Barack Caesar

[Winstonm]

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?

I think you've been watching too much Jack Bauer.

 

First off, this individual has only been accused...big word...of any criminal wrongdoing. Second, the "proof" of criminal wrongdoing comes from our crackerjack intelligence agencies, who brought you that dynamite analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear ambitions, and ties to al-Qaeda.

 

And you really want to allow the President...without any hearing or court justification....to order the death of a citizen based on the same intelligence gathering that brought you the Iraq war....REALLY???

[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?

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.

So you are saying that any U.S. citizen accused of terrorism can be killed on the spot without a trial because it is a police action and not warfare? So now our police action is to kill accused without a trial as long as they have an Arabian-sounding name and have brown skin and our crackjack intelligence claims they are the bad guys - like all those Afghan wedding parties they target?

 

Is it now worthy of the death penalty to look like Omar Shariff and be accused of "Un-American" activies by the CIA?

 

Damn. I think you are right.

 

Good call. We should probably also amend the Constitution to rid ourselves of those pesky "rights" that get in the way of government-sanctioned murder.

[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?

Who says there wouldn't be due process?

I presumed that is what you meant - I may have presumed incorrectly.

[mike777]

The decision does seem to claim that the Prez can order the killing of a usa citizen in Yemen without a trial or a court order.

 

As others have mentioned we do have a history of capture, dead or alive for citizens here in the USA.

 

Nothing new here, I just think people forgot history.

 

-----------

 

 

As noted in many other threads it seems fine for the CIA to kill or kidnap or rough up people in other countries. They can provide training, money and arms to others to kill.

 

They just cannot waterboard or get hard intell on stuff like Iran nukes, berlin wall falling or need we say WMD. :)

[awm]

Well, I don't know the official story on this individual.

 

But a lot of the Al Qaeda leadership seems to make and distribute these videos where they claim "credit" for terrorist acts, and extort people to commit more terrorist acts and "kill Americans."

 

If someone has publicly (and proudly) stated involvement in terrorism and a desire to "do it again" then I don't think there is that much need for a trial -- he's basically admitted guilt! The key is to stop him from carrying out further crimes (which he proudly states his desire to do). In these types of cases it'd be great to apprehend the person, but better to kill them off than let them create another 9/11. It's like having a public confession -- is it really more important to make sure that someone who has already confessed to the crime and indicated he wants to do it again gets a fair trial, rather than prevent them from repeating the crime and killing more innocents?

 

This is a very different situation from people who "may or may not" be involved in terrorism, or people who have some peripheral involvement (like money laundering or whatever).

[Lobowolf]

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?

I think you've been watching too much Jack Bauer.

 

First off, this individual has only been accused...big word...of any criminal wrongdoing. Second, the "proof" of criminal wrongdoing comes from our crackerjack intelligence agencies, who brought you that dynamite analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear ambitions, and ties to al-Qaeda.

 

And you really want to allow the President...without any hearing or court justification....to order the death of a citizen based on the same intelligence gathering that brought you the Iraq war....REALLY???

It's different now. If Obama wants to do it, I'm sure he has a good reason.

[mike777]

Yes..many in the forums hated Bush for doing things for not good reasons......thank god Obama has good reasons.

[y66]

It's different now. If Obama wants to do it, I'm sure he has a good reason.

What is different now? The rationale for the policy or Obama's stance on the policy?

[blackshoe]

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

[luke warm]

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

and he's ... well, he's just *better*, damn it

[gwnn]

Has Bush 43 ever done something like this? If not, when was the last time?

[hrothgar]

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

and he's ... well, he's just *better*, damn it

Comment 1: Yes, Obama is "just *better*" than the shrub.

 

Bush (essentially) failed at everything he did...

 

His life story is one in which people handed him everything on a single platter. (Paid positions, companies, baseball teams, you name it). Almost everything he touched, turned to complete *****.

 

Eventually, some political operatives decided that a lazy, affable dolt with the right name would make for a malleable President. True to form, the Bush administration screwed over this country beyond belief...

 

An economic collapse that rivals the Great Depression

A trumped up invasion of the wrong country

Racking up obscene amounts of debt

Pissing off the entire international community

 

In contrast Obama

 

Raised himself from living in poverty to the Presidency

Has accomplished an amazing amount in his first year in office

Has a professional and academic record that anyone would be proud of

 

So, yes... Obama is just *better* than that piece of chicken fried *****...

 

Comment 2:

 

The fact that Obama is the one authorizing the assassination of US citizens by no means excuses whats going on.

 

I have infinitely more trust in Obama's judgment on these sorts of issues than I do Bush. However, I don't think that any President should be able to order the assassination of a US citizen. (Or authorize unrestricted wiretapping or a host of other policies that Obama is pursuing).

 

Even if I trusted Obama to use these tools wisely - and I'm not sure that I do - I certainly don't trust the yahoos who might come afterward.

