Quetzlsacatanango

[HeyYou]

Well and good. He most likely got what he had coming.

But maybe tomorrow it is considered a threat to the state to be too conservative, or too liberal, or too religious, or not religious enough. The precedent will have already been set and it will be too late. That's why it's called a principle.

 

He was stating unequivocally that he was an enemy of the US. Your extension of that does not follow.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

My point is that while today what is defined as an enemy of the state is fairly extreme, tomorrow it might not be so and might include the positions I listed, along with many others.

Let's take a hypothetical example and say that in the future, we define "being an enemy of the US" to include opposing the policies of the president.

You can't point to the constitution and say "I'm protected" because you have already thrown your constitutional protection away when you let the president put out a hit on a US citizen.

If he had at some point given up his US citizenship I would be on your side but I see no evidence that he did that.

[Aurielius]

Well and good. He most likely got what he had coming.

But maybe tomorrow it is considered a threat to the state to be too conservative, or too liberal, or too religious, or not religious enough. The precedent will have already been set and it will be too late. That's why it's called a principle.

In the Second World War there were several dozen ex American citizens that fought on behalf of the Wehrmacht and were killed in as a byproduct of action in the field, some were captured and shot out of hand by the troops involved upon discovery but others were simply killed in the field. This case is of the same vein, there is already a precedent that precedes this incident. This is analogous to the British capture of Lord Haw Haw (William Joyce) who ended up at the end of a noose, aiding and abetting the enemy during time of war has a price.

 

Citizenship does not guarantee you civil procedure in times of war especially in the field. Last but not least he was collateral damage, a fact that seems to bypassed by some in this discussion, the drone attack was targeting his boss. If one hangs out with the enemy, wears their colors and aids and albeit the death of American citizens then expectation of full civil procedure is a stretch, if it was a ground action with attendant capture of prisoners then a Military Court would have been the proper venue but it was an air strike. He's dead, so just sleep sounder .....we just have one less bit of pond scum to deal with.

[HeyYou]

My point is that while today what is defined as an enemy of the state is fairly extreme, tomorrow it might not be so and might include the positions I listed, along with many others.

Let's take a hypothetical example and say that in the future, we define "being an enemy of the US" to include opposing the policies of the president.

You can't point to the constitution and say "I'm protected" because you have already thrown your constitutional protection away when you let the president put out a hit on a US citizen.

If he had at some point given up his US citizenship I would be on your side but I see no evidence that he did that.

 

This could conceivably happen in any event. Definitions change over time, that is unavoidable. However, I would like to think that if the government starting taking liberties of this nature on it's own citizens (that WERE NOT advocating violence) the citizenry would stand up and take notice. This guy was indeed advocating violence against CIVILIANS, non-combatants.

 

Aurielius has a good point too, this guy was basically just a bonus. Works for me.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

However, I would like to think that if the government starting taking liberties of this nature on it's own citizens (that WERE NOT advocating violence) the citizenry would stand up and take notice.

 

Then you would be named an enemy of the state, targeted for elimination, people on message boards would be talking about what a scumbag you are, etc...

[HeyYou]

However, I would like to think that if the government starting taking liberties of this nature on it's own citizens (that WERE NOT advocating violence) the citizenry would stand up and take notice.

 

Then you would be named an enemy of the state, targeted for elimination, people on message boards would be talking about what a scumbag you are, etc...

 

There is a very large difference between killing some guy that has declared his intentions to kill american civilians, and someone questioning state policy on assorted issues. You are making a giant leap here, based on assumptions, and alarmisms. Should the government start killing folks that disagree with them, then it is indeed time to toss out the government. Revolution would be the only option.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

However, I would like to think that if the government starting taking liberties of this nature on it's own citizens (that WERE NOT advocating violence) the citizenry would stand up and take notice.

 

Then you would be named an enemy of the state, targeted for elimination, people on message boards would be talking about what a scumbag you are, etc...

 

There is a very large difference between killing some guy that has declared his intentions to kill american civilians, and someone questioning state policy on assorted issues. You are making a giant leap here, based on assumptions, and alarmisms. Should the government start killing folks that disagree with them, then it is indeed time to toss out the government. Revolution would be the only option.

Exactly. What this guy said is pretty disagreeable but at some point it will be people with "legitimate" gripes and the precedent will already be there.