Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Al-Awlaki taken out via drone

160 posts in this topic

As a raised Quaker, and therefore a pacifist, I am against violence and murder. Still, a bad apple now and them needs to head to the compost heap.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How high up was this man Conky?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a raised Quaker, and therefore a pacifist, I am against violence and murder. Still, a bad apple now and them needs to head to the compost heap.

 

That sums it up for me, PES. I was never raised anything, hate violence and murder, nevertheless - some people are a waste of space and need to try again next time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn between the disturbing fact that the idea that the US can summarily execute it's citizens without due process or trials is kind of being unquestioned by the general public and the fact that other than that conceptual grounds this waste of life's death is somewhat satisfying.

 

As crazy as I find Ron Paul on issues, at least he is consistent on this issue and had the balls to actually criticize it.

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lil is right. I f you read your middle East history then you will realise that this killing, instead of a man apprehended by police and brought to a court of law as he ought to be - will do nothing to make our lives safer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who ordered take out via drone? Dang I'm hungry.

 

Pros: it will definitely arrive within half an hour and it will be fucking hot.

 

Cons: they will probably deliver to your neighbours as well, whether they ordered or not, and up to now, the choice is limited to American.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is we (the UK) spend years and years with extremely poor relations with Russia after they (allegedly) assasinated somebody but if you're the US (Or Israel on other occasions) it seems you can get away with pretty well anything.

 

Bad apple gone? Almost certainly. High moral ground reached? Almost certainly not.

 

As long as both sides think the only langauge the other one understands is violence we will have just that.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He was a major figure.

 

There's no evidence for that other than that the US government said so. If you feel comfortable with the US president tagging people, even citizens, as "terrorists" and then assassinating them, and everyone nearby, without even the courtesy of an indictment or any other legal process, so be it, but be aware that such action is unambiguously and expressly prohibited under the fifth amendment to the US Constitution.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm torn between the disturbing fact that the idea that the US can summarily execute it's citizens without due process or trials is kind of being unquestioned by the general public and the fact that other than that conceptual grounds this waste of life's death is somewhat satisfying.

 

As crazy as I find Ron Paul on issues, at least he is consistent on this issue and had the balls to actually criticize it.

 

This. Glad he's popped and see it as a victory but hoping this hasn't set the type of precedent that may be even further exploited down the road seeing as how divided I feel on just this instance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm torn between the disturbing fact that the idea that the US can summarily execute it's citizens without due process or trials is kind of being unquestioned by the general public and the fact that other than that conceptual grounds this waste of life's death is somewhat satisfying.

 

As crazy as I find Ron Paul on issues, at least he is consistent on this issue and had the balls to actually criticize it.

 

While summary execution of anybody is disturbing would not this guys actions pretty much indicate he renouced his US citizenship some time ago?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The irony is we (the UK) spend years and years with extremely poor relations with Russia after they (allegedly) assasinated somebody but if you're the US (Or Israel on other occasions) it seems you can get away with pretty well anything.

 

Bad apple gone? Almost certainly. High moral ground reached? Almost certainly not.

 

As long as both sides think the only langauge the other one understands is violence we will have just that.

 

You might want to notice the difference between whom Russia assassinated back in 2006 and the actions of Al-Awlaki before drawing an inaccurate moral equivalence.

 

 

There's no evidence for that other than that the US government said so. If you feel comfortable with the US president tagging people, even citizens, as "terrorists" and then assassinating them, and everyone nearby, without even the courtesy of an indictment or any other legal process, so be it, but be aware that such action is unambiguously and expressly prohibited under the fifth amendment to the US Constitution.

 

An indictment would have been easy to get, but I don't think he should have been allowed to continue his activities while the US government would wait for the authorities in Yemen to detain him (good luck with that, BTW).

 

Are you claiming that the US government's executive branch, headed by Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama, is lying about al-Awlaki's activities? Is there any real reason to think that the govermment is lying about him?

 

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about constitutionality or a lack thereof just yet. I don't suppose you would claim that it would be illegal for a US citizen who particpates in a firefight against US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan is protected by the Fifth Amendment from being killed.

