Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
So much for due process...
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


dr_feelgood


Sep 30, 2011, 7:09 AM
Post #1 of 53 (2140 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25628

So much for due process...
Report this Post
Can't Post

http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.


scrapedape


Sep 30, 2011, 7:46 AM
Post #2 of 53 (2133 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I am willing to bet that lots (by no means all) of us would be willing to tolerate an exception to due process rights in the particular case of al-Awlaki, given the nature of his goals and the impracticability of arresting and charging him. Just as a lot of us (by no means all) would be willing to tolerate an exception to the First Amendment for the likes of Fred Phelps.

The challenge, of course, comes from the fact that in order for such rights and protections to be there for the rest of us, they have to be guaranteed for the most odious of us, too.

An interesting question this prompts, then, is whether this is any different than the OBL assassination? Does it matter that it was carried out by drones rather than a SEAL team? Does anyone think the SEALs were there to take OBL into custody and he was only killed because he resisted? Does it really matter that he was a US citizen? Is it somehow ok for our government to execute people without trial, as long as they are foreign citizens?


curt


Sep 30, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #3 of 53 (2127 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.

Good riddance.

Curt


lena_chita
Moderator

Sep 30, 2011, 8:01 AM
Post #4 of 53 (2125 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5464

Re: [scrapedape] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

scrapedape wrote:
I am willing to bet that lots (by no means all) of us would be willing to tolerate an exception to due process rights in the particular case of al-Awlaki, given the nature of his goals and the impracticability of arresting and charging him. Just as a lot of us (by no means all) would be willing to tolerate an exception to the First Amendment for the likes of Fred Phelps.

The challenge, of course, comes from the fact that in order for such rights and protections to be there for the rest of us, they have to be guaranteed for the most odious of us, too.

An interesting question this prompts, then, is whether this is any different than the OBL assassination? Does it matter that it was carried out by drones rather than a SEAL team? Does anyone think the SEALs were there to take OBL into custody and he was only killed because he resisted? Does it really matter that he was a US citizen? Is it somehow ok for our government to execute people without trial, as long as they are foreign citizens?


I think the argument would be that this is war, and there is no "due process" for people actively involved in the war against US, regardless of their citizenship. If you pick up arms, literal or figurative, then you lose the right to object if the military forces of the country you are fighting against shoot at you.

But the slippery slope is also very apparent.

In some countries there is such thing as being tried in absentia. Not saying that this is a good thing in general, but realistically, what choices does US have, if there is a known criminal who is actively working on doing harm to US, and who cannot be brought in for trial?


skiclimb


Sep 30, 2011, 8:30 AM
Post #5 of 53 (2116 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1936

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think many of us are very suspect of the war in Iraq and the war in Afganistan. But there is a legitimate war going on. There are actually people out there who have declared themselves our enemies and made clear their intent to do us harm.

They are not nation-states. But they are at war with us.

This person is one of them. In war the enemy is a valid target regardless of nationality and certainly without trial. The bloodiest war that the USA has ever fought by far was a war against it's own citizens.

I have absolutely no problem with our military taking out any enemy of this nature anytime anywhere in the world. Infact I would suggest that any president make that a declaration of DOCTRINE.

I have always thought that these groups were valid targets... long before 911. I also thought it was foolish that we were not going after them aggresively long ago. I am glad we are doing so now.

It is however complicated by the fact that we have two illegitimate major wars going on in Iraq and Afganistan.

It is also seriously complicated by the lack of trust in the office of the presidency.

For example When shrub started beating the drums of war for IRAQ I had serious doubts. I just did not see Saddam as a serious threat. However I felt I had to give the president the benefit of the doubt and believed he and congress must have access to information I did not. Hell that's his job. That's why we have a president and congress.

I was wrong and the President was dead wrong. We should have impeached him as soon as no WMDs were discovered or at the very least voted him out.

I also have grave doubts about Obama and who he really works for. SO it is natural to have doubts about whether this guy was really the enemy. If the facts are as reported I am just fine with taking him out. But CAN WE TRUST THE FACTS AS REPORTED??


(This post was edited by skiclimb on Sep 30, 2011, 8:31 AM)


scrapedape


Sep 30, 2011, 9:19 AM
Post #6 of 53 (2099 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2392

Re: [skiclimb] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

skiclimb wrote:
I think many of us are very suspect of the war in Iraq and the war in Afganistan. But there is a legitimate war going on. There are actually people out there who have declared themselves our enemies and made clear their intent to do us harm.

They are not nation-states. But they are at war with us.

This person is one of them. In war the enemy is a valid target regardless of nationality and certainly without trial. The bloodiest war that the USA has ever fought by far was a war against it's own citizens.

I have absolutely no problem with our military taking out any enemy of this nature anytime anywhere in the world. Infact I would suggest that any president make that a declaration of DOCTRINE.

I have always thought that these groups were valid targets... long before 911. I also thought it was foolish that we were not going after them aggresively long ago. I am glad we are doing so now.

