You don’t really understand the constitution, or war.

I’m sorry, have you been to war?

I have.

You compare al-Awlaki (who was not presenting a threat) to an individual physically attacking a cop. They are nowhere near the same.

You claimed that the government cannot deprive a citizen of life without due process.

They obviously can.

As to your bin Laden question – we could not target his wife. We could target him.

Well then the government was targeting Awlaki’s shoes, or his vehicle and not him. Your position is absurd. The American wife of OBL would be just as dead as Awlaki and with the same violations of their respective rights. Targeting them in particular doesn’t alter that and NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THIS FOUND. If they should be given due process then it should apply to both situations. That you aren’t deliberately targeting them doesn’t allow you to violate their constitutional rights if they existed in this situation.

You believe the AUMF grants a single individual, who is not the President, the authority to execute Americans on suspicion of aiding terrorism, even if that person is not currently engaged in operations against the US.

Awlaki was engaged in operations against the United States and he himself said so.

I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself – Awlaki

The laws of war allows belligerents to kill enemy combatants while they are asleep in barracks. There is no need for them to be currently engaged in hostile actions and there is no need for them to be present on a battlefield. They do not have to be waving a rifle to be attacked, and that has been true ever since the constitution was written.

We can kill the enemy wherever we find them.

I, on the other hand, believe in the Constitution.

Washington Nearsider on February 14, 2013 at 8:28 AM

You don’t really understand the constitution, or war.

The Confederates were still American Citizens in the eyes of the north and they were targeted without due process. In war an enemy combatant doesn’t have to be rushing at you to be a valid target. Soldiers aren’t policemen, and war isn’t a law enforcement issue.

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 9:08 PM

You continue to lie. You compare al-Awlaki (who was not presenting a threat) to an individual physically attacking a cop. They are nowhere near the same.

As to your bin Laden question – we could not target his wife. We could target him. You’ll notice his wives weren’t killed when bin Laden WAS actually targeted in real life – not in some dreamed up hypothetical.

This is a simple disagreement.

You believe the AUMF grants a single individual, who is not the President, the authority to execute Americans on suspicion of aiding terrorism, even if that person is not currently engaged in operations against the US.

I, on the other hand, believe in the Constitution.

If Osama Bin Laden had married an American girl and traveled everywhere with her, does that mean that we could no longer target him because it would deny her those constitutional rights?

So you define ‘combat’ as killing an American who currently poses no threat whatsoever to US personnel. Interesting.

I define combat as attacks on shipyards, factories, truck convoys, supply dumps, headquarters, communications sites, and a great many other things. That is what happened in World War Two, and in fact every war ever fought.

I don’t accept your version of the government. I don’t accept that it is permissible for our government to deprive a citizen of life without due process.

So grab a knife and charge at a cop and see how much due process you get.

A single person deciding you need to die based on a system of judgement which the government refuses to define is tyranny.

Washington Nearsider on February 13, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Congressional AUMF. Congress consists of more than one individual. If you think they should rescind the AUMF then lobby for them to do so. That is their job.

Awlaki was a member of Al-Qaeda and that is enough to make him a target regardless of what else he was doing.

No. Over the past few days, I’ve taken your argument apart piece by piece, disproving each statement you’ve made in an attempt to buttress your argument in favor of unilateral execution in non-combat situations.

Washington Nearsider on February 13, 2013 at 8:57 PM

BS.

Its not an execution, and American soldiers are not executioners, or assassins, or murderers because they go after American Al-Qaeda members.

Were the air force attacks on Al-Qaeda convoys in Afghanistan war crimes? If not then why is the attack on this Al-Qaeda convoy a war crime?

I don’t accept your version of the government. I don’t accept that it is permissible for our government to deprive a citizen of life without due process.

A single person deciding you need to die based on a system of judgement which the government refuses to define is tyranny.

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 8:55 PM

No. Over the past few days, I’ve taken your argument apart piece by piece, disproving each statement you’ve made in an attempt to buttress your argument in favor of unilateral execution in non-combat situations.

