I realize Gov. Johnson’s stature in the polls might not warrant a frontpage post over something so minor, but I feel that Gov. Johnson’s message here is far too important to not be heard. The way in which US citizen and New Mexico native Anwar al-Awlaki was executed is very, very disturbing.
September 30, 2011, Santa Fe, NM — Responding to the killing in Yemen of AnWar al-Awlaki an American citizen, presidential candidate Gary Johnson released a statement this morning pointing out that the attack may be the first time a U.S. citizen has been specifically targeted for death in the “War on Terror”, and raises questions about American citizens’ rights to due process under the law.
Johnson said, “Let there be no doubt. We have to be vigilant, we have to protect the U.S. and U. S. citizens from terrorist attacks, and we have to aggressively pursue those who would do us harm. At the same time we cannot allow the War on Terror to diminish our steadfast adherence to the notion of due process for American citizens. The protections under the Constitution for those accused of crimes do not just apply to people we like — they apply to everyone, including a terrorist like al-Awlaki. It is a question of due process for American citizens.”
”I understand that laws may allow these decisions by the President and other officials in regard to al-Awlaki, and I do not in any way want to diminish the skill and dedication of our CIA and military. But, at the same time, it must not be overlooked — and thoughtfully examined — that our government targeted a U.S. citizen for death, and carried out that sentence on foreign soil. To my knowledge, that is a first, and a precedent that raises serious questions.
“If we allow our fervor to eliminate terrorist threats to cause us to cut corners with the Constitution and the fundamental rights of American citizens, whether it be invasions of privacy or the killing of someone born on U.S. soil, I could argue that the terrorists will have ultimately won.
“The world is very likely a better place without al-Awlaki in it, but let us not neglect to ask the tough questions this attack raises and about the laws that allowed it to be carried out.”
September 30th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Sorry Josiah but this is why libertarians won’t win over the wider electorate; they are simply too extreme on foreign policy. Al-Awlaki was a terrorist who would’ve killed every single American he could if given the chance, and yet the libertarians are more concerned about legal niceties.
He’s dead and the world is a better place because of it. No one should lose a second of sleep over it.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
his dumbest comments ever. how bout treason?
September 30th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
He was a top guy in an organization making war with the United States.
One of the government’s top jobs is to stop people trying to kill me. They did their job today. This isn’t even a grey area.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I am afraid I do not understand. If an American was serving in the German army during World War II, we couldn’t shoot him without a fair trial first?
This man had declared war on all Americans. America shot back. And this is a bad thing?
September 30th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
We obviously have to be worried about a government that kills its own citizens without due process BUT Awlaki is a SPECIAL CASE, and we need to all be pleased with our CIA and military for what it did.
As president, I would NEVER hesitate to kill a known terrorist like Awlaki.
I am very pleased with Obama on THIS.
And I am confident any GOP candidate would have done the same, except Paul and Johnson.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I’ve got a real question: how can any reasonably intelligent and politically aware and informed person/media person, commenting on and/or following Palin’s actions, honestly believe she’s not running. Assuming at least some of them are being sincere, really, how can they sincerely believe Palin is not in?
Am I missing something here? Or is Palin’s strategerie really fooling them into thinking she’s not running?
This is a legit inquiry.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
A). There have been serial/mass murderers far more horrific and lethal who have been given due process.
B). The Constitution does not grant the government authority to abridge the right to due process. Period.
C). What was Awlaki’s actual crime? Did he himself kill anyone? As far as I know, his crime was inciting other people to commit crimes. Awlaki’s crime was his speech. A US citizen has been executed without due process, because of his speech. If that’s not chilling, I don’t know what is.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
5:
I don’t see it as a special case. I think it’s normal to target high ranking officials in a time of war. Particularly when the other side is the aggressor and targeting civilians.
An American citizenship is not a license to make war on the United States. Indeed, the American government has killed it’s citizens plenty of times for making war against it. One of the nastiest wars we ever had was dedicated to killing American citizens taking up arms against their country (Civil War for those slow on the uptake).
And, frankly, almost all those Confederate soldiers deserved death a lot less than Anwar al-Awlaki
September 30th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
6
Okay, I am pleased to finally see that you’ve been joking all along.
