8 ms·

Would you say it's intellectual dishonest to say this without acknowledging the father (a natural born US citizen) absolutely was a targeted killing? Because th

by yucky 5y ago

Would you say it's intellectual dishonest to say this without acknowledging the father (a natural born US citizen) absolutely was a targeted killing? Because that is not in dispute - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-i... so by leaving that out you appear to be diminishing the fact that President Obama ordered the assassination of a US Citizen, something never done in US history.

akhmatova 5y ago
No, because that's an (obviously) very muddled and slippery line of reasoning you're trying to get me to agree to there.
- yucky 5y ago
  Alright, let's try it this way. Since I'm not the person that claimed the children were part of a targeted assassination, let's focus on Anwar Al-Awlaki. 1 - Was he, or was he not, intentionally assassinated by the Obama Administration? 2 - Was he or was he not a US citizen? 3 - Is that, or is that not an extrajudicial assassination?
  - akhmatova 5y ago
    Let's focus on Anwar Al-Awlaki. I wasn't talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki. I was talking about what happened to his children. So sorry, but I will not be able to join you on whatever semantic buggy ride it is you're trying to pull me onto.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >I wasn't talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki No, you intentionally ignored the entire point of the OP. And you did that because it is a case where President Obama ordered the assassination of a US citizen, and that citizen stayed on his hit list for 18 months until he was killed, despite his family begging the US government the entire time to charge him with a crime so that he could have his day in court. https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aulaqi-v-Obama-et-al/ https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aula...
      - akhmatova 5y ago
        No, you intentionally ignored the entire point of the OP. Right - because their intellectual dishonesty was so blatant that it not only distracts from, but actually cheapens the morally indignant point they were trying to make.
        yucky 5y ago
        Why do you think we shouldn't be morally indignant about a US President ordering the assassination of a US citizen?
        akhmatova 5y ago
        You can be indignant about whatever you want. But as said, I am longer able you to accompany you on this semantic exercise.
trevorboaconstr 5y ago
“The cleric’s fiery sermons had helped inspire a dozen plots, including the shootings at Fort Hood. Then he had gone “operational,” plotting with Mr. Abdulmutallab and coaching him to ignite his explosives only after the airliner was over the United States. That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial? The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him. Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks. Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located. Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.” I think the point that needs to be asked is, at one point does a fellow American become justified as an enemy combatant?
- yucky 5y ago
  I'm aware of the pretzel logic used by people in the Bush and Obama Administrations to justify extrajudicial activities that are clearly unconstitutional. So let me ask you this - at what other point in US history have we decided that a US citizen is a bad enough person that we just put them on a hit list rather than even attempt to bring them to justice? I mean, we have held worse people in Guantanamo who aren't even US citizens and without trial, but a US citizen gets neither? You list out all of these "assertions" which may or may not be true, but they are assertions made by the people who killed him. So do we take that at face value because our government would never lie? Or is it fair that we would expect the government to prove those assertions in court, as we have throughout history? And if you are comfortable with Presidents like Obama making those extrajudicial assassination calls, are you comfortable with Presidents like Trump doing the same? If not, why not?

by yucky 5y ago

akhmatova 5y ago

No, because that's an (obviously) very muddled and slippery line of reasoning you're trying to get me to agree to there.

yucky 5y ago
Alright, let's try it this way. Since I'm not the person that claimed the children were part of a targeted assassination, let's focus on Anwar Al-Awlaki. 1 - Was he, or was he not, intentionally assassinated by the Obama Administration? 2 - Was he or was he not a US citizen? 3 - Is that, or is that not an extrajudicial assassination?
- akhmatova 5y ago
  Let's focus on Anwar Al-Awlaki. I wasn't talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki. I was talking about what happened to his children. So sorry, but I will not be able to join you on whatever semantic buggy ride it is you're trying to pull me onto.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >I wasn't talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki No, you intentionally ignored the entire point of the OP. And you did that because it is a case where President Obama ordered the assassination of a US citizen, and that citizen stayed on his hit list for 18 months until he was killed, despite his family begging the US government the entire time to charge him with a crime so that he could have his day in court. https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aulaqi-v-Obama-et-al/ https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aula...
    - akhmatova 5y ago
      No, you intentionally ignored the entire point of the OP. Right - because their intellectual dishonesty was so blatant that it not only distracts from, but actually cheapens the morally indignant point they were trying to make.
      - yucky 5y ago
        Why do you think we shouldn't be morally indignant about a US President ordering the assassination of a US citizen?
        akhmatova 5y ago
        You can be indignant about whatever you want. But as said, I am longer able you to accompany you on this semantic exercise.

trevorboaconstr 5y ago

“The cleric’s fiery sermons had helped inspire a dozen plots, including the shootings at Fort Hood. Then he had gone “operational,” plotting with Mr. Abdulmutallab and coaching him to ignite his explosives only after the airliner was over the United States. That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial? The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him. Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was also accused of playing a role in a failed plot to bomb two cargo planes last year, part of a pattern of activities that counterterrorism officials have said showed that he had evolved from merely being a propagandist — in sermons justifying violence by Muslims against the United States — to playing an operational role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s continuing efforts to carry out terrorist attacks. Other assertions about Mr. Awlaki included that he was a leader of the group, which had become a “cobelligerent” with Al Qaeda, and he was pushing it to focus on trying to attack the United States again. The lawyers were also told that capturing him alive among hostile armed allies might not be feasible if and when he were located. Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.” I think the point that needs to be asked is, at one point does a fellow American become justified as an enemy combatant?

yucky 5y ago
I'm aware of the pretzel logic used by people in the Bush and Obama Administrations to justify extrajudicial activities that are clearly unconstitutional. So let me ask you this - at what other point in US history have we decided that a US citizen is a bad enough person that we just put them on a hit list rather than even attempt to bring them to justice? I mean, we have held worse people in Guantanamo who aren't even US citizens and without trial, but a US citizen gets neither? You list out all of these "assertions" which may or may not be true, but they are assertions made by the people who killed him. So do we take that at face value because our government would never lie? Or is it fair that we would expect the government to prove those assertions in court, as we have throughout history? And if you are comfortable with Presidents like Obama making those extrajudicial assassination calls, are you comfortable with Presidents like Trump doing the same? If not, why not?