 

 

While summary execution of anybody is disturbing would not this guys actions pretty much indicate he renouced his US citizenship some time ago?

 

It has to be officially renounced in front of a consular official. I doubt he would have presented himself at a consulate or embassy to do so given his wanted status, but at the same time I doubt he cared anymore about it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you claiming that the US government's executive branch, headed by Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama, is lying about al-Awlaki's activities?

Nope. To demand some standard of proof is not to say the government is lying.

 

 

I don't suppose you would claim that it would be illegal for a US citizen who particpates in a firefight against US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan is protected by the Fifth Amendment from being killed.

No, I wouldn't. The firefight in this case was entirely one-sided.

 

 

It has to be officially renounced in front of a consular official. I doubt he would have presented himself at a consulate or embassy to do so given his wanted status, but at the same time I doubt he cared anymore about it.

 

Other than that it may have offered him some kind of protection against the US government, I doubt he cared either.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama personally approved this drone attack. I don't see why he would approve it unless he were sure al-Awlaki was in fact an Al-Qaida recruiter and responsible for what the government said he is, and if he in fact is an Al-Qaida recruiter, it certainly cannot be said that the firefight was one-sided. I also don't see why you think you should be shown classified information on Al-Awlaki's activities.

 

Note also this problem when it comes to deciding how to bring him to justice:CNN article on Al-Awlaki killing

 

"Al-Al-Awlaki was under the protection of his family's large and powerful al-Awlaki tribe, which was once aligned to Saleh, Richard Barrett, the coordinator of the U.N. monitoring team, told CNN."

 

How many deaths would have resulted from sending military personnel to arrest him (assuming Yemen would have given permission and he wouldn't have been tipped off)? The use of the drone was the right decision.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't suppose you would claim that it would be illegal for a US citizen who particpates in a firefight against US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan is protected by the Fifth Amendment from being killed.

Wow, for Mr. "I like to call people out on making strawmen", this is a bit of a pot and kettle instance.

 

 

How many deaths would have resulted from sending military personnel to arrest him (assuming Yemen would have given permission and he wouldn't have been tipped off)?

 

Ironic, those military personel are people who took an oath to uphold the constitution, but you are suggesting something which could be interpreted as following the constitution might be considered too dangerous for them to be used, so we might as well just wipe our asses with the document they swore to protect to keep them safe.. Awesome.

 

 

An indictment would have been easy to get, but I don't think he should have been allowed to continue his activities while the US government would wait for the authorities in Yemen to detain him (good luck with that, BTW).

If an indictment was so easy to get, then why the fuck didn't we try to get it? I agree it would have been easy to get and he is probably guilty, so why not do that first? At least that would have added the vaguest simblance of legality to this action and we could not just pretend that this is another step where America has just become a nation of pussies ready to hand over civil rights so we get an illusion of safety against the scary brown people.

 

 

Obama personally approved this drone attack. I don't see why he would approve it unless he were sure al-Awlaki was in fact an Al-Qaida recruiter and responsible for what the government said he is, and if he in fact is an Al-Qaida recruiter, it certainly cannot be said that the firefight was one-sided.

 

So, We have it here first - Conqy thinks Barry's word is golden and infallible.. This is good precedent for future conversations.

 

Look - at the end of the day, I can't make myself feel bad this dude is dead, and we are probably better off for it. But the fact that most people refuse to admit that this raises some serious questions about the power of the government and some constitutional issues really represent how I feel the war of terror has helped destroy part of America far more than terrorists ever could.

 

The fact that most of these same people who support the ability of an executive to summarily execute citizens without any due process or oversight tend to be the types who yell small government while waving copies of the constitution they barely understand around strikes me with a mixture of amusement and disgust...

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ironic, those military personel are people who took an oath to uphold the constitution, but you are suggesting something which could be interpreted as following the constitution might be considered too dangerous for them to be used, so we might as well just wipe our asses with the document they swore to protect to keep them safe.. Awesome.