You are a funny poster! Keep coming here, it’s amusing!
September 30th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
marK,
That’s a really bad analogy. If your next door neighbor were shooting at you, you would be justified to shoot back at him and kill him. Of course if a US citizen were serving in a foreign army and shooting at you, it would be no less the case that you would be justified in killing him.
However, if your next door neighbor were writing books and speeches telling other people to kill you, the proper course of action would be to notify the police, who would then investigate the matter, and if necessary, arrest your neighbor and give him a fair trial. This should no less be the case if the person inciting other people to try to kill you happens to have brown skin, a funny name, and is not currently living within the borders of the US.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
7:
True, but the Constitution does give the government the power to make war. Awlaki was plainly, in his own words, on the other side of that war. Due process is not a right given on the battlefield.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
7
I understand what you’re saying, and in theory, I agree.
But he has been a highly-wanted terrorist for years now, evading capture, and helping plot attacks in the U.S. that would have killed hundreds if they were not stopped.
There was absolutely no way we would have ever been able to:
(1) Get the Yemeni government to cooperate with us on this
(2) Get the Yemeni government to capture him without being bribed or fought off
(3) get him transported over here for trial
in a reliable way.
We had him in our crosshairs, and we HAD to get him. Period.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Yikes! Are you now demanding that he should have been allowed to kill Americans (of which he was by law, not choice, once he joined a bunch of unlawful combatants) until there was actual blood on his own hands for police prosecution?
Are you equally sanguine if someone should threaten to murder you or your family, and the person is cagey and sneaky and considers himself legitimately outside all laws and contracts? What do you do then? Go to court in defense of your avowed future murderer on first amendment, free speech grounds in order to ensure his future survival and freedom?
September 30th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
10
Your analogy is bad too.
I’d modify it to this:
If your next-door neighbor was actively inspiring attacks and plotting attacks against you, and your local police were corrupt to the core and incompetent, should you kill him?
Yes.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Like Gov. Johnson said, the world is surely a better place without Awlaki in it, but as far as I know, Awlaki’s execution is unprecedented, and I would rather suffer a very minutely increased risk of dying in a terrorist attack plotted by Anwar al-Awlaki than give up any ground on such an important constitutional right. I guess it really just comes down to what do you prize more: liberty or safety?
September 30th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
15:
I hearby denounce my liberty to make war with the United States.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Wow, can’t believe so many people here support the US government killing its citizens for being accused of something. It was not self-defense in any legal sense of the term. Truly frightening. I thought you people at least pretended to strictly abide by the Constitution.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
er…renounce
September 30th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Thomas,
I’m talking about the right to due process. Do we allow an enormous change in the precedent for how government deals with its own citizens, or do we risk letting this relatively unsuccessful terrorist adviser live a little longer in order for the government to do it the right way?
September 30th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
17:
As I pointed out before, there’s nothing contradictory about killing an active leader of an organization at war with the United States. I feel quite secure that, if presented with the facts of the case, every single Founding Father would answer with a resounding “Duh” on the question of whether the government can kill an enemy currently at war with the United States.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
19:
We kill enemies making war with us.
I see no change in precedent here. This is a basic government power. Due process isn’t a part of the conversation.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
first of all i am certain the president and CIA have tons of dirt on him so they are a better judge of his innocence/guilt.
secondly, he was a us citizen that was treasonous and in war that means the death penalty. easy for us to judge the situation with a fraction of the information.
i was standing with my family right next to the smoking suv that was supposed to go off in times square and fortunately it didnt blow up and we got moved blocks away. this times square guy was ‘inspired’ by awlaki and that caused him to try it. i have little sympathy for him.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
19
As much as the way Awlaki was killed sends a chill down your spine, the way he was killed sends a chill twice as intense as yours down the spine of anyone who intends on attacking Americans.
Make no mistake: if anyone plans to kill Americans, they are NOT safe ANYWHERE.
This is essential.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
#6 Jack…
Maybe Palin and Chirstie are in cahoots!