Please answer my question. Do you or do you not believe the US government should have the authority to kill a US citizen in non-combat situations on the word of one unnamed individual who is answerable to no one and nothing?

Yes or no.

He wasn’t killed in combat.

Yes he was.

Besides, by focusing on al-Awlaki alone, you continue to miss the point. Intentionally.

What point do you think you are making?

That war is now police enforcement?

It isn’t and never has been.

Do you or do you not believe that a single unnamed person, with no oversight or accountability, has the power order the execution of an American citizen without a conviction, jury or judge?

Please confine yourself to a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

Washington Nearsider on February 13, 2013 at 8:44 PM

No.

That’s too bad, because you haven’t been otherwise rude or belligerent to me.

Washington Nearsider on February 13, 2013 at 8:41 PM

That’s more than I can say about you.

You don’t like losing an argument so you attack the one making it rather than attempting to say anything coherent.

The CIA is part of the government forces, so are civilians contractors, civilians volunteers, auxiliary police units, military civilian employees, etc. Civilians serve food in the military, they maintain vehicles, drive trucks, serve as combat infantry as ‘contractors’, serve as drone pilots, etc.

They are all part of the military effort. Being CIA doesn’t mean they don’t have a role in military affairs.

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 8:29 PM

He wasn’t killed in combat.

Besides, by focusing on al-Awlaki alone, you continue to miss the point. Intentionally.

Do you or do you not believe that a single unnamed person, with no oversight or accountability, has the power order the execution of an American citizen without a conviction, jury or judge?

Please confine yourself to a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM

This is the ninth or tenth time I’ve seen you make this claim after being corrected, so I say you are a liar.

The US military did not kill al-Awlaki, the CIA did. Civilians.

You say ‘distinction without a difference,’ but in that you are impossibly wrong.

That you continue to lie so egregiously tells me you aren’t worth debating with.

That’s too bad, because you haven’t been otherwise rude or belligerent to me.

Cheers.

We’re discussing that principle here, not al-Awlaki alone.

Washington Nearsider on February 13, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Thank you. Off topics are distractions and just muddy the water imo.

No one is saying al-Qaeda isn’t a threat so you can put that strawman away.

You said that “the government just deciding a certain group of people is a threat” and that is nonsense. Its not a strawman and Al-Qaeda is a threat which is why they are being targeted.

The same silly argument can be made that if soldiers are allowed to kill anyone they think is a threat then what stops them from considering any one of us a threat and executing us?

How far do we go in ignoring the Constitution in your world?

How has the constitution been ignored?

You were the one suggesting an unconstitutional measure like in absentia trials.

There are various domestic terrorist groups who have also incinerated people. There’s the Animal Liberation Front, the KKK and a host of others. Hellfire missles for all their members, the courts be damned?

Is there an AUMF passed by Congress regarding those groups? No.

Therefore the fact that they are NOT being targeted and Al-Qaeda which does have a congressional AUMF with regards to it is being targeted, acts more as proof that there is no out of control mad drone campaign.

What’s the threshold a group must meet before American citizens lose their Constitutionally-protected rights.

Awlaki didn’t lose his constitutional rights. Those constitutional rights have never applied in combat. They apply after capture, not before.

American citizens who haven’t taken up arms are a different story.

alchemist19 on February 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM

The military isn’t required to ask Al-Qaeda members if they want to play war today before opening fire. Awlaki’s passport is not a magical shield and this imaginary constitutional clause that tells us that knowing his name means he cannot be targeted doesn’t actually exist.

If they are attacking Al-Qaeda and they don’t know he’s there it seems to be fine to make that attack, but if they know he is there suddenly they cannot open fire? Where do you get that? Nothing like that is mentioned in the constitution and if an American joins an enemy army they can be targeted like any other hostile.

Lastly Awlaki had taken up arms. Do you think that an Al-Qaeda member doing exactly what he was doing is an innocent bystander murdered by the US military?

