Assassination Program is a "State Secret"

[MobBoss]

Then he should be tried for treason not assissinated. Thats no excuse to avoid using the courts to punish people.

If he is captured he may indeed face such charges. Remember, we tried like hell to kill Saddam every chance we got, but ended up capturing him in the end.

I just dont see the need to assassinate people in secret.

If it were secret, we wouldnt be discussing this now would we?

 

[Onionsoilder]

You know, I actually think that there is nothing wrong with this. By joining and fighting for Al-Qaeda, an enemy organization known to use deadly force against the U.S., this man has essentially committed treason, has he not?

 

[Camikaze]

'Wanted Dead or Alive' is a very suspect policy. Circumventing due legal process is bad enough. Doing so by killing someone is obviously even worse. Now personally I don't see why any targets should be assassinated (or killed rather than captured, depending on which wording you prefer) by the US, regardless of whether or not they are US citizens. But the fact that this guy is a US citizen should surely make such targeting wrong.

I am not sure what state secret Obama is refering to to block the inquiry, that sounds odd.

Well if you did, it wouldn't be a secret.

 

[Azale]

You know, I actually think that there is nothing wrong with this. By joining and fighting for Al-Qaeda, an enemy organization known to use deadly force against the U.S., this man has essentially committed treason, has he not?

Then it should be pretty easy for the US government to make that case in court.

Always hilarious to see the rightwingers line up in favor of incredible increases in government power, as long as it's listed under "national security".

 

[Earthling]

I actually don't see why this shouldn't fall under something like extradition (other than that, well, we might not have extradition with Yemen, I dunno. But then the real problem is that we are carrying out actions against another country without their agreement, if they wanted to harbor the guy, and that's more of a diplomatic thing, but not a "rights for a US citizen thing." Kinda like how we wanted Roman Polanski back to put on trial...but of course we didn't send assassins to France/Switzerland with disregard for those countries) Surely it would make sense otherwise if the government just had to put out the official "wanted/extradition" notice (provided they can do that, but if they can that should be the first step), and then, if the guy turns himself in or is taken into custody by whatever other country finds him and wants to turn him over to the US, of course give him his legal rights, if not then it's clear to treat him as a criminal/treasonous. Again wouldn't expect Yemen's cooperation but legally that sounds about right.

 

[Traitorfish]

As the phrase goes, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

I prefer "Hey, look, the boss got a new lapdog."

Again, this is not a novel idea. This is how every gangster in the 1020s was treated and I doubt anyone is about to take up their cause.

Al Capone went to jail because of tax evasion. If the above were true, I doubt they'd've needed to wait for that.

Always hilarious to see the rightwingers line up in favor of incredible increases in government power, as long as it's listed under "national security".

I do love how readily they embrace the jackboot when they're convinced that it's stamping on the right face.

 

[bhsup]

So basically instead of Sherman marching to the sea, the north should have have legions of lawyers marching with subpoenas in hand?

 

[Traitorfish]

Is that you recognising Confederate secession as illegitimate?

 

[Onionsoilder]

Then it should be pretty easy for the US government to make that case in court.

Always hilarious to see the rightwingers line up in favor of incredible increases in government power, as long as it's listed under "national security".

I'm not right wing though...

Anyway, it's rather difficult to place him on trial when he is leading enemy forces overseas. I suppose it would be more reasonable to just place a capture order instead of a capture or kill, but it isn't like he has turned himself in or petitioned for a sanction, so he is currently a fugitive. So yeah, court would be preferable, but if he resists capture then it should be okay to dispose of him.

 

[Cutlass]

So basically instead of Sherman marching to the sea, the north should have have legions of lawyers marching with subpoenas in hand?

Whatever it takes to crush the South.

 

[illram]

I'm not sure the issue is as much about the killing per se*, as much as it is about the fact that the President is basically saying "I can kill whoever I want, just trust me, and no you can't ask any questions."

*even though people have legitimate reasons to be concerned about that too.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure the issue is as much about the killing per se*, as much as it is about the fact that the President is basically saying "I can kill whoever I want, just trust me, and no you can't ask any questions."

*even though people have legitimate reasons to be concerned about that too.

This is true. The fuss isn't that the US kills people- as if that would be a shock!- but that they're apparently willing to seriously bend their own laws in doing so. There's a difference, after all, between the police taking somebody out in a fire-fight and the police mowing a suspected criminal down in the street.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I do love how readily they embrace the jackboot when they're convinced that it's stamping on the right face.

That is the purpose of small government in a democratic society which embraces freedom, liberty. and personal rights. Someone has to label various people to be terrorists so justice can be done, prior to actually getting a fair trial of course.