[kenberg]

With regard to the order: I think it needs to be compared with, say, shooting someone holding hostages rather than attempting to arrest him. The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

 

That being said, there is good reason to keep the government on a very tight leash in such matters. I approve, and I suspect that most people approve, of using a sharpshooter to take out someone holding hostages at least when the assessment by a trained hostage rescue team believes that such an action stands the best chance of getting the hostages out alive. I do not approve, and I suspect most people do not approve, of letting the government kill someone because he has been labeled a terrorist or a mobster or a general nogoodnik. The action at hand lies somewhere in between, I think. To my mind, it more closely resembles the hostage situation.

 

As to the rule of law, I assume there are some laws related to the matter. Certainly there must be laws that protect the sharpshooter and the one who authorizes the action in a hostage situation. Since we are sort of still getting our act together on terrorism, maybe the law has not yet caught up here.

 

I don't trust governments. No one should. But if someone is trying to kill me I would like there to be some response other than prosecuting him after he does it.

[Winstonm]

Well, I don't know the official story on this individual.

 

If someone has publicly (and proudly) stated involvement in (Communism) and a desire to "do it again" then I don't think there is that much need for a trial -- he's basically admitted guilt! The key is to stop him from carrying out further crimes (which he proudly states his desire to do). In these types of cases it'd be great to apprehend the person, but better to kill them off than let them create another (East Berlin). It's like having a public confession -- is it really more important to make sure that someone who has already confessed to the crime and indicated he wants to do it again gets a fair trial, rather than prevent them from repeating the crime and killing more innocents?

 

This is a very different situation from people who "may or may not" be involved in (Communism), or people who have some peripheral involvement (like money laundering or whatever).

I fixed it for you Senator. ;)

 

And Btw, this individual through his family has issued denial of involvement in crimes (communism).

 

Gee, whiz. Accusation and denial - sounds like a valid reason for a lynching.

[Winstonm]

emphasis added.

The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

 

So you are saying the President must have "probable cause" to murder a citizen....I wonder if the President is subject to RICO?

[cherdanno]

Well, I don't know the official story on this individual.

 

But a lot of the Al Qaeda leadership seems to make and distribute these videos where they claim "credit" for terrorist acts, and extort people to commit more terrorist acts and "kill Americans."

 

If someone has publicly (and proudly) stated involvement in terrorism and a desire to "do it again" then I don't think there is that much need for a trial -- he's basically admitted guilt! The key is to stop him from carrying out further crimes (which he proudly states his desire to do). In these types of cases it'd be great to apprehend the person, but better to kill them off than let them create another 9/11. It's like having a public confession -- is it really more important to make sure that someone who has already confessed to the crime and indicated he wants to do it again gets a fair trial, rather than prevent them from repeating the crime and killing more innocents?

 

This is a very different situation from people who "may or may not" be involved in terrorism, or people who have some peripheral involvement (like money laundering or whatever).

Indeed you don't seem to know anything about this particular individual. He is not an Al-Qaeda leader. What is publicly known is basically that he is agitating against the US, in sermons and on Jihadist web sites. So it is plausible that he is (or functions as) a recruiter, but nothing more is known.

 

So from the public information it seems impossible to justify claiming that he is an immediate threat for the US. Presumable the administration has (or believes to have) more information about him, that indicates that he is actively involved in terrorist plots. But there is certainly no confession, nor even anything resembling an indictment (not even by anonymous government officials) about any crime.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...-citizen/38592/

 

Btw, just as an aside, false confessions are one of the most frequent reasons for wrongful convictions.

[luke warm]

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

and he's ... well, he's just *better*, damn it

Comment 1: Yes, Obama is "just *better*" than the shrub.

i actually meant that obama, blessed be his name, is a better person (obviously), but whatever

[Winstonm]

"After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid."

 

NATO officials had originally peddled the story that the victims had been stabbed to death by family members prior to the U.S. attack on the compound where they had gathered for some festive occasion. This turned out to be entirely bogus—in short, a lie.

 

And these are the types of individuals we want to point out the bad guy Americans to the President so he can order them murdered. Curious reasoning.

[jdonn]

"After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid."

 

NATO officials had originally peddled the story that the victims had been stabbed to death by family members prior to the U.S. attack on the compound where they had gathered for some festive occasion. This turned out to be entirely bogus—in short, a lie.

 

And these are the types of individuals we want to point out the bad guy Americans to the President so he can order them murdered. Curious reasoning.

You're much better off sticking to the argument that it's inherently (constitutionaly, morally) wrong than that the sources are unreliable.

[Winstonm]

The decision does seem to claim that the Prez can order the killing of a usa citizen in Yemen without a trial or a court order.

 

As others have mentioned we do have a history of capture, dead or alive for citizens here in the USA.

 

Nothing new here, I just think people forgot history.

