5 ms·

I don't know why the parent poster linked to his son, but this is probably who he was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wiki

I don't know why the parent poster linked to his son, but this is probably who he was thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki A US citizen who was executed by a drone strike ordered by Obama himself.

googlryas 4y ago
I don't really see the problem with this either. It seems like they would have liked to capture him, but it was infeasible. The guy essentially declared war on the US with his actions. What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born German soldiers got, before Americans start shooting towards him?
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Yeah that analysis of if he could be captured alive feasibly was his crappy version of due process. Not enough for my taste, but it at least caused a hiccup in the meat grinder. And it diminishes Obama's legacy in an objective way that can be repeated ad nauseam, legitimately. He lives on past the bullets as a bullet-point in presentations, discussions, debates and speeches. Salutations, fellow United States citizen Mr. Al-Awlaki.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Americans are afforded due process rights under the Constitution. I'm not saying he wasn't a bad guy, he clearly was. But it's not the same as a soldier (or police officer, or anyone really) shooting someone who's actively shooting at them. This was a straight up execution of a citizen without due process. Nobody, including the President, has the right to do that. It was blatantly unconstitutional.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    What other due process is there, relative to the Authorization for Use of Military Force act of 2001? Congress gave POTUS the power to go after people like al-Awlaki with it. It's been on the books for 20+ years, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled it is a constitutional giving of power by Congress to POTUS e.g. in Hamadi vs Rumsfeld. If the US military could have captured al-Awlaki without incident, then drone striking him would probably not be considered "necessary and appropriate force". But, it wasn't reasonable to capture him, so what alternative is there?
    - trasz 4y ago
      How about simply not murdering people on the other side of the world? Here’s a mental experiment for you: what would you do if Russia, lawfully (according to Russian laws) executed people in US? Because that’s exactly what US is doing to the rest of the world.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        Well, that sounds like a great idea. But, it needs to be a two way street. Convince terrorists planning terror attacks to not murder people on the other side of the world, then I'm sure America would drastically cut down on the number of people it killed on the other side of the world. > what would you do if Russia, lawfully (according to Russian laws) executed people in US? Because that’s exactly what US is doing to the rest of the world. Well, that depends - is the US government a failed state incapable of enforcing its own laws? Or did the US government give permission for this to happen? Then sure, go right ahead Russia. The Yemeni government gave the greenlight for the US to drone strike al-Awlaki.
        trasz 4y ago
        Number of victims of terrorist attacks on the other side of the world is orders of magnitude lower than number of victims of American invasions. Even 9/11 was a minor episode compared to the invasion it served as an excuse for. Essentially, you’re assuming US are always the good guys. And the easiest way to explain this is the foundation of all US politics: racism. Having said that, US _arr_ the good guys at the moment, and let’s hope it stays that way.
- monocasa 4y ago
  > What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? The due process afforded in the constitution. With, you know, trials and juries and such. > A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born German soldiers got, before Americans start shooting towards him? I would say that an operation specifically to assassinate that person without a trial should be viewed as unconstitutional.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Due process is subject to feasibility on American soil as well. Mass shooters seem to get very few days in court.
    - monocasa 4y ago
      It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. And just going to through out there that Anwar al-Awlaki isn't accused of taking up arms, just publishing political speech that the US government didn't approve of.
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        > It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no? I'm not being pedantic, just pointing out that there is a ton of grey area that your statement doesn't account for, and we'd need to dive into the details of this situation to determine whether the assassination was justified or not. Even then, it would mostly be a qualitative judgement. For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot? What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time? I'm not saying the gov was wrong or right with Anwar, just that the arguments presented here fail to account for real world complexity.
- tremon 4y ago
  You don't see a problem when a head of state orders the summary execution of people they find inconvenient?

googlryas 4y ago

I don't really see the problem with this either. It seems like they would have liked to capture him, but it was infeasible. The guy essentially declared war on the US with his actions. What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born German soldiers got, before Americans start shooting towards him?

daniel-cussen 4y ago
Yeah that analysis of if he could be captured alive feasibly was his crappy version of due process. Not enough for my taste, but it at least caused a hiccup in the meat grinder. And it diminishes Obama's legacy in an objective way that can be repeated ad nauseam, legitimately. He lives on past the bullets as a bullet-point in presentations, discussions, debates and speeches. Salutations, fellow United States citizen Mr. Al-Awlaki.
jaywalk 4y ago
Americans are afforded due process rights under the Constitution. I'm not saying he wasn't a bad guy, he clearly was. But it's not the same as a soldier (or police officer, or anyone really) shooting someone who's actively shooting at them. This was a straight up execution of a citizen without due process. Nobody, including the President, has the right to do that. It was blatantly unconstitutional.
- googlryas 4y ago
  What other due process is there, relative to the Authorization for Use of Military Force act of 2001? Congress gave POTUS the power to go after people like al-Awlaki with it. It's been on the books for 20+ years, the Supreme Court has essentially ruled it is a constitutional giving of power by Congress to POTUS e.g. in Hamadi vs Rumsfeld. If the US military could have captured al-Awlaki without incident, then drone striking him would probably not be considered "necessary and appropriate force". But, it wasn't reasonable to capture him, so what alternative is there?
  - trasz 4y ago
    How about simply not murdering people on the other side of the world? Here’s a mental experiment for you: what would you do if Russia, lawfully (according to Russian laws) executed people in US? Because that’s exactly what US is doing to the rest of the world.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      Well, that sounds like a great idea. But, it needs to be a two way street. Convince terrorists planning terror attacks to not murder people on the other side of the world, then I'm sure America would drastically cut down on the number of people it killed on the other side of the world. > what would you do if Russia, lawfully (according to Russian laws) executed people in US? Because that’s exactly what US is doing to the rest of the world. Well, that depends - is the US government a failed state incapable of enforcing its own laws? Or did the US government give permission for this to happen? Then sure, go right ahead Russia. The Yemeni government gave the greenlight for the US to drone strike al-Awlaki.
      - trasz 4y ago
        Number of victims of terrorist attacks on the other side of the world is orders of magnitude lower than number of victims of American invasions. Even 9/11 was a minor episode compared to the invasion it served as an excuse for. Essentially, you’re assuming US are always the good guys. And the easiest way to explain this is the foundation of all US politics: racism. Having said that, US _arr_ the good guys at the moment, and let’s hope it stays that way.
monocasa 4y ago
> What special steps should they take because he is an American citizen? The due process afforded in the constitution. With, you know, trials and juries and such. > A little different, but imagine if an American decided to go fight for Germany during WWII. Should he receive any special consideration above what native-born German soldiers got, before Americans start shooting towards him? I would say that an operation specifically to assassinate that person without a trial should be viewed as unconstitutional.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Due process is subject to feasibility on American soil as well. Mass shooters seem to get very few days in court.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. And just going to through out there that Anwar al-Awlaki isn't accused of taking up arms, just publishing political speech that the US government didn't approve of.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      > It's illegal to assassinate even mass shooters in the US. It's only legal to kill them in defense during an active situation. A drone strike feels like a pretty active situation no? I'm not being pedantic, just pointing out that there is a ton of grey area that your statement doesn't account for, and we'd need to dive into the details of this situation to determine whether the assassination was justified or not. Even then, it would mostly be a qualitative judgement. For example, let's say you had credible information indicating someone was going to bomb and elementary school, and you saw them running down your street towards one such school. Would you shoot? What if, same situation, but you saw them riding a bike or driving a car toward the school? What if you had no idea where they were, but someone told you they'd be in a certain location before the attack and you could only get a drone to the location in time? I'm not saying the gov was wrong or right with Anwar, just that the arguments presented here fail to account for real world complexity.
tremon 4y ago
You don't see a problem when a head of state orders the summary execution of people they find inconvenient?