Should the flag protect those that are intent on destroying it?

I prefer to think of it as an undefined enemy, not imaginary. Imaginary gives the connotation that the enemy is not real. Which is not the case. The threat is very real, just who is the threat though is hard to define.

 

wiieeerd. we were just discussing this case in my law class the other day. i don't think that Awlaki is eligible for due process. the Fifth says something about an exception to a right in due process in the event of a land or naval conflict which this war certainly is.

 

the characterization of intelligence that remixer gave earlier in the thread and the differences between that and evidence is on its own enough to prompt a call for due process in cases involving american citizens. the problem with legal arguments submitted in a procedural vacuum is that they really are what bodkin characterizes them as being---rationalizations in formally correct language for a decision that's made in advance. so there's no space for presentation of counter-arguments, no examination of evidence (or it's more problematic shadow double, intelligence...) the use of legal advisors to provide a figleaf of justification is a real problem---remember how the bush people used that in order to do quaint things like unilaterally declare the geneva convention irrelevant and rationalize the use of torture, to set into motion the entire rendition program and to construct a basis for the invasion of iraq. there is every reason to be skeptical of this use of technical expertise in law, every reason to want to limit its uses and functions.

 

Nice. Smarminess aside, we are talking about abridging due process in a matter of life or death. Yes, that makes a difference to me and to a lot of other people, as well. Besides, for all I know, I may or may not agree with the supreme court's decision to reverse that case and abridge the man's rights to due process. Particularly when it is being used to justify assassination. But what do I know? Obviously only lawyers or people who support the GWOT are qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk

 

Obviously missing the point here.

All of you who criticize Awlaki's assassination can only do three things when it comes to the Awlaki case and its underlying issues:
1. Critique the current system of the US Administration and their issues of lack of transparency.
2. Debate whether assassinations IN GENERAL should be used from an ethical/philosophical perspective.
3. Give emotion-laden, non-argumentative opinions on Awlaki's killing.

So far, you've (general "you") done all three, but under the pretense that you have an actual case to make as to why Awlaki shouldn't have been assassinated.

No, you don't have a case when it comes to Awlaki. You never did. You don't have the slightest bit of information required to make a case. Consequently, you are not in a position to assess the situation on the ground. Continue your general critique, but don't pretend to have anything of consequence to say about the Awlaki case. Whether the administration has lied to you previously is of no importance to operational decisions of this nature. From a philosophical point of view, you are (currently) not capable to determine when you are subject to the truth or not, making you constant nay-sayers, nothing more.

The realities of military conflict and the nature of intelligence (no, roachboy, you can't discuss classified intelligence in a court of law without risking substantial losses in modi of intel gathering) simply cannot bend to your beliefs. I love the idea of supreme civilian democratic rule more than any of you here, but I don't keep putting these matters into my narrow ideological framework. I see what happens in these parts of the world more than any of you did/do, and definitely more than former soldiers such as Plan9 (if I understood correctly that he was once deployed in Afghanistan). My non-attack of Obama's decision is due to my inside knowledge, not because I'm a supporter of the GWOT or that I like military conflict (neither of which apply to me).

And just to note on Bodkin van Horn's remarks: You may find KirStang 's counter-arguments unworthy of a rebuttal, but you yourself have hardly provided any argument worthy of such. Whether you expect to bend on the issue or not, is, honestly, of very little significance.

 

kinda sounds like that whole "rules" thing that large groups of people have a habit of making.

 

So essentially, you think I'm full shit because I couldn't support the idea that he shouldn't have been assassinated beyond the general claim that it is problematic to set a precedent whereby the president can justify assassinating an american citizen if he can somehow manage to have one his lawyers draw up a secret memo explaining why the assassination of a particular citizen is okay?

I think you're confusing issues here.

One issue is whether Awlaki was an imminent threat or guilty of any crimes. I bet he was, but maybe he wasn't. Maybe you're privy to information I don't have. This question is uninteresting to me. It would be nice if there was some sort of legal framework in place that could handle this type of question? Some sort of set of procedures where people try to make convincing arguments based on evidence in front of an objective third party? There could even be some sort of person in charge of the process to make sure that everyone's rights were respected and that proper procedures were followed; he or she could wear a fancy black moomoo. I don't know. I'm drawing a blank here. Fuck it. Let's just have some nameless administration appointee write a secret memo that justifies it. I think that that's covered in the 8th amendment. Or maybe the 13th?

I don't know. I'm just some asshole who doesn't want my government assassinating people. Who the fuck do I think I am, anyway?

The second issue is whether it should be okay for the president to authorize the assassination of an American citizen at all, let alone without going through the types of due process commonly afforded war criminals.

These issues are independent, so the fact that you think my indifference to the first means I can't comment on the second doesn't make sense to me.

I'm pretty sure that kirstang doesn't need you carrying his balls for him. But, yeah, I know. Like I said, I'm just some asshole. Who the fuck cares what I think. It isn't like we're on a website dedicated to people sharing their opinions or anything.