I’m ok with certain exceptions. If an American citizen is suspected of having a dirty bomb in their possession and we risk having it go off and wipe out thousands if he or she isn’t taken out, that’s a situation where there should be some wiggle room for the President and his national security team. But there has to be intense scrutiny of a policy like this. I do not want the President or any other individual given carte blanche to just target Americans here or abroad whom he suspects of terrorist activity.

Doughboy on February 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM

If anyone, Citizen or not got that far then our Intelligence is worthless.

I don’t think current law should be made for any future endless possibilities.

Also, since this action depends on the definition of Terroist; exactly who gets to decide that definition?

I suspect that 3,000 incinerated Americans may have tipped the balance as far as convincing them that this particular group was a threat. That is of course just pure speculation on my part.

No one is saying al-Qaeda isn’t a threat so you can put that strawman away.

How far do we go in ignoring the Constitution in your world? There are various domestic terrorist groups who have also incinerated people. There’s the Animal Liberation Front, the KKK and a host of others. Hellfire missles for all their members, the courts be damned? Is al Qaeda special because their act of terrorism was the most spectacular or can other groups who commit crimes (or acts of war, assuming you want to draw a distinction between those and are able to do so in a cogent fashion) also get fire rained on them? What’s the threshold a group must meet before American citizens lose their Constitutionally-protected rights.

I will take the constitution and the way it has been applied for hundreds of years.

The constitutions does not forbid the United States from going to war, or bringing war to its enemies, nor does it require the nation to apply criminal law to those forces that are at war with it.

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 7:37 PM

No one is saying the Constitution prevents waging war, nor is anyone (anyone here at least) saying foreign nationals are entitled to Constitutional protection. American citizens who haven’t taken up arms are a different story.

Even in the worst case scenario it would still be no worse than someone somewhere in the government just deciding a certain group of people is a threat and so we’re free to drop missiles on their members.

I suspect that 3,000 incinerated Americans may have tipped the balance as far as convincing them that this particular group was a threat. That is of course just pure speculation on my part.

If forced to choose between the two I’ll take “Potentially evil” over “Clearly, unarguably evil” any day of the week.

alchemist19 on February 13, 2013 at 7:18 PM

I will take the constitution and the way it has been applied for hundreds of years.

The constitutions does not forbid the United States from going to war, or bringing war to its enemies, nor does it require the nation to apply criminal law to those forces that are at war with it.

I would be more worried about in absentia convictions.

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Even in the worst case scenario it would still be no worse than someone somewhere in the government just deciding a certain group of people is a threat and so we’re free to drop missiles on their members. If forced to choose between the two I’ll take “Potentially evil” over “Clearly, unarguably evil” any day of the week.

He would win his appeal if he shows up to file it but in the mean time we can drop the missile on him.

alchemist19 on February 13, 2013 at 7:01 PM

First you have to burn the constitution.

Why bother with a trial? He’s being killed for being a member of Al-Qaeda which isn’t in dispute.

I would be more worried about in absentia convictions.

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Very true. He would win his appeal if he shows up to file it but in the mean time we can drop the missile on him.

He can always appeal.

alchemist19 on February 13, 2013 at 6:53 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia

If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution.

The Court unanimously held, in an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, that Rule 43 does not permit the trial in absentia of a defendant who is absent at the beginning of trial.

Unconstitutional.

Hellfires are constitutional.
Trial in absentia is not.

That’s illegal and unconstitutional.

sharrukin on February 13, 2013 at 6:45 PM

He can always appeal.

If there’s that much evidence that he committed treason then try him for it in absentia

alchemist19 on February 13, 2013 at 6:41 PM

That’s illegal and unconstitutional.

jpcpt03 on February 13, 2013 at 6:33 PM

The increasing militarization of the police forces is becoming a dangerous problem and things like Waco, Ruby Ridge and the firearms seizures during Katrina are the result. That is something that bothers me about the war on drugs. I don’t believe in legalizing drugs but I think the so-called War On Drugs is being used for increased budgets and more toys for police departments.