Let's reverse this assassination thing...

[trumad]

So I guess what I'm hearing from some here is that if the President deems a US Citizen-or any other human a terrorist, we can assassinate the person at will.

Correct?

OK...

Let's say another country follows the same law/rule, etc.

Can they deem one of our politicians, say---one that helped push us into a war in Iraq, a terrorist---- and -----wait for it----assassinate that politician?

I mean it's the definition of the thing---right?

[MineralMan]

1. Some people actually are terrorists.

Just a news flash.

[trumad]

4. Right---

Is a War Criminal a terrorist?

I would think a War Criminal is as dangerous as a Terrorist.

[MineralMan]

8. So would I. I don't like war criminals, either.

They should be investigated, tried, and, if guilty, punished. Who's arguing against that? Active terrorists, on the other hand, are engaged in warfare, and their life expectancy is short and subject to a sudden violent end. It comes with the territory.

For me, it's something akin to someone violently breaking down the door to my house. They're engaged in an activity that threatens me and my wife. And, in a similar way to people actively involved in terrorism, the person breaking down my door is going to come to a sudden, violent end, without the benefit of a trial. That's just how it is. Terrorism is warfare, and the people who are actively planning terrorism and encouraging it are the same as the guy breaking down my door. They shouldn't expect much in the way of longevity.

[EOTE]

26. So war criminals get the benefit of a fair trial, yet terrorists do not?

You can bet your ass that the people of Iraq were having their doors broken down. Does that mean that Bush should have been denied a trial? Does that mean that Obama can be assassinated as he's continuing those same policies? Why do some terrorists get the benefit of a trial while others don't?

[Myrina]

2. "assignation" ... as in assignment? Or assassination?

:shrug:

[trumad]

3. LOL---spell check without glasses.

Sorry

[MineralMan]

5. Well, you might want to check the title one more time with

your glasses on. I don't think "Less" is what you meant, either.

[trumad]

11. OMG

Struggling without my reading glasses.

Thanks

[NNN0LHI]

10. Isn't it grand getting old trumad?

I am learning all about it myself.

Don

[MineralMan]

16. Yup. I have reading glasses stashed everywhere I might be.

Oddly, though, there never seems to be a pair handy when I need them.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Tried cutting a board to a certain length just the other day

Cut that sucker three times and it was still too short.

Don

[MineralMan]

19. It happens.

I always put those boards aside to use later on other projects. I have a nice stock of them in my workshop.

[gkhouston]

38. Must have been a bleedover from the broken penis thread. Oy. n/t

[HereSince1628]

6. Experience has taught me to not try to be logical about what is

fundamentally an emotionally motivated behavior.

I suspect that is especially true when the emotion is fear of death, which is a particularly strong behavioral motivator.

[ChandlerJr]

7. So the President is allowed to condemn a US citizen to death

by executive order without the benefit of trial or appeal. Not a shred of evidence produced, no witnesses for or against. He wasn't accused of personally pulling a trigger or even possessing a gun. And yet no candle light vigils, no mass protests, no movie stars condemning the state sponsored murder no outcry from #occupywallstreet.

But let Georgia or Texas put a convicted murderer to death and people go nuts.

As Dick Nixon has been reported to say "if the President does it, it's legal"

[closeupready]

9. I'd guess his family can file suit in court, and the courts can adjudicate

whether or not this is consistent with the US Constitution, which I don't personally feel it is.

[Poll_Blind]

17. This actually happened in the al-Awlaki case. His father (also American) filed suit to...

...have his son's name removed from our assassination list. You can read more about the case and the ruling here, but here are some interesting excerpts from the article:

The case, brought by the father of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, raised difficult questions about the breadth of U.S. executive power, but U.S. District Judge John Bates said he couldn't answer them as the father lacked legal standing to bring the case.

The "serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum," Judge Bates wrote in an 83-page ruling.

The judge acknowledged the "somewhat unsettling nature" of his conclusion "that there are circumstances in which the unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas" is "judicially unreviewable."

--snip--

The court's ruling suggests the government can "carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation," said ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer. "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty."

PB

[jberryhill]

31. No

Is a police sniper allowed to "condemn to death" a criminal who is holding hostages?

No.

Do police snipers shoot to kill if the criminal does not surrender?

Yes.

If the criminal surrenders then does he get due process?

Yes.

[Hutzpa]

36. Governors do it all the time

just ask Rick Perry and the Georgia state governor.(whats his name)

[dkf]

12. You really think it's feasible to get him any other way?

Seriously?

You tell me what you would do to prevent him from sending people to kill us. What if that killer was sent out with your name. Would you want Obama to get him with a drone first? Or because you figure you aren't the target and aren't that unlucky then we let him be?

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Or this.

Why is this prerogative only applicable to the President? Why not Governors? Why not Mayors?