It is however complicated by the fact that we have two illegitimate major wars going on in Iraq and Afganistan.

It is also seriously complicated by the lack of trust in the office of the presidency.

For example When shrub started beating the drums of war for IRAQ I had serious doubts. I just did not see Saddam as a serious threat. However I felt I had to give the president the benefit of the doubt and believed he and congress must have access to information I did not. Hell that's his job. That's why we have a president and congress.

I was wrong and the President was dead wrong. We should have impeached him as soon as no WMDs were discovered or at the very least voted him out.

I also have grave doubts about Obama and who he really works for. SO it is natural to have doubts about whether this guy was really the enemy. If the facts are as reported I am just fine with taking him out. But CAN WE TRUST THE FACTS AS REPORTED??

You and lena have alluded to the problem.

In every practical sense, it does seem like OBL or al-Awlaki is a legitmate target.

What bothers me is that we have these targets, and are actively pursuing them, without a clear legal framework to say precisely what the conditions are that have made them legitimate targets. Presidential doctrine, secret decisions, and the like, seem like a bad solution, if an understandable one.

So I guess what I am saying is, it seems like it's important to have some clear and specific criteria, beyond "the President says so."


camhead


Sep 30, 2011, 10:32 AM
Post #7 of 53 (2089 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [scrapedape] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

As much as I try, I just can't get outraged about this. We're at war. The guy was not innocent. I understand the due process concerns, the 5th amendment concerns, the whole impersonal Orwellian drone thing, and above all, the whole slippery slope concern about this being used on other perceived enemies, but I find nothing wrong with taking out an enemy propagandist.


curt


Sep 30, 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #8 of 53 (2077 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [camhead] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
As much as I try, I just can't get outraged about this. We're at war. The guy was not innocent. I understand the due process concerns, the 5th amendment concerns, the whole impersonal Orwellian drone thing, and above all, the whole slippery slope concern about this being used on other perceived enemies, but I find nothing wrong with taking out an enemy propagandist.

Additionally, I have a hard time applying the "slippery slope" argument here at all. This guy was recruiting terrorists to kill Americans. Thus, in my mind he was absolutely a legitimate target. I think people who want to make a "slippery slope" argument should be far more worried about the Patriot Act, with its illegal wiretapping of US citizens who have done nothing whatsoever wrong.

Curt


damienclimber


Sep 30, 2011, 4:12 PM
Post #9 of 53 (2053 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.


Homegrown masquerade games !


notapplicable


Sep 30, 2011, 6:09 PM
Post #10 of 53 (2037 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [damienclimber] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.


petsfed


Sep 30, 2011, 8:26 PM
Post #11 of 53 (2026 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I think the big story here is that we ran an airstrike in Yemen, not that we killed a man whose trial would've amounted to "death penalty or life in Florence, CO".

Seriously, they had more on this guy than the black dude Texas killed last week.


ClimbClimb


Oct 1, 2011, 3:26 PM
Post #12 of 53 (1982 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 387

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dr_feelgood wrote:
Predator drones are their own judge and jury.

You may find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

For example:
In reply to:
Al-Awlaki was charged in absentia in Sana'a, Yemen, on November 2 with plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. .. On November 6, Yemeni Judge Mohsen Alwan ordered that al-Awlaki be caught "dead or alive".

and

In reply to:
In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Awlaki called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation", and overthrow Arab leaders. He said that no fatwa (special clerical ruling) is required to kill Americans


dan2see


Oct 1, 2011, 9:41 PM
Post #13 of 53 (1969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Wikipedia isn't always correct, but it covers a lot of basics quickly.

Wikipedia: Due Process

Wikipedia wrote:
Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.


dan2see


Oct 1, 2011, 9:58 PM
Post #14 of 53 (1965 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [dan2see] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Statistics aren't always facts, but this kind of list should help people to categorize the major hazards in life.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Leading Causes of Death in US in 2007

CDC wrote:
Heart disease: 616,067
Cancer: 562,875
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
Diabetes: 71,382
Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
Septicemia: 34,828

All of the terrorist attacks in the USA for the last 50 years combined, don't even make the bottom of the list.

So who kills more Americans? Terrorists, or Camel?

I don't know about crimes statistics, but I did find this:
Altlantic Review: Murder Rate in the United States and Germany
Atlantic Review wrote:
...
In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. ...

So who kills more Americans? El Quaeda, or Americans?

Huh?


sungam


Oct 2, 2011, 3:06 AM
Post #15 of 53 (1954 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [notapplicable] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.


ClimbClimb


Oct 2, 2011, 5:33 AM
Post #16 of 53 (1947 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 5, 2009
Posts: 387

Re: [dan2see] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.

Don't think it's actually necessary, but see above - there was an order from a Yemeni judge demanding that he be brought back "dead or alive". Some undisclosed combination of Yemeni and US forces implemented that court order on Yemeni soil. Sounds like due process even by the narrowest of definitions.


damienclimber


Oct 2, 2011, 4:35 PM
Post #17 of 53 (1912 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313

Re: [ClimbClimb] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

ClimbClimb wrote:
dan2see wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Due process is the legal principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.

