5 ms·

> Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately? Yes, it indicates this is wrong. There's a profound difference between kil

by logn 12y ago

> Does it become wrong because you make a list instead of doing it indiscriminately? Yes, it indicates this is wrong. There's a profound difference between killing someone in the heat of battle versus the president reviewing kill lists every Tuesday. The latter suggests a lack of imminence. Add to that he's a citizen and that the battlefield is any place where "terror" is. Arguably, al-Awlaki simply preached dissent. Granted, you can argue he was a traitor actively trying to harm the US. In that case, so is Hammond, and a lot of other people conveniently on official lists. Just because you disagree, even vehemently, with al-Awlaki's message, does not mean that we should compromise our principles of due process. Larry Flynt wasn't an ideal poster boy for free speech advocates. But his justice affirmed the strength of the 1st Amendment and was a small step in erasing racial boundaries (he published interracial porn shortly before being tried on obscenity). So I think lumping al-Awlaki and Hammond together is very much productive.

tptacek 12y ago
Arguably, al-Awlaki simply preached dissent. Granted, you can argue he was a traitor actively trying to harm the US. This is a drastic oversimplification of what the USG believed about al-Awlaki. CT officials in the US believe al-Awlaki to have had direct roles in the "underwear bomber" passenger jet attack and an attempt to blow up two cargo jets with PETN. He was indisputably a counselor to Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood. In sum, the USG and UK believed al-Awlaki to have been Osama bin Laden without all the money, operating from a secure location in Yemen, recruiting random people from around the world to conduct horrible crimes in the name of AQAP. It does a grave disservice to the tradition and, one supposed, the very concept of "dissent" to equate the coordination of murderous large-scale attacks on civilians with "dissent". Sharing this belief with the USG does not require someone to believe that it was justifiable to assassinate him. But you can believe assassination to be wrong without glorifying its victims.
- logn 12y ago
  Whether it was a case of dissent was exactly why it was controversial and why it sparked debate over free speech and due process rights. Sure, if you assume the government's official account to be true, it's a disservice to equate his actions with dissent. A trial would have determined whether he was merely advocating violence or whether he was plotting it. Since when does the presumption of innocence glorify anyone?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    It doesn't. What's misleading is the suggestion that al-Awlaki was targeted as a "dissenter", as if the USG merely didn't like what he had to say.
    - logn 12y ago
      The government's argument in court was that liability for his assassination is not an issue the court can decide. They specifically avoided countering the argument that you find to be misleading, the same argument made by the estate of al-Awlaki in court. The court agreed that it didn't need to address that issue and dismissed the case for other reasons.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        You think we're debating something that we're not debating. I don't have a position on drone assassinations and am not arguing that they're legitimate. All I'm arguing is that in al-Awlaki's case, the USG didn't assassinate someone merely for "dissenting".
- harry8 12y ago
  Many of us might well believe what you and the USG say about the late Mr Alwaki(1) if it were, you know, established with evidence in a court of law according to due process and all that quaint old fashioned stuff. Until then arguably he didn't do a lot wrong because of this other quaint, old-fashioned thing called the presumption of innocence. Do we want to abandon such things as quaint and old fashioned when we're dealing with the death penalty? I really, really, really hope not. (1) About whom I have no opinion whatsoever.
  - timsally 12y ago
    It wasn't just the USG; the United Nations listed al-Awlaki as a terrorist in 2010, one year before he was killed: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm. The UN isn't exactly known for being a hawk... Thomas has already covered this quite well, but I'll briefly summarize again. al-Awlaki was actively at war against the USG. Killing him is roughly equivalent to killing US citizens who fight for other foreign governments. The drone strike was not carrying out a legal sentence, it was simply the use of force in a global conflict.
    - e12e 12y ago
      Does this mean you would have supported the right of Iraq to use drone strikes against the pentagon before Iraq capitulated? It certainly is a military target, so presumably that would be ok, after the invasion started? (I'm not asking if you'd be happy about it, but asking if you think it would be reasonable and fair according to international law).
      - tzs 12y ago
        Of course they had the right to do so. There's no law of war that I'm aware of that says you cannot attack command centers of the enemy.
    - harry8 12y ago
      The UN is exactly known for being a court of law whose jurisdiction compels the USA to mete out sentencing with no right of appeal either. If he was, why was it too hard to run the case? Why all this apologist stuff about an accusation being good enough for a death sentence - also carried out on his son while he sat in a cafe a week later. This is Stalinist reasoning, what is it doing in the USA?

