Barack Caesar

[Winstonm]

NYT reports on Obama's assassination order and how it is justified:

 

The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .

 

In Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist.  He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist.

 

These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth.  And the punishment is thus decreed:  this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done.

 

Antonin Scalia, in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, wrote an Opinion (joined by Justice Stevens) arguing that it was unconstitutional for the U.S. Government merely to imprison (let alone kill) American citizens as "enemy combatants"; instead, they argued, the Constitution required that Americans be charged with crimes (such as treason) and be given a trial before being punished.

 

The full Hamdi Court held that at least some due process was required before Americans could be imprisoned as "enemy combatants."

 

Yet now, Barack Obama is claiming the right not merely to imprison, but to assassinate far from any battlefield, American citizens with no due process of any kind.

 

And if that is the case, the terrorists have won, by making us a such a fearful, quivering nation that we gladly abandon the very backbone of our independence in order to be "protected" by our Caesar and his Praetorian Guards.

 

A sad day indeed.

[PassedOut]

I wonder why the administration released this information to the stenographers at the New York Times. Could it be that they are pressuring Awlaki to "lawyer up" and turn himself in?

[luke warm]

I wonder why the administration released this information to the stenographers at the New York Times. Could it be that they are pressuring Awlaki to "lawyer up" and turn himself in?

does it matter? if the above is true, i don't see how any american can do anything but register the strongest of protests... of course i felt the same way about illegal (imo) wiretaps of american citizens, but i don't think my outrage changed anything

[Al_U_Card]

Presidents as Sith:(In reverse order.)

 

Darth Changeous

Darth Ludicrous

Darth Libidinous

Darth Paternalist

Darth Celebritis

Darth Ineffectualis

Darth Pratfallis

Darth Vicious

Darth Texas

Darth Charismatis

 

My guess for the poor guy that is next in line and that has to clean up this mess (Ron Paul, anyone???)

 

Darth Furious. :D

[Winstonm]

I wonder why the administration released this information to the stenographers at the New York Times. Could it be that they are pressuring Awlaki to "lawyer up" and turn himself in?

does it matter? if the above is true, i don't see how any american can do anything but register the strongest of protests... of course i felt the same way about illegal (imo) wiretaps of american citizens, but i don't think my outrage changed anything

I agree, but does outrage matter anymore? Are we "through the looking glass, now, people."

[Winstonm]

I wonder why the administration released this information to the stenographers at the New York Times. Could it be that they are pressuring Awlaki to "lawyer up" and turn himself in?

I really appreciated a piece of a Glenn Greenwald article from yesterday. He pointed out how disinformation is spread through the media. Newspaper "A" makes an inaccurate statement in an article. Newspaper "B" then quotes the error from Newspaper "A". And so it goes. Unless the disinformation is stopped quickly and immediately, the "fact" becomes established.

 

He pointed out that "A" had made the false claim that Wikileaks had released an edited version of a video and not the full version. News source "B" then quoted "A" that only an edited version had been released and demanded accountability.....

 

Over to you, Chet...

[PassedOut]

I wonder why the administration released this information to the stenographers at the New York Times. Could it be that they are pressuring Awlaki to "lawyer up" and turn himself in?

does it matter? if the above is true, i don't see how any american can do anything but register the strongest of protests... of course i felt the same way about illegal (imo) wiretaps of american citizens, but i don't think my outrage changed anything

I meant to suggest that I doubt (very much) the accuracy of the report. As you say, "If the above is true," then protests are called for.

[cherdanno]

I wonder why the administration released this information to the stenographers at the New York Times. Could it be that they are pressuring Awlaki to "lawyer up" and turn himself in?

does it matter? if the above is true, i don't see how any american can do anything but register the strongest of protests... of course i felt the same way about illegal (imo) wiretaps of american citizens, but i don't think my outrage changed anything

I meant to suggest that I doubt (very much) the accuracy of the report. As you say, "If the above is true," then protests are called for.

I assume you mean this report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/mi...sq=Anwar&st=cse

 

I see no reason to doubt it. It seems well-sourced - first a Reuters report, then several administration officials confirming it. And earlier statements by the director of National Intelligence in a House hearing that such a step would be possible.

[kenrexford]

More of that hope and change.

 

Obama lied, people died?

[kenberg]

The account of the capture wasn't in the paper

But you know they hanged old Smack right there, instead of later

The people were quite pleased

The outlaw had been seized

And on the whole it was a very good year

For the undertaker

[Winstonm]

I wonder why the administration released this information to the stenographers at the New York Times. Could it be that they are pressuring Awlaki to "lawyer up" and turn himself in?

does it matter? if the above is true, i don't see how any american can do anything but register the strongest of protests... of course i felt the same way about illegal (imo) wiretaps of american citizens, but i don't think my outrage changed anything

I meant to suggest that I doubt (very much) the accuracy of the report. As you say, "If the above is true," then protests are called for.