 

If an indictment was so easy to get, then why the fuck didn't we try to get it? I agree it would have been easy to get and he is probably guilty, so why not do that first? At least that would have added the vaguest simblance of legality to this action and we could not just pretend that this is another step where America has just become a nation of pussies ready to hand over civil rights so we get an illusion of safety against the scary brown people.

 

So, We have it here first - Conqy thinks Barry's word is golden and infallible.. This is good precedent for future conversations.

 

I'm taking exception with the dogmatic insistence that the US government treat al-Awlaki as if he were an ordinary criminal suspect within the jurisdiction of the US.

 

The fact al-Awlaki is a US citizen isn't as relevant as you and cinzia seem to think it is- would the drone attack have been OK, IYHO, if he were not a US citizen?

 

Those of us who don't disdain the military might be a bit more cognizant of the fact that al-Awlaki wasn't simply going to be apprehended- imagine what would have happened with an extradition request to Yemen, given that we don't have an extradtion treaty with that country and its parlous political situation coupled with the powerful protectors he had. Nice to know some people think that al-Awlaki should have been left alone to stir up as much murder and mayhem as he could while our staunch dogmatists insist that absolutely nothing could be done about it, unless perhaps he decided to come back to the US.

 

Barry's mostly full of manure when it comes to economic policy, but, hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not going to vote for him, but I don't think he is a murderer- do you, LP? When you and cinzia announce that, after much reflection, you have decided to vote for Barry in 2012 because you don't want to cast your vote for a Mormon, I'll remind you that you are voting for a candidate you seem to think is a murdering fascist (sarcastic).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact al-Awlaki is a US citizen isn't as relevant as you and cinzia seem to think it is- would the drone attack have been OK, IYHO, if he were not a US citizen?

From a legal standpoint? Yes, that would make a significant difference. What you call 'dogmatic', I call following the constitution.

 

 

Those of us who don't disdain the military might be a bit more cognizant of the fact that al-Awlaki wasn't simply going to be apprehended- imagine what would have happened with an extradition request to Yemen, given that we don't have an extradtion treaty with that country and its parlous political situation coupled with the powerful protectors he had. Nice to know some people think that al-Awlaki should have been left alone to stir up as much murder and mayhem as he could while our staunch dogmatists insist that absolutely nothing could be done about it, unless perhaps he decided to come back to the US.

Ahh, lovely - now respect for the constitution and the expectation that people who join a military force with an oath to serve said constitution take a risk to uphold it equals a disdain for the military.

 

No, getting him probably would have been difficult, it might have even been dangerous. None of these things make me believe we should invest in our executive, a man you often disdain, the ability to arbitrarily kill people without any due process or oversight whatsoever. I am glad you trust Obama so much, I do not.

 

 

Barry's mostly full of manure when it comes to economic policy, but, hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not going to vote for him, but I don't think he is a murderer- do you, LP?

Do I think he is a murderer? Not particularly, I guess in some esoteric sense of politicians who break rules to kill people conveiniently, but I do realize the difference between that and Ted Bundy. I don't think he has any respect for the constitution though, his support of the bush policies wiping their ass with the constitution and this have made me quite the opposite of me being a fan of his.

 

 

When you and cinzia announce that, after much reflection, you have decided to vote for Barry in 2012 because you don't want to cast your vote for a Mormon, I'll remind you that you are voting for a candidate you seem to think is a murdering fascist (sarcastic).

 

Why do you group me with someone who supports barry when I have on multiple occassions said I neither voted for him and think he is a shitty president? I have said that out of principle I would vote for someone who isn't Rick Perry, because unless Obama starts drinking the blood of 2 year old children on live TV I don't think he can come close to how bad a human being Perry is, but fortunately as a resident of Texas I can just abstain and it won't make any difference.

 

I had a longer and more thoughtful rebuttal but I was at the cottbus pauli game today and am quite drunk, to be continued tommorow as I am going out to the Kiez to get drunker - enjoy your evening ladies and gentlemen.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0