by logn 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

Arguably, al-Awlaki simply preached dissent. Granted, you can argue he was a traitor actively trying to harm the US. This is a drastic oversimplification of what the USG believed about al-Awlaki. CT officials in the US believe al-Awlaki to have had direct roles in the "underwear bomber" passenger jet attack and an attempt to blow up two cargo jets with PETN. He was indisputably a counselor to Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood. In sum, the USG and UK believed al-Awlaki to have been Osama bin Laden without all the money, operating from a secure location in Yemen, recruiting random people from around the world to conduct horrible crimes in the name of AQAP. It does a grave disservice to the tradition and, one supposed, the very concept of "dissent" to equate the coordination of murderous large-scale attacks on civilians with "dissent". Sharing this belief with the USG does not require someone to believe that it was justifiable to assassinate him. But you can believe assassination to be wrong without glorifying its victims.

logn 12y ago
Whether it was a case of dissent was exactly why it was controversial and why it sparked debate over free speech and due process rights. Sure, if you assume the government's official account to be true, it's a disservice to equate his actions with dissent. A trial would have determined whether he was merely advocating violence or whether he was plotting it. Since when does the presumption of innocence glorify anyone?
- tptacek 12y ago
  It doesn't. What's misleading is the suggestion that al-Awlaki was targeted as a "dissenter", as if the USG merely didn't like what he had to say.
  - logn 12y ago
    The government's argument in court was that liability for his assassination is not an issue the court can decide. They specifically avoided countering the argument that you find to be misleading, the same argument made by the estate of al-Awlaki in court. The court agreed that it didn't need to address that issue and dismissed the case for other reasons.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      You think we're debating something that we're not debating. I don't have a position on drone assassinations and am not arguing that they're legitimate. All I'm arguing is that in al-Awlaki's case, the USG didn't assassinate someone merely for "dissenting".
harry8 12y ago
Many of us might well believe what you and the USG say about the late Mr Alwaki(1) if it were, you know, established with evidence in a court of law according to due process and all that quaint old fashioned stuff. Until then arguably he didn't do a lot wrong because of this other quaint, old-fashioned thing called the presumption of innocence. Do we want to abandon such things as quaint and old fashioned when we're dealing with the death penalty? I really, really, really hope not. (1) About whom I have no opinion whatsoever.
- timsally 12y ago
  It wasn't just the USG; the United Nations listed al-Awlaki as a terrorist in 2010, one year before he was killed: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm. The UN isn't exactly known for being a hawk... Thomas has already covered this quite well, but I'll briefly summarize again. al-Awlaki was actively at war against the USG. Killing him is roughly equivalent to killing US citizens who fight for other foreign governments. The drone strike was not carrying out a legal sentence, it was simply the use of force in a global conflict.
  - e12e 12y ago
    Does this mean you would have supported the right of Iraq to use drone strikes against the pentagon before Iraq capitulated? It certainly is a military target, so presumably that would be ok, after the invasion started? (I'm not asking if you'd be happy about it, but asking if you think it would be reasonable and fair according to international law).
    - tzs 12y ago
      Of course they had the right to do so. There's no law of war that I'm aware of that says you cannot attack command centers of the enemy.
  - harry8 12y ago
    The UN is exactly known for being a court of law whose jurisdiction compels the USA to mete out sentencing with no right of appeal either. If he was, why was it too hard to run the case? Why all this apologist stuff about an accusation being good enough for a death sentence - also carried out on his son while he sat in a cafe a week later. This is Stalinist reasoning, what is it doing in the USA?