Don't think it's actually necessary, but see above - there was an order from a Yemeni judge demanding that he be brought back "dead or alive". Some undisclosed combination of Yemeni and US forces implemented that court order on Yemeni soil. Sounds like due process even by the narrowest of definitions.


that according to the U.S government
high alert for revenge attack is in the news.


spikeddem


Oct 2, 2011, 5:44 PM
Post #18 of 53 (1899 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????


notapplicable


Oct 2, 2011, 5:57 PM
Post #19 of 53 (1893 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17752

Re: [spikeddem] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????

What part of STFU nOOb do you not understand?


sungam


Oct 3, 2011, 4:17 AM
Post #20 of 53 (1869 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [spikeddem] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

spikeddem wrote:
sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????
Holy shit! Do you see what happens when I don't proof read?

Uh, if Jaques or Joe could come in here and translate this shit for me, that would be great. It's kinda like when your hand writing is so bad you can't read it 5 minutes later. I don't know what it says.

I thinks I was saying selling cigis is not the same as murder.


dan2see


Oct 3, 2011, 5:37 AM
Post #21 of 53 (1860 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
spikeddem wrote:
sungam wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
An enemy combatant was killed during a war. Sounds pretty straight forward to me.
Derp.


Dan, you, if you don't think there is a difference between allowing someone to use a product that may lead to health problems, then you are not engaging your full thinking ability. If you think that 1000 one off murders committed by 1000 different people is the same as one small group of people murdering 1000, then you have a pretty strange perspective.

???????
Holy shit! Do you see what happens when I don't proof read?

Uh, if Jaques or Joe could come in here and translate this shit for me, that would be great. It's kinda like when your hand writing is so bad you can't read it 5 minutes later. I don't know what it says.

I thinks I was saying selling cigis is not the same as murder.

That's how I understands your paragraph.

I posted the death statistics to show my own take on political and social policies of government and people.

It's easy to say that this Al-Awlaki guy was dangerous, and that due process can be short-circuited, for the good of the American citizen.

My own opinion of that raid, is that certain branches of the US government are willing to act as immoral outlaws, they have the power to do so, and the citizens approve because the logic is expedient.

On the other hand, your government and society demonstrate how they set priorities by spending money and man-hours.

It's easy to use statistics to show how this works.

For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking. But instead of addressing the addiction head-on, you allow the tobacco companies to make a profit on the sales of an agricultural product.

On the other hand, 4000 people were killed, 10 years ago, by terrorists. But instead of trying to understand why those terrorists have so much popular support, the US has built this multi-billion dollar Homeland Security that might work. Unfortunately its performance is secret, so it's not accountable, and not responsible for succeeding. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Homeland Security is wrong: I'm saying the priority that created it is missing.

Priority.

Priority and sanity.

Sanity means: priority action on priority needs.
This builds national strength.

Or you can howl at the wind, and say to hell with your people's real problems.


sungam


Oct 3, 2011, 6:00 AM
Post #22 of 53 (1853 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26477

Re: [dan2see] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.


chadnsc


Oct 3, 2011, 9:43 AM
Post #23 of 53 (1825 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [curt] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

curt wrote:
dr_feelgood wrote:
http://www.google.com/...4a37b7d65f64ef08bd3d
In reply to:
In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States.

The strike was the biggest U.S. success in hitting al-Qaida's leadership since the May killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. But it raises questions that other strikes did not: Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who has not been charged with any crime. Civil liberties groups have questioned the government's authority to kill an American without trial.

Predator drones are their own judge and jury.

Good riddance.

Curt

+1


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 3, 2011, 12:23 PM
Post #24 of 53 (1809 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [sungam] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
dan2see wrote:
For example, in the USA, about 1,000,000 people die every year from smoking.
I don't know the numbers, but I do know that no criminal act was committed. People want the ciggis, so other people make ciggis and sell them. Nothing wrong with providing a desired service. It is completely different.

Ok, so our justification for executing a citizen is a dead our alive arrest order from a questionable g'ment under the assumption that arrest was impractical and death was immanent.

So (enter the slope) predator drones for drunk drivers who are driving on a suspended license?


Partner cracklover


Oct 3, 2011, 2:11 PM
Post #25 of 53 (1802 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [dr_feelgood] So much for due process... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Ok, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was the dude who preached hate and said that all Muslims should rise up to attack America.

Unless he provided material support, I see the criminality of that as something that really needs to be proven in a court of law, since the guy was an American citizen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not shedding any tears for his death. But how is this guy any different from the wackos who preach that "baby killers" (aka abortion-providing doctors) should be killed, or KKK members who say that blacks should be killed?

Perhaps I'm just ignorant about the facts. If so, could someone please explain the difference? Otherwise, no way should this guy have been taken out without due process being served.

GO

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook