[cherdanno]

awm, on Apr 8 2010, 07:24 PM, said:

Well, I don't know the official story on this individual.

But a lot of the Al Qaeda leadership seems to make and distribute these videos where they claim "credit" for terrorist acts, and extort people to commit more terrorist acts and "kill Americans."

If someone has publicly (and proudly) stated involvement in terrorism and a desire to "do it again" then I don't think there is that much need for a trial -- he's basically admitted guilt! The key is to stop him from carrying out further crimes (which he proudly states his desire to do). In these types of cases it'd be great to apprehend the person, but better to kill them off than let them create another 9/11. It's like having a public confession -- is it really more important to make sure that someone who has already confessed to the crime and indicated he wants to do it again gets a fair trial, rather than prevent them from repeating the crime and killing more innocents?

This is a very different situation from people who "may or may not" be involved in terrorism, or people who have some peripheral involvement (like money laundering or whatever).

Indeed you don't seem to know anything about this particular individual. He is not an Al-Qaeda leader. What is publicly known is basically that he is agitating against the US, in sermons and on Jihadist web sites. So it is plausible that he is (or functions as) a recruiter, but nothing more is known.

So from the public information it seems impossible to justify claiming that he is an immediate threat for the US. Presumable the administration has (or believes to have) more information about him, that indicates that he is actively involved in terrorist plots. But there is certainly no confession, nor even anything resembling an indictment (not even by anonymous government officials) about any crime.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...-citizen/38592/

Btw, just as an aside, false confessions are one of the most frequent reasons for wrongful convictions.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Apr 9 2010, 06:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 9 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 8 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

What's different is that it's Obama doing it.

and he's ... well, he's just *better*, damn it

Comment 1: Yes, Obama is "just *better*" than the shrub.

i actually meant that obama, blessed be his name, is a better person (obviously), but whatever

[Winstonm]

Quote

"After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid."

Quote

NATO officials had originally peddled the story that the victims had been stabbed to death by family members prior to the U.S. attack on the compound where they had gathered for some festive occasion. This turned out to be entirely bogus—in short, a lie.

And these are the types of individuals we want to point out the bad guy Americans to the President so he can order them murdered. Curious reasoning.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 9 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Quote

"After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid."

Quote

NATO officials had originally peddled the story that the victims had been stabbed to death by family members prior to the U.S. attack on the compound where they had gathered for some festive occasion. This turned out to be entirely bogus—in short, a lie.

And these are the types of individuals we want to point out the bad guy Americans to the President so he can order them murdered. Curious reasoning.

You're much better off sticking to the argument that it's inherently (constitutionaly, morally) wrong than that the sources are unreliable.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 8 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

The decision does seem to claim that the Prez can order the killing of a usa citizen in Yemen without a trial or a court order.

As others have mentioned we do have a history of capture, dead or alive for citizens here in the USA.

Nothing new here, I just think people forgot history.

Mike, you have a propensity to point to history as a guage to the legitimacy of current actions, but I think you are confusing history and precedent.

There is history for feeding Christians to lions - but I doubt a modern-day Nero would be able to defend his actions by claiming legal precedent, and even if there were a historical legal precedent, it has to be determined to be "good law", i.e., still a current and reliable precedent, to be useful. So the New Nero isn't going to get off on a historical technicality. Sorry.

I'm not so sure this "wanted dead of alive" example was ever more than a make believe movie/tv claim. Anyone know the facts? Regardless, even if it has been done historically, I'm betting that the historical precedent claim for issuing a "Wanted dead or alive" warrant does not cut the mustard as "good law" today.

But then it's always good to mix fiction with facts to keep the proletariat guessing.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 9 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Quote

"After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid."

Quote

NATO officials had originally peddled the story that the victims had been stabbed to death by family members prior to the U.S. attack on the compound where they had gathered for some festive occasion. This turned out to be entirely bogus—in short, a lie.

And these are the types of individuals we want to point out the bad guy Americans to the President so he can order them murdered. Curious reasoning.

You're much better off sticking to the argument that it's inherently (constitutionaly, morally) wrong than that the sources are unreliable.

Can't both be valid arguments? Our intelligence does not exactly have a 100% accuracy rate for spotting the bad guys. One would think before you killed a citizen, making sure you were 100% right might be near the top of the to-do list.

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on Apr 9 2010, 05:19 AM, said:

Has Bush 43 ever done something like this? If not, when was the last time?

This claim of Presidential authority is unprecedented.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Apr 9 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

emphasis added.

Quote

The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

So you are saying the President must have "probable cause" to murder a citizen....I wonder if the President is subject to RICO?