The wanted dead or alive poster is quite apt. You see those a lot these days now that there are so many laws which specifically prohibit such conduct by the authorities.

 

[Traitorfish]

That is the purpose of small government in a democratic society which embraces freedom, liberty. and personal rights. Someone has to label various people to be terrorists so justice can be done, prior to actually getting a fair trial of course.

Not an inaccurate summary, I would say. A lot of Libertarians have a habit of voicing support for a small yet extremely militant state, and the less bureaucracy that interferes with the protection of the status quo, the better.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The authoritarian libertarians are my favorite.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Someone has to label various people to be terrorists so justice can be done, prior to actually getting a fair trial of course.

Queen of Hearts: Now then, are you ready for your sentence?
Alice: But there has to be a verdict first.
Queen of Hearts: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.
Alice: But that just isn't the way.
Queen of Hearts: [shouting] All ways are...!
Alice: ...your ways, your Majesty.

By the way, Yemen's government is highly cooperative with the USA. I'd be surprised if they didn't have an extradition treaty. But hey, we can't let the facts get in the way of Obama's need to be Tough On Terror (tm).

 

[I'm Cleo!]

A lot of the discussion has moved away from the real topic (intentionally or unintentionally): the Obama administration claims that people cannot even ask why the government has decided they deserve death. It's not a matter of whether the process is "due," there is no process at all. We've already discussed the use of the list of people who may be killed; the development in question here is that the government is claiming that people can't even file suit to find out anything about it.

There's already a process whereby the government can ask a judge to view evidence in secret without disclosing it to the opposing party. This is not that. This is barring citizens from even filing suit to find out why the government has determined that they ought to be killed.

I have a serious question, that I think might be reasonable. I feel like it might not be, however, so please point out where I'm wrong. Here it is: How is this different from the government asserting the authority to "disappear" people? If there's a secret list of people to be detained or killed, and members of the public may not even enter court to ask why or even if someone is on that list, if that person were to be detained or killed, isn't it a "disappearance?"

I fail to see how this is a valid argument unless you think our government is truly despicable.

It's not that I think this government is despicable, it's that I think it is not infallible. In fact, I think that most people who work in this government are devoted public servants. And factually this Awlaki guy is probably a pretty bad dude. But at some point in the future, there will be different men in charge of our government, men who may not be as virtuous as the ones there today. And knowing this truth (this concept's in a Federalist somewhere, right? 10?), the Framers created a government "of laws, not men." (Adams) There are all sorts of things we do not allow the government to do to guilty people -- coerce their confessions, force defendants to testify against themselves, submit them to unreasonable searches and seizures, forbid them from confronting witnesses called against them, jail them without a trial by jury, &c. -- because we don't trust that the people in power will always be virtuous. In fact, our whole government is set up assuming that they're not virtuous. So we apply the law equally to everyone -- the factually guilty and the factually innocent alike -- because we don't know if the next person against whom the power of the state will be arrayed will be guilty or innocent. Our government is designed to avoid terrible ends by avoiding their beginnings.

And it's not some fantasy. Our Framers included all the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights because governments used to do this stuff all the time. Heck, lots of governments elsewhere in the world do this stuff now.

You know, I actually think that there is nothing wrong with this. By joining and fighting for Al-Qaeda, an enemy organization known to use deadly force against the U.S., this man has essentially committed treason, has he not?

Treason is punishable by death, but it requires the testimony of two witnesses or an admission in court. U.S. Const. art. 3, Sec. 3. It's in there so the government can't just run around claiming that people are traitors and executing them.

Cleo

 

[Traitorfish]

And it's not some fantasy. Our Framers included all the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights because governments used to do this stuff all the time. Heck, lots of governments elsewhere in the world do this stuff now.

Very true. It's not even a clear-cut question of "Free" and "Unfree" countries, either- Britain c.1920 was, by the standards of the day, a fairly liberal democracy, but assassinated, murdered and disappeared hundred of it's own citizens during the Irish War of Independence, including pro-Republican elected officials. Constitutional limits on power exist for a reason.

 

[Azale]

I'm not right wing though...

Sorry my bad, my last line wasn't direct towards you. (btw, you should get a mod to let you fix the typo in your username )

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The argument isn't that the government is acting maliciously, but that the government could be wrong. Thus, it should have to prove it's assertion in a court of law, just as it does with other judicial matters.

I would rather say that humans always can be malicious, because well.. they are humans. No matter how strong traditions of "good" virtues are or how many don't act upon this basic ability - it's still there.
To not allow the government to assassinate its citizens without the duty to report to the public is not a matter of showing distrust to the government, it is a matter of basic common sense.