The report is duplicated by the Washington Post and Associated Press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0040700002.html

 

Reports: US OKs radical US-born cleric for death

The Associated Press

Wednesday, April 7, 2010; 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has authorized the killing of a radical Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen believed to be hiding in Yemen and thought to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the U.S. to participating in them, according to published reports.

 

Due process is for wimps......

[jdonn]

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

[Winstonm]

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

 

We are supposed to be protected by due process - the rule of law. With this decision that the President can authorize the CIA to kill an American citizen, we abandon the rule of law.

 

It seems that many don't understand the purpose of the Constitution - its purpose is to protect the minority from excesses which are by their nature wrong but the majority might attempt to impose anyway: things like abandoning due process because he is accused of terrorism...

[jdonn]

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

[blackshoe]

If I understand it correctly, the only ways you can "lose" US citizenship are by voluntarily and explicitly giving it up, by taking certain high level positions with a foreign government, by committing treason, or (very rarely) by doing something (illegal?) that clearly demonstrates that you intend to give it up. I do not think committing a terrorist act qualifies, and I'm certain that simply being labelled a terrorist does not.

There is a presumption in law that US citizens do not ordinarily intend to give up their citizenship.

[luke warm]

I meant to suggest that I doubt (very much) the accuracy of the report.

out of curiosity, why do you doubt it at all, let alone "very much?"

[Winstonm]

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop?

[PassedOut]

I meant to suggest that I doubt (very much) the accuracy of the report.

out of curiosity, why do you doubt it at all, let alone "very much?"

Initial news reports often omit important facts, distort the facts, or are just plain wrong. The more sensational the report (from my years of observation), the more likely it's wrong.

 

That doesn't mean this report is necessarily wrong, of course, just quite likely to be. I'm going to reserve judgment until the facts come out.

[blackshoe]

I'm going to reserve judgment until the facts come out.

I'm sorry, this is the Internet. You are not permitted to behave rationally. :)

[vuroth]

We are supposed to be protected by due process - the rule of law. With this decision that the President can authorize the CIA to kill an American citizen, we abandon the rule of law.

I'm all for waiting for more info. Not sure we know the whole story here yet.

 

That said, if an American had shot an American citizen fighting in the trenches for Germany in WW2, we wouldn't have spoken about rule of law. The CIA should not be doing any killing, anywhere (the policy of doing so had not helped the USA out in the long term), but it's not absolutely necessary that an agent of the government killing a citizen be some kind of legal travesty.

 

I also think that our enemies (and yes, we have enemies) should not be allowed to use citizenship as an umbrella.

 

Like I said, my guess is there's more going on here than meets the eye, so I'll wait for more info before deciding if the government is overstepping again, or if something entirely different is happening.

[awm]

It seems like there is a long tradition in the US of people who are "wanted, dead or alive"?

 

In most cases these people haven't been convicted in a court of law (because they haven't been successfully captured and tried) yet the evidence of their guilt is quite overwhelming and their continued criminal actions suggest that stopping them (even if by killing them) is preferable to letting them run loose. There were many examples of this in the "old west" (I think it's a staple of western movies) but the DC-area snipers might be a relatively recent example.

 

To some extent this violates due process, but when you have someone who has admitted publicly (producing propaganda videos even) to trying to kill Americans en masse and indicates that he will continue doing so, shooting that person might be viewed as a defensive act and preferable to trying to arrest them in many situations.

 

For another view... say you are a CIA agent who has infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell in the mid-east. Somehow you end up in a situation where you're alone in a room with Osama bin Laden, and you have a pistol with you. Your chances of "arresting" him and marching him out through the terrorist camp to justice are basically nil, but if you shoot him in the head you have a decent chance of even getting out alive. Do you really think an agent in this situation should spare the guy to "protect the rule of law"? Really?

[bid_em_up]

The account of the capture wasn't in the paper

But you know they hanged old Smack right there, instead of later

The people were quite pleased

The outlaw had been seized

And on the whole it was a very good year

For the undertaker

I doubt many people here are familiar with Smackwater Jack.

[shyams]

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship?

In my opinion, the answer to this question should be:

* No matter what someone does, it should be impossible for the State to revoke that person's citizenship.

* I guess historically, high treason would be enough reason for revoking citizenship.

* In the current world, naturalisation obtained by fraudulent methods can be a basis.

Barring these, it should be never -- the individual has rights to surrender, the State should not have rights to revoke.

[jdonn]

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop?

Who says there wouldn't be due process?

[pooltuna]

So out of curiosity, what does it take to lose one's citizenship? I agree with the outrage that this could be done to an American citizen, but perhaps the fact he is one should be the (a?) real outrage.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop?

I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)?

I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop?

Who says there wouldn't be due process?

He probably gets the same due process any wanted outlaw gets who has moved out of US territory but still threatens the lives of citizens within US territory. Let us not forget that the "war on terror" is actually a police/military action against outlaws. Any war is against a political state that willfully harbors and abets them.