September 30th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Mass Con,
Don’t be silly. The people with whom we’re at war aren’t deterred by this. They love it. Awlaki is now a martyr, and they want to become martyrs also. We just handed the terrorists primo recruiting fodder and all we have to show for it is a Fifth Amendment in tatters.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Josiah,
MassCon makes an important addition to your analogy.
Was it reasonable to expect to arrest this guy and have a trial before we executed him?
September 30th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
25:
LOL.
Sorry, that’s my reaction whenever someone mentions any act being a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. So naive.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
27
Right on.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
MWS,
Of course! They obviously knew where he was–they knew precisely enough that they were able to pinpoint him with a missile. I have a little more faith in the men and women of our CIA to be able to successfully extradite someone, I suppose.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Thomas,
Are you kidding? It’s absolutely naive to think that this deters any would-be terrorists. This just pisses them off more and gives them another martyr to emulate. The fear of death is not a factor for our enemies, and it’s really laughable that you’re calling MY concerns “naive,” compared to the bull-hockey you’re spouting.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Josiah,
Hitting someone at range is a little easier than arresting him.
Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald would have been as successful if he tried to arrest President Kennedy?
September 30th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
This nation was founded on the rule of law. The founders wanted rule of law because they experienced first had how tyrannical leaders can become when untethered. We must be careful lest we experience the same thing. of course the world is a better place without him, but that’s not what this argument is about.
I honestly can’t believe this statement has garnered such derision. Neocons are all constitutionalists, until they decide it’s practical not to be.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
29:
LOL.
Sorry again. You seem to have no idea how long it takes to set up an operation like that compared to the tiny window they likely had to blow him up with a drone.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
32:
Once again, not violating the Constitution. Not claiming an exception. Not claiming special circumstances to get around the 5th Amendment. Flat out saying the government is empowered to perform this operation under its Constitutional power to wage war.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Thomas,
Then, if it’s truly that difficult to do it the right way, I say don’t do it at all. (But to be honest, I believe the government would have been well capable of arresting Awlaki and giving him a fair trial.) I’d rather err on the side of liberty and the Constitution than further diminish the already microscopic risk of dying in a terrorist attack, if those are really the only two choices (which I don’t believe they are, to reiterate). How about we all stop being such cowards?
September 30th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
30:
Whether it deters terrorists or not (I tend to think the fear of randomly exploding actually does have a negative impact on morale). But it was you who said that they would use it as a recruiting goal. Which has been said about anything we’ve ever done. That part is nonsense that doesn’t understand that their recruitment of people is independent of anything we actually do to provoke them.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
35:
Well, you’d rather side with a non-existing liberty. What can I say, your phantom liberty is gone and I’m just as glad.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
There is some point at which an American citizen gives up their rights as a citizen by their own behavior.
I wish there was some kind of formal stripping of citizenship before he was targeted.
I do think that there is something sacrosanct about being an American citizen. And that our rights to due process are absolute. And it doesn’t hurt to study this situation to make certain that everything we did was as close to just as we could get.
But that is theory. In real life, the man was an enemy to the United States. He declared and conducted war on his native country. If someone does that, why can’t we declare them no longer a citizen. and strip them of their rights?
I worry more about this giving fuel to the anti-war nuts inside our country than about enemies without. Giving those people any excuse to undermine the war on terror is risky.
Therefore, Gov. Johnson is sort of aiding an enemy, the domestic ones that the oaths warn about.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
34. Truly a week argument. The power to wage war was specifically referring to one recognized state waging war against another state, not against an idea. The framers of the constitution had no concept of a “war on terror”.
Terrorism is an idea that has no agreed upon definition. If I blackmail someone, is that terrorism? If I rob a bank at gunpoint, is that terrorism? If two people go on a shooting spree, is that terrorism? There are so many every day crimes that could fall under the general definition of “terror used for coercion”. So in these cases, should the government hold the power to execute the US citizen “terrorists” without a trial? Do these actions suddenly turn an American citizen into an enemy combatant? Again, it’s not this particular case we’re arguing about, but the precedent it sets.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
38. That would be called treason. Not quite the same as stripping them of citizenship, but the penalty is death. However, even treason requires a trial. Their is no situation in which the government has a right to strip a US citizen of rights, no matter how heinous the crimes. This is a very good thing, although at times it makes for difficult situations like this.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Josiah – #25
LOL – if they all wanted to be martyrs, they should present themselves to the nearest US Embassy for trial.