Mike, you have a propensity to point to history as a guage to the legitimacy of current actions, but I think you are confusing history and precedent.

 

There is history for feeding Christians to lions - but I doubt a modern-day Nero would be able to defend his actions by claiming legal precedent, and even if there were a historical legal precedent, it has to be determined to be "good law", i.e., still a current and reliable precedent, to be useful. So the New Nero isn't going to get off on a historical technicality. Sorry.

 

I'm not so sure this "wanted dead of alive" example was ever more than a make believe movie/tv claim. Anyone know the facts? Regardless, even if it has been done historically, I'm betting that the historical precedent claim for issuing a "Wanted dead or alive" warrant does not cut the mustard as "good law" today.

 

But then it's always good to mix fiction with facts to keep the proletariat guessing.

[Winstonm]

"After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid."

 

NATO officials had originally peddled the story that the victims had been stabbed to death by family members prior to the U.S. attack on the compound where they had gathered for some festive occasion. This turned out to be entirely bogus—in short, a lie.

 

And these are the types of individuals we want to point out the bad guy Americans to the President so he can order them murdered. Curious reasoning.

You're much better off sticking to the argument that it's inherently (constitutionaly, morally) wrong than that the sources are unreliable.

Can't both be valid arguments? Our intelligence does not exactly have a 100% accuracy rate for spotting the bad guys. One would think before you killed a citizen, making sure you were 100% right might be near the top of the to-do list.

[Winstonm]

Has Bush 43 ever done something like this? If not, when was the last time?

This claim of Presidential authority is unprecedented.

[kenberg]

emphasis added.

The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

 

So you are saying the President must have "probable cause" to murder a citizen....I wonder if the President is subject to RICO?

The issue of citizenship is not really my issue. Whether we should strip him of citizenship and then shoot him, or just shoot him, is of no great moment to me. The question is whether we should shoot him at all, is it not? So I suggest forgetting about the citizenship issue.

 

As to shooting, murder, and the rule of law: I said, with I think a level of clarity, that under some circumstances the law does allow us to kill someone because we believe that his intended actions make it acceptable. We do not, or I do not anyway, speak of murder if someone shoots a person who is holding hostages. You need to know the specifics of course, but quite possibly the action is within the rule of law. And of course sometimes it is not. But the principle is, I think, an accepted part of law that under some circumstances police, the FBI, in general law enforcement can kill a person not for what he has done, not for what he has been convicted of, but to prevent him from doing what he intends to do. Usually in fact the action of a sharpshooter, in rescuing those who are in danger of being killed, is praised. To speak sarcastically of RICO is to avoid taking seriously the difficult question of what to do about a person who has made a credible threat to kill people and gives every indication of making good on his threat.

 

Really very few of us wish to authorize killing based on presidential whim. Whether this particular case is justified or not, I do think the basic principle falls within the rule of law, and I think it should.

[Winstonm]

emphasis added.

The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

 

So you are saying the President must have "probable cause" to murder a citizen....I wonder if the President is subject to RICO?

The issue of citizenship is not really my issue. Whether we should strip him of citizenship and then shoot him, or just shoot him, is of no great moment to me. The question is whether we should shoot him at all, is it not? So I suggest forgetting about the citizenship issue.

 

As to shooting, murder, and the rule of law: I said, with I think a level of clarity, that under some circumstances the law does allow us to kill someone because we believe that his intended actions make it acceptable. We do not, or I do not anyway, speak of murder if someone shoots a person who is holding hostages. You need to know the specifics of course, but quite possibly the action is within the rule of law. And of course sometimes it is not. But the principle is, I think, an accepted part of law that under some circumstances police, the FBI, in general law enforcement can kill a person not for what he has done, not for what he has been convicted of, but to prevent him from doing what he intends to do. Usually in fact the action of a sharpshooter, in rescuing those who are in danger of being killed, is praised. To speak sarcastically of RICO is to avoid taking seriously the difficult question of what to do about a person who has made a credible threat to kill people and gives every indication of making good on his threat.

 

Really very few of us wish to authorize killing based on presidential whim. Whether this particular case is justified or not, I do think the basic principle falls within the rule of law, and I think it should.

Yes, Ken, that is a much different scenario - but one that also does not require Presidential authorization. When you speak of a hostage-taker, you are talking about someone who is actively engaged in a criminal activity.

 

The actions allowed against this cleric are to kill him anywhere he is found - even sitting down to dinner with his family. There is a considerable difference between eating a bowl of bean soup and holding a hostage.

 

Remember, the guy eating the bean soup has only been accused by those in the intelligence agencies of someday being a guy who will commit a serious crime. With our record of releasing non-combattant Guantanemo detainess I would have serious reservations about the quality of our intelligence gathering techniques.

[y66]

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.

When they sign Sean Penn to play your part in "Water Cooler", I don't think even he'll be able to say these lines without gagging. Maybe he can play Cherdanno.