Should Governor Perry be authorized to assassinate anyone he deems a bad guy? Why not? If it's constitutional for the President, then why not?

[msanthrope]

14. Political assasination is against executive orders 11905, 12036, and 12333.

But targeting of designated terrorists is allowed.

Al Awlaki could have challenged this. He chose not to.

[BlueCheese]

39. Is the list of targeted Americans public?

If not, the people on it can't really challenge it, can they?

[madokie]

15. Double standard comes into play then

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Not to draw to fine a point, and as a critic of extra-judicial killing

The situation would be legally described as "a war." Those who defend EJKs claim they are killing people engaged in acts of war using the tools of war.

If I recall, Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr. and Clinton retaliated militarily. The only difference between then and now was Saddam was part of a national government whereas al Awlaki was a private citizen. To those who advocate the warfare model the difference has no distinction. To those of us who prefer due process the distinction makes all the difference.

[gratuitous]

21. Oh, "due process" this, "due process" that

You libruls just hate America with your insistence on following the Constitution! Don't you know how exceptional the United States is? We don't have to mess around with all those "legal" niceties. We can blow somebody and anyone around them to Kingdom Come whenever and wherever we want, because everyone else is a terrorist who doesn't respect human life the way we do.

[jberryhill]

22. It's more like apprehension in the context of an ongoing deadly crime

Take the classic situation with the bank robber holding hostages at gunpoint, surrounded by police.

The bank robber can drop his weapon, come out with his hands up, and be arrested. He will then be provided with full due process protections.

However, if a police sniper can get a clean shot at the hostage taker, that shot is going to be taken.

Criminal suspects voluntarily appear for arrest all of the time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. In that context I think it is hard to argue against you

But if we have stealth helicopters loaded with super-secret cyborg ninja SEAL Team 6 commandoes and piloted by frikkin' sharks with lasers on their heads I think we owe it to "civilization," such as it is, to use our overwhelming power to apprehend and mitigate killing to the course of last resort after all other possibilities have been exhausted.

I know I'm probably naive. I'm sorry, honestly. Hubby is a big reader of history and he says the world has never worked that way. I think it is time it did start working that way because if it doesn't we will only end-up destroying ourselves.

[jberryhill]

30. Reasonable minds can differ

I don't have a settled opinion, but the equipment is not the issue.

It has been made clear that he is wanted for criminal activity, and one can turn oneself in at the US consulate.

But I cannot think of other contexts in which a criminal in the act of engaging in deadly crime is not subject to the use of force if he does not surrender and if the risk of apprehension is one of serious bodily harm.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. We've crossed posts enough for you to know me

I've come 180-degrees on gun ownership for self-defense, sport etc. I'm not the hardcore pacifist I once was. I understand where you're coming from; I'm just not ready to give away the last shred of my schoolgirl naivete when it comes to hoping for peace in a violent and ugly world.

Indulge my daydreams just a little.





Please.

:hug:

[jberryhill]

33. That's what the phrase "reasonable minds can differ" means

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. I don't think my idealism has much to do with being reasonable

:P

:hi:

[Gregorian]

23. It seems to me that many people missed the messages Martin Luther King talked about.

It also seems that this forum is sliding into the same mistake so many are making. That a little violence is ok.

It's a discussion that is so hard to have because it seems to make little sense. I mean, if someone is breaking into your house, you have the right to defend yourself. Right?

Wrong. Unless your life is more important than their life. And is it? Anyone who can answer yes to that should have to prove it.

Violence is violence.

Love thy enemy is more powerful than people understand. Anything else is the means by which this planet becomes more and more like a hell.

It's like buying into a mirage. If we don't punish, kill, deter through force, what will become? They'll run us over. It'll escalate into the fittest ruling over the less fit. But there is little doubt that it works just the opposite.

I think it's weakness that people buy into the use of force. Because force begets force.

[bighart]

35. Let's not forget that peace is hard

killing someone with a drone strike not so much.

[Gregorian]

37. There's a lot of testosterone egos running around.

I'm glad to see the posts on DU right now. I've got a murderer running around in my back yard, eluding the cops for five weeks, in the forest. And the guys on the bicycle forum think he ought to be hit with sniper fire.

I'm disgusted with my fellow humans.

It IS hard to fight off the basest of instinctual desires.

[Ignis]

24. I, for one, welcome our extralegal assassin-drone overlords.

:kick:

[ThomWV]

25. Do you belong to that new Movement, the Suicidilists?

[Ignis]

28. If the Big Boss says someone needs killin', who am I to argue?

Hell, I can't even regularly win five-dimensional chess games. How would I know if assassinating an American citizen without the due process of law is an authoritarian wet dream that should be abhorrent to every Leftie? Gosh, them's tough thinkin's!

[yurbud]

29. do you mean ''assassination''? Assignation is when you meet with your mistress.