Oh, wait. They try and bomb US Embassies, not walk up and surrender there. If the guy were on US soil working on his own, or with a very small group, (see McVeigh, Timothy), it’d be different. He’s on foreign soil, working with a known terrorist organization. Did you think the “War on Terror” was over? Did you think the “War on Terror” was just a collection of words, not really intended to mean anything?
It’s us or them; and I much prefer that they die before their time, rather than the other way around.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
He would thank the U.S.A.
Oh,
wait.
September 30th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
http://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls
ppppolls PublicPolicyPolling
Cain the clear leader on night 1 of both our Nebraska and NC polls…very different states…he might be leading a national poll this week
16 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
September 30th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Cain’s on a good roll. And on Jay Leno tonight.
But again, he’s never even been elected dog catcher or to any office. Period.
Leno will probably ask him about Al-Awlaki though.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
jayleno:
Jay asks @THEHermanCain why he wouldn’t appoint a Muslim. http://bit.ly/qBSDLT
September 30th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
I’m afraid that’s the weak argument. The war is being waged against a group of people, not a concept. Maybe not a state, but that gives them even fewer rights since they are waging war in an illegal manner.
Even if we’d caught him, we could detain him as a POW until such time as hostilities end (i.e. forever).
September 30th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
The most thoughtful advice I’ve ever heard in situations like this is: First you take care of the victim(s), make sure they are OK and taken care of and all their needs met. THEN you take care of and show mercy towards the predator, IN THAT ORDER.
So often we get it the other way around. Our do-good “liberty for all” hearts rush in to defend the predator, at the expense and neglect of those who have been victimized. And because they tend to be the quiet ones, they get swept under the carpet while the louder, squeaky-wheel predator types demand all the considerations and the benefits.
September 30th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
47:
Oh, I’m sure that Al-Awlak had no particular complaints about the U.S. targeting him. He knew it was going to happen. He was just glad to have useful idiots like Johnson and Jason around to muddy the waters and make up rights when it happened.
October 1st, 2011 at 3:48 am
Nice try, guys. Gotta love the assertion that the same people who said “Give me liberty or give me death” and “Those who would give up essential liberties for temporary safety will deserve neither and lose both” would be in favor of throwing away the right of due process in order to diminish the already 1 in 30,000,000 odds of dying in a terrorist attack (yes, those are the actual odds). Thanks for the laughs, but no thanks for helping to allow the Obama administration to get away with single-handedly changing the interpretation of the Constitution and revoking a centuries-old legal right.
October 1st, 2011 at 5:52 am
Didn’t 2,985 people die in 9/11? With the population of the US being 30,000,000 (give or take) that’s about a 1 in 10,000 chance right there. Do you mean every day odds singular to that day or “sometime in your life time” chance of dying in a terrorist attack? Because it only takes once.
I find your concern and mercy for a known terrorist individual, above and beyond your concern for so many others out of balance. Your attitude and justification really sticks in one’s throat. “Oh, it’s ok, the odds of you dying yourself are so low, it is of no consequence.” That attitude seems really out of touch and insensitive to others who do end up being the victim.
The odds of our dying at the hands at any one would-be murderer is also extraordinarily low. Does that mean it’s ok and of no concern what that person is planning to do or does pull off because the odds of it affecting us personally are so low? I find that callous and insensitive. I wonder if it would matter more if it was one of your near and dear ones who were the one in 10,000 on 9/11 and the “odds” hit a little closer to home? Would you be rushing to the terrorist’s aid if your spouse or child was the “one in 30,000,000″?
Once someone involves them-self in treason and intentionally puts American citizens in danger, and is known to be plotting murder and mayhem, the lives he plans to take deserve due process and diligence above and beyond – by those agencies sworn to protect American citizens.
October 1st, 2011 at 6:58 am
SixMom,
First of all, the population of the United States is 300,000,000, not 30,000,000.