The issue of citizenship is not really my issue. Whether we should strip him of citizenship and then shoot him, or just shoot him, is of no great moment to me. The question is whether we should shoot him at all, is it not? So I suggest forgetting about the citizenship issue.

As to shooting, murder, and the rule of law: I said, with I think a level of clarity, that under some circumstances the law does allow us to kill someone because we believe that his intended actions make it acceptable. We do not, or I do not anyway, speak of murder if someone shoots a person who is holding hostages. You need to know the specifics of course, but quite possibly the action is within the rule of law. And of course sometimes it is not. But the principle is, I think, an accepted part of law that under some circumstances police, the FBI, in general law enforcement can kill a person not for what he has done, not for what he has been convicted of, but to prevent him from doing what he intends to do. Usually in fact the action of a sharpshooter, in rescuing those who are in danger of being killed, is praised. To speak sarcastically of RICO is to avoid taking seriously the difficult question of what to do about a person who has made a credible threat to kill people and gives every indication of making good on his threat.

Really very few of us wish to authorize killing based on presidential whim. Whether this particular case is justified or not, I do think the basic principle falls within the rule of law, and I think it should.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Apr 10 2010, 05:59 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 9 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

emphasis added.

Quote

The characteristic feature is that it is not so uch an attempt to punish someone for what he allegedly has done, it's more an attempt to stop him from doing what there is good reason to believe that he is about to do.

So you are saying the President must have "probable cause" to murder a citizen....I wonder if the President is subject to RICO?

The issue of citizenship is not really my issue. Whether we should strip him of citizenship and then shoot him, or just shoot him, is of no great moment to me. The question is whether we should shoot him at all, is it not? So I suggest forgetting about the citizenship issue.

As to shooting, murder, and the rule of law: I said, with I think a level of clarity, that under some circumstances the law does allow us to kill someone because we believe that his intended actions make it acceptable. We do not, or I do not anyway, speak of murder if someone shoots a person who is holding hostages. You need to know the specifics of course, but quite possibly the action is within the rule of law. And of course sometimes it is not. But the principle is, I think, an accepted part of law that under some circumstances police, the FBI, in general law enforcement can kill a person not for what he has done, not for what he has been convicted of, but to prevent him from doing what he intends to do. Usually in fact the action of a sharpshooter, in rescuing those who are in danger of being killed, is praised. To speak sarcastically of RICO is to avoid taking seriously the difficult question of what to do about a person who has made a credible threat to kill people and gives every indication of making good on his threat.

Really very few of us wish to authorize killing based on presidential whim. Whether this particular case is justified or not, I do think the basic principle falls within the rule of law, and I think it should.

Yes, Ken, that is a much different scenario - but one that also does not require Presidential authorization. When you speak of a hostage-taker, you are talking about someone who is actively engaged in a criminal activity.

The actions allowed against this cleric are to kill him anywhere he is found - even sitting down to dinner with his family. There is a considerable difference between eating a bowl of bean soup and holding a hostage.

Remember, the guy eating the bean soup has only been accused by those in the intelligence agencies of someday being a guy who will commit a serious crime. With our record of releasing non-combattant Guantanemo detainess I would have serious reservations about the quality of our intelligence gathering techniques.

[y66]

Winstonm, on Apr 7 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

And if that is the case, the terrorists have won, by making us a such a fearful, quivering nation that we gladly abandon the very backbone of our independence in order to be "protected" by our Caesar and his Praetorian Guards.

A sad day indeed.

When they sign Sean Penn to play your part in "Water Cooler", I don't think even he'll be able to say these lines without gagging. Maybe he can play Cherdanno.

[Lobowolf]

I remember a chilling interview with G. Gordon Liddy where he talked about previous discussions he'd had to kill Jack Anderson of the Post "if it became necessary". I think Liddy discussed it at trial too, possibly. From what I've read about Nixon, I'd be surprised if that was something he wasn't aware of at the very least. Really chilling. Great interview; it was Liddy and Timothy Leary, simultaneously.

[Winstonm]

y66, on Apr 10 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 7 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

And if that is the case, the terrorists have won, by making us a such a fearful, quivering nation that we gladly abandon the very backbone of our independence in order to be "protected" by our Caesar and his Praetorian Guards.

A sad day indeed.

When they sign Sean Penn to play your part in "Water Cooler", I don't think even he'll be able to say these lines without gagging. Maybe he can play Cherdanno.

No doubt Jack Nicholson will play your part, though, as it is so close to a recast of his role in A Few Good Men.