6 ms·

PERSONALLY...I wish people would stop defending Awlaki. The guy was an avowed asshole and it just gets reaffirmed with each passing day. I wish there was anoth

by NN88 13y ago

PERSONALLY...I wish people would stop defending Awlaki. The guy was an avowed asshole and it just gets reaffirmed with each passing day. I wish there was another, less controversial candidate to debate USA's killing of its citizens. I don't condone the US's actions, but I sure as hell understand the reasoning for doing it. ALSO, don't forget that he renounced his citizenship and Yemen tried him in-absentia.

grey-area 13y ago
Pointing out the fact of his killing in no way defends Awlaki. The principle remains the same regardless of who Awlaki was, or what the administration has told you he was - the state should not be allowed to assassinate unarmed citizens or anyone else without trial, due process, etc. if he was guilty they should have tried him in absentia. What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?
- NN88 13y ago
  1. wasn't his son traveling with another targeted individual? 2. i'm iffy on the assassination thing because its not like the US wasn't looking for that guy dead or alive. You act like slapping hand-cuffs on him was plausible. 3. Yemen tried him.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    A system of courts and due process is inconvenient and sometimes means the guilty are not punished, but it is preferable to the alternatives. I've seen no evidence that he was travelling with a targeted individual, or even that the targeting was justified, the statement was I believe 'he was not specifically targeted'. That's because there was no trial, and no evidence presented. Have you seen any evidence, or merely the assurances of gov. officials? Does proximity to a criminal while eating now warrant instant death? As to the Yemen trial, that applies to Awlaki, not his son, and you have a remarkable faith in the Yemeni justice system. If the US is to assassinate people, I do think they owe them at least a trial in their own courts. Personally I think this policy is wrongheaded and damaging to US interests in the long term, given all the innocents inevitably killed by drone or missiles in civilian areas. However it's also a sign of declining respect for the law in the US. According to Obama, and yourself if you accept these assassinations, his will is law.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > the state should not be allowed to assassinate unarmed citizens or anyone else without trial, due process, etc. if he was guilty they should have tried him in absentia. A trial in absentia would be wildly more unconstitutional and also a much more dangerous precedent. The right of sovereign nations to kill foreigners on foreign soil is well-established, and a bright-line distinction: either someone is a foreigner and on foreign soil, in which case due process rights do not apply, or they are not either of these things, in which case due process rights do apply. Awalki's case is complicated by the fact that he was technically a U.S. citizen, but you can justify the assassination on the basis that his decade of evading attempts to apprehend him in Yemen amount to an implied renunciation of his citizenship. Trials in abstentia are much more dangerous precedent. There, you're basically acknowledging that Awlaki was not only entitled to due process rights, but that the "process due" was a full trial. The Constitutional rights applicable to criminal trials are deeply established, and they do not allow trials in abstentia. If you proceed with one anyway, you're creating this whole new class of exception to Constitutional rights in cases of terrorism. > What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?
  - grey-area 13y ago
    The right of sovereign nations to kill foreigners on foreign soil is well-established Only in times of war and with carefully described conditions (Geneva conventions). Declaring an eternal war on civilians everywhere will not end well, and claiming the right to assassinate worldwide will rapidly erode US power and allies worldwide. I disagree that a trial in absentia is worse or more dangerous than killing on suspicion, without trial or appeal.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      A trial in abstentia may be better for the person being targeted, but preserving a bright line distinction between military actions abroad and judicial process at home preserves the integrity of the courts. Jurisdictional boundaries exist not just to respect the constitutional separation between the executive and the judiciary, they exist to protect to autonomy of the judiciary. It undermines American courts to water down the constitutional protections applicable to trials in order to be able to give a trial to foreign nationals hiding out in foreign countries engaging and planning acts of war.
mixmax 13y ago
A democracy is defined by how it treats those it disagrees with - not those it agrees with.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  This is why the very serious "impeach Obama" crowd has had their homes reduced to rubble.
- NN88 13y ago
  I completely agree. BUT on the same token, would you have been ok with an in-absentia trial, even if just a sham/show-trial?
  - computer 13y ago
    Even if that would be OK, I haven't heard of "capital punishment by drone" as execution method yet. (And add to that "also include anyone he happens to be with at the moment of execution because terrorism")

by NN88 13y ago

grey-area 13y ago

Pointing out the fact of his killing in no way defends Awlaki. The principle remains the same regardless of who Awlaki was, or what the administration has told you he was - the state should not be allowed to assassinate unarmed citizens or anyone else without trial, due process, etc. if he was guilty they should have tried him in absentia. What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?

NN88 13y ago
1. wasn't his son traveling with another targeted individual? 2. i'm iffy on the assassination thing because its not like the US wasn't looking for that guy dead or alive. You act like slapping hand-cuffs on him was plausible. 3. Yemen tried him.
- grey-area 13y ago
  A system of courts and due process is inconvenient and sometimes means the guilty are not punished, but it is preferable to the alternatives. I've seen no evidence that he was travelling with a targeted individual, or even that the targeting was justified, the statement was I believe 'he was not specifically targeted'. That's because there was no trial, and no evidence presented. Have you seen any evidence, or merely the assurances of gov. officials? Does proximity to a criminal while eating now warrant instant death? As to the Yemen trial, that applies to Awlaki, not his son, and you have a remarkable faith in the Yemeni justice system. If the US is to assassinate people, I do think they owe them at least a trial in their own courts. Personally I think this policy is wrongheaded and damaging to US interests in the long term, given all the innocents inevitably killed by drone or missiles in civilian areas. However it's also a sign of declining respect for the law in the US. According to Obama, and yourself if you accept these assassinations, his will is law.
rayiner 13y ago
> the state should not be allowed to assassinate unarmed citizens or anyone else without trial, due process, etc. if he was guilty they should have tried him in absentia. A trial in absentia would be wildly more unconstitutional and also a much more dangerous precedent. The right of sovereign nations to kill foreigners on foreign soil is well-established, and a bright-line distinction: either someone is a foreigner and on foreign soil, in which case due process rights do not apply, or they are not either of these things, in which case due process rights do apply. Awalki's case is complicated by the fact that he was technically a U.S. citizen, but you can justify the assassination on the basis that his decade of evading attempts to apprehend him in Yemen amount to an implied renunciation of his citizenship. Trials in abstentia are much more dangerous precedent. There, you're basically acknowledging that Awlaki was not only entitled to due process rights, but that the "process due" was a full trial. The Constitutional rights applicable to criminal trials are deeply established, and they do not allow trials in abstentia. If you proceed with one anyway, you're creating this whole new class of exception to Constitutional rights in cases of terrorism. > What do you think about the killing of his son a few weeks afterward?
- grey-area 13y ago
  The right of sovereign nations to kill foreigners on foreign soil is well-established Only in times of war and with carefully described conditions (Geneva conventions). Declaring an eternal war on civilians everywhere will not end well, and claiming the right to assassinate worldwide will rapidly erode US power and allies worldwide. I disagree that a trial in absentia is worse or more dangerous than killing on suspicion, without trial or appeal.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    A trial in abstentia may be better for the person being targeted, but preserving a bright line distinction between military actions abroad and judicial process at home preserves the integrity of the courts. Jurisdictional boundaries exist not just to respect the constitutional separation between the executive and the judiciary, they exist to protect to autonomy of the judiciary. It undermines American courts to water down the constitutional protections applicable to trials in order to be able to give a trial to foreign nationals hiding out in foreign countries engaging and planning acts of war.

mixmax 13y ago

A democracy is defined by how it treats those it disagrees with - not those it agrees with.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago
This is why the very serious "impeach Obama" crowd has had their homes reduced to rubble.
NN88 13y ago
I completely agree. BUT on the same token, would you have been ok with an in-absentia trial, even if just a sham/show-trial?
- computer 13y ago
  Even if that would be OK, I haven't heard of "capital punishment by drone" as execution method yet. (And add to that "also include anyone he happens to be with at the moment of execution because terrorism")