Your odds of dying in a terrorist attack during any given year are about 1 in 30,000,000.
Your odds of dying in a terrorist attack during your lifetime are about 1 in 88,000.
If a terrorist were to destroy one entire American shopping mall a week, your odds of being in the wrong mall would be 1 in 1,500,000. If terrorists were able to successfully hijack and crash one of the 18,000 commercial flights in the US per week, your odds of dying in an airplane terror attack would be 1 in 135,000.
To further put this in perspective, currently, your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 83. Your odds of dying by being struck by a vehicle are 1 in 625. Your odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5000. Your odds of dying by being struck by an asteroid is somewhere between 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 200,000. Your odds of being killed by a police officer are 8 times greater than that of being killed by a terrorist.
Yes, these numbers don’t comfort someone who’s been maimed, or had a loved one taken from them, by a terrorist attack, but we need to face reality: terrorists are always going to exist, and there are always going to be terrorist attacks somewhere, by someone, somehow. Cars and planes are always going to crash. Asteroids are going to strike. Heart attacks will occur, lightning will strike, and power-tripping cops will bash citizens to a pulp.
That doesn’t mean we don’t fight terrorism, but it also doesn’t mean we need to run around flailing and throwing away our rights and liberties all willy nilly.
Not only are our own government officials statistically a far greater threat to our lives and well-being than any terrorist, we also need to keep in mind that it’s much easier to give up liberties and rights than to secure them. We’re handing over to our children and grandchildren a country with a little less freedom and a little less guaranteed constitutional rights, all so we can diminish that 1 in 30,000,000 chance that we’ll be killed by a terrorist this year.
Like I said before: let’s all stop being such craven cowards and grow a pair.
October 1st, 2011 at 7:16 am
LOL.
Irony.
October 1st, 2011 at 8:45 am
Thomas,
Neoconservatism is the most craven political philosophy of our time. It’s a philosophy rooted in Jack Ripperian paranoia and fear, as well as a Stockholm Syndrome-esque love for State paternalism and abuse of power. By any measure, Islamic terrorism is a minute threat compared to the dismantling of liberty and human rights by our own political rulers.
October 1st, 2011 at 9:06 am
51. Your argument is unhinged. Have you noticed that terrorists might differ from random accidents by virtue of the fact that terrorists are human and exert their force of will? Random accidents don’t have willpower by which they declare war on us, jointly and severally, which is precisely what these self-proclaimed holy warriors have done.
To conclude that terrorists are some sort of non-human force majeure that we have no right to impede by all available means defies any logic and all common sense!
If there were some sort of murderer on the loose on a killing spree, surely you wouldn’t say, “Meh. The chances that he could kill me are acceptably low, so no one should bother to off him, thereby depriving him of his right to life without a fair judicial hearing.” What of his victims, for whom he exhibits no such similar courtesy?
October 1st, 2011 at 9:08 am
The War on Terror is a failure just like the War on Drugs. Both campaigns go after the symptoms but fail to adress the underlying disease processes………
October 1st, 2011 at 9:09 am
*address
October 1st, 2011 at 9:20 am
Wow….this Thomas Alan guy is an extremist….I can’t even get my head around how in the world someone gets to that point! Thankfully, his is a dying breed….America no longer agrees with that garbage….hopefully the GOP can rid itself of the neo-con infection before we get four more years of Obama!
October 1st, 2011 at 9:33 am
53:
There’s nothing particularly neoconservative about anything I’ve said. Anyone with a basic understanding of the government’s role in war could repeat my words. Good to know what your bogey-men are though.
You keep mentioning how small a risk it all is. Leaving aside your short-term memory of how utterly disruptive 9/11 was to the country, does that mean that you’d be okay with all this if the danger was greater? What if, say, an American citizen became president of Mexico or Canada, built up a strong military machine, and invaded our country with the intention of annexing several border states, seizing all property, raping the women, and all the other fun stuff that comes with an invasion.
The president knows this American citizen is in a big bunker, well protected from any conventional raid without unacceptably large casualties. Does the president have the ability to drop a few bunker busters in there to end the war? Or does this American citizenship protect the aggressor from the realities of war?
October 1st, 2011 at 9:35 am
57:
What I’ve said is so NOT extremely neoconservative that the Obama administration agrees with me.
October 1st, 2011 at 10:03 am
59. That’s the nasty side of neo-conservatives….they aren’t conservative at all…they fit nicely on either side of the aisle (incidentally, that’s where we find Romney…right smack in the middle) Neither is the position that we ignore Constitutional limits on governmental power because this is a “Special Case” at all conservative. But, Thomas Alan, your viewpoint is very extreme, and way out of touch with most of America. Much like 60% of Americans want the US military out of these wars (and the troops overwhelming agree), my guess would be that even more may object to the assassination of an American citizen. Without the rule of law, we have the rule of men….some people call that tyranny.
October 1st, 2011 at 10:12 am
60:
For someone who is condemning me as an extremist, you don’t seem to be reading my words very clearly.
I said before, and I’ll say again. This is not a special case. This is not a side-stepping of Constitutional limits. This is a power granted the government by the Constitution to make war (popular or not is irrelevant). This man placed himself on the other side of a war against the United States, in a leadership position no less. That makes his death a legitimate tactical goal.
I’m not advocating ignoring the rule of law. I’m telling you that it’s being followed.
October 1st, 2011 at 11:00 am
For every al-Awlaki that we kill, there are 10 more out there that will readily take his place. I don’t call that winning the War on Terror. The question that few have bothered to ask is – Why do these al-Awlakis exist in the first place? Is it possible that our own Foreign Policy somehow perpetuates the very ideology we are fighting? What other cultural realities incentivize disaffected individuals to join the ranks of terrorist organizations? Why do these terrorist organizations exist in the first place? For what reasons have we side-stepped these and other questions? Answer these questions in an unbiased fashion and you will find the focus and meaning that the War on Terror has been lacking since the beginning.
October 1st, 2011 at 11:18 am
That’s wrong two ways. First, al-Awlaki was a unique commodity for al-Qaeda. He’s not easily replaced by anyone.
Second, it doesn’t matter if someone new takes the position. That’s true of any organization. Killing a leader means that all the competence, knowledge, access to resources, connections to foreign leaders, and skills of that person are no longer available to you. In an ideal organization, this means that the next guy in line is someone less effective. Granted that doesn’t always match reality as internal politics play a roll in everything but it’s still a good rule-of-thumb.
You kill enough of the leadership, the new leaders won’t know what to do. Heck, kill enough leaders and the job becomes less attractive.
Not really. Their demands are too high to appease.
October 1st, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Thomas,
Now it’s you that forgets who we’re dealing with. Be it the leaders or the pawns, no terrorist is afraid to die. They’ve proven that time and time again. And besides, making the ‘job’ less attractive doesn’t take away their inate need to press on with the ‘job’.
BTW. What ‘demands’ are you referring to exactly? I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the terrorists reasons.
October 1st, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Thanks, Josiah. I need periodic reminders about why I am not really a libertarian.
October 1st, 2011 at 12:45 pm
64:
Well, the demands would always be moving, that’s the problem. First it’ll be getting our troops out of the area. Then abandon Israel. Then watch as they gobble up the countries in the region. Then watch them expand into other regions. Then expand into our neck of the woods.
And the attacks won’t stop anyway.
October 1st, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Thomas,
Did you know that 2 of the terrorists 3 express demands have become ‘null and void’?
October 1st, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Why are there violent murderers and sociopaths in human society at all? Are they all acting out in response to American foreign policy?
That’s the insanity that the blame-America-first adherents are trying to sell. By the same illogic, there would be no rapists if women didn’t dress provocatively, and there would be no child molesters if minors acted more like overweight and balding middle-aged males.
What is the source of this simplistic thinking? Mother Goose fairy tales?
October 1st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
What about the garbage that the America-can-do-no-wrong adherents are selling ???? What would be the misguided analogy for that illogic ????
October 1st, 2011 at 1:15 pm
67:
You must be talking from within a bubble on that.
Like I said, the reasons and demands are a moving target. Not worth even trying to appease.
October 1st, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Gary Johnson and Ron Paul show what nut jobs they are. The fact is that Al-Awlaki was engaged in acts of war against the US. He is a enemy combatant and as a result is not entitled to any rights as a American citizen. He forfeited those rights. He may be replaced but that does not mean the next person will be as competent.
October 1st, 2011 at 1:34 pm
That doesn’t mean we don’t fight terrorism, but it also doesn’t mean we need to run around flailing and throwing away our rights and liberties all willy nilly.
========================================
That is so much nonsense. This guy does not have any rights. He threw those away when he decided to fight against America. We should make it clear that you can run and hide but we will kill you if we find you.
October 1st, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Thomas #70
Well, sure. If you can invade a sovereign country on a pre-emptive account without any solid evidence of a threat, why bother appeasing the terrorists, right?
October 1st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
There is still a Wanted: Dead or Alive for certain fugitives, citizen or not. SWAT does not go into a hostile situation with water guns. Neither does the US military. This fellow was a traitor and living in a warzone actively planning attacks against his former country. The killing is justified.
October 1st, 2011 at 6:00 pm
The man had no criminal record, now he’s dead.
October 1st, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Funny, now the GOP wants to belly up with Obama!
October 1st, 2011 at 6:14 pm
73:
Among the low end of their demands, the abandoning of Israel to slaughter, is unacceptable.
76:
Yes, I’m with Obama on this one. Contrary to his spin, the GOP is not reflexively against him.
October 1st, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Ah, yes. Israel – the crux of the f***ing matter. I’m a bit surprised you relegated it to the ‘low end’. The U.S. government certainly doesn’t…….
October 1st, 2011 at 8:13 pm
78:
The terrorists consider destroying Israel to be one of their more basic demands.
It’s not the crux of the matter at all, just an early warmup for the terrorists. For the U.S. government, it is the bright line that cannot be crossed. It should be the same for the rest of the world, but sadly Jews defending themselves is considered a war crime most places.
October 1st, 2011 at 9:19 pm
The two American citizens might have been traitors, but they were not enemy combatants. The government of Yemen let us bomb them, so would it have been so hard to put a few people in place to simply snatch them and bring them back for a trial?
Regardless of how bad they were, not even attempting a trial for citizens of this country is a terrible thing.
But I suppose Guantanamo set the stage, easing us into the idea of letting the government do whatever, and trials are a relic of the past. Now that we did it to others, we can do it to ourselves. Go us, right?
October 1st, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Remind me, which war required a trial to kill an enemy in war? Which war required a trial to detain an enemy until hostilities ended?
Seems to me, us letting all the Gitmo detainees go or giving them trials during a time of war is what’s new.
October 3rd, 2011 at 10:56 am
Wow. I am disappointed and frankly somewhat frightened by the comments on this post. A few of my observations on these comments:
1. It appears that 90% of commenters have no regard for the Constitution or at least would like a “living Constitution” which allows them to bend it to meet their needs. Personally, I think you could defend this assassination under a “war combatant” rationale IF Congress had actually passed a declaration of war on Al Qaeda. Otherwise, what is the difference between this war and the war on drugs? Can the government assassinate US Citizens who are active in distribution of Coke in Mexico without trial or due process?
2. I am extremely surprised by the “Government has all the information and knows best who the bad guys are” comment (#22). Truly scary. An extremely frightening example of Big Government Republicans.
At best, this issue is very grey, not black and white like everyone here would like to believe. I personally would have liked (a) for Congress to pass a declaration of war on Al Qaeda, and (b) at least have a trial hearing (even if the defendant is not available in person) so that the public can hear the evidence against him, before assassinating US citizens. For me, a mere accusation of wrongdoing should not be enough.
For our collective sake, I sure hope that the Government does not happen to accuse any of the US Citizens who might be posters or readers of this site of being a terrorist…
October 3rd, 2011 at 11:11 am
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
–Benjamin Franklin
November 10th, 2011 at 3:32 am
I do trust all the ideas you have offered in your post. They are really convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are very quick for beginners. May just you please lengthen them a little from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.