 

Neither do you have the slightest bit of information to make a case. You are assuming that because it was done, everything must be in order. But if you have any sort of working knowledge of the US's history of bending and sometimes outright breaking the 'rules' (which I am sure you do) maybe you can imagine why some people might be a little skeptical about this situation. Therefore, we are all making ideological arguments. And that's ok. But it's a little annoying to have it presented as some sort of legal argument as if it call all be explained and laid to rest by a simple understanding of the laws regarding 'imminent threat' and 'due process.'

 

I'm not suggesting that al-Awlaki wasn't a teacher and didn't correspond with people. I am, in no uncertain terms, pointing out there's no evidence that al-Awlaki directly planned or was otherwise involved in any attacks, as the Obama administration has accused him. He wasn't killed for being a propagandist or calling for violence, both things there's evidence to support, but because of an "operational" role in al Qaeda. I won't believe that until I see it, because I think we're being lied to yet again in the name of having a false victory over an enemy we don't understand.

Like I said, no evidence. We've known for years that al-Awlaki was a propagandist for "Islamism", and encouraged acts of violence against various targets on behalf of that philosophy. What we don't know, however, is in what way he's directly been involved with al Qaeda (there's no evidence he's a member of the organization) or if he's actually planned in any detail any attack (all we have from the emails are the same vague calls for and incitements of violence). There's no evidence of strategy linked with al Qaeda and no evidence he's an operational planner, as he's been accused. Listening to the White House, al-Awlaki was a terrorist mastermind and the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Those were the reasons given for his assassination. Those are the reasons which have no public supporting evidence. We're again asked to trust the intelligence community, and we've been lied to by them so many times they've lost all credibility.

But I like the Clear and Present Danger thing. These Patriot Games we play Without Remorse represent more than the Sum of All Fears. Executive Orders that leave Americans Dead or Alive inspire in me a Debt of Honor, a compulsion to question the official story to ensure justice is being served.

The Hunt for Red October.

 

1. There is no current legal framework to handle such a matter appropriately.

2. If you are generally against assassinations, why bother making Awlaki's case? From this POV, you should be able to argue against assassinations, whether Awlaki was guilty of what he was accused of or not.

3. Your constant "Oh, I'm just an X, and worth Y" rhetoric is extremely ineffective and only serves to make you look silly. Then again, that's the purpose of it, amirite?

4. You keep going on and on about the legal framework, but you hardly address the practical issues of handling intelligence-based information in a court of law. I've outlined those issues for you. Provide an argument as to how my points could be circumvented rather than assuming position in an Ivy Tower? Or hey, keep drawing blanks and cement your ideological position.

Very well said. Good to see you find KirStang's points unworthy of a proper response, but make sarcastic comments when the same is claimed on your points.

I made a case against Awlaki based on the little information I had when I debated the issue with Willravel in the other thread.

I don't have access to that much more information than you guys, but I also don't believe all is fine and dandy when the US administration makes claims. However, I'm familiar with how things work over here and am very familiar with the nature of classified intelligence, which is why I know exactly why current administrations will under no circumstance allow the intel to be assessed in a court of law.

My point is simply pragmatic: You have no hope of making a case for Awlaki's innocence. You have no hope to hold the intelligence services accountable. You have no hope to get access to the intel used by the administration based on which they made their decision to kill Awlaki. You have no hope to hold the administration accountable based on that same intel.

But you all pretend you do. Especially Willravel, who keeps on mentioning there's no evidence to support the administration's claims. It is obvious there's no evidence, but we established that in the beginning.

The entire argument here is about why due process doesn't apply to cases such as Awlaki, which none of you effectively refuted. You did not provide anything better than "because there must be due process", completely avoiding to address the practical ramifications.

That you guys don't accept "secret memos" written by "secret hands" and "secret pens" on "secret pieces of paper" for a "secret argumentation" based on "secret evidence", has zero impact on the nature of intelligence. Intelligence doesn't suddenly become a civilian tool for judicial process just because you hold that belief.

EDIT: About the legal justification: The legal perspective is very important here in order to determine whether assassinations and removal of due process privileges are acceptable within your legal system. If legally acceptable, you'd now have a focal point on which to concentrate your efforts, energy and time in order to effect change.

 

Of course the administration will not be held accountable. Maybe you know less about my country than I thought.
And that is hardly the point I am making.
It seems your point is: shut the fuck up unless you can personally bring this situation to a resolution.
That makes absolutely no sense to me and it's a piss poor argument.
Why don't you prove the justification?
Oh right, you can't. You're just sitting there typing out your opinions on an internet forum like the rest of us.
A battle of opinions, I can handle, bring it on. But this 'I am better qualified to hold my totally unverifiable opinions' nonsense is really annoying.

 

Really, mixedmedia? Have you seen the arguments I have provided on why Awlaki's assassination is not nearly as big of a deal as you like to portray?

Regardless, you make a whole lot of noise about things you have no idea about.

First, Awlaki shouldn't have been killed. Why? Due process! He's a US citizen! (which somehow makes him less killable and changes the entire ethics argument than if he was from another country).
Second, the administration was obliged to start a legal case against Awlaki. Why? Intelligence must be assessed on whether it was strong or not!
Third, when I bring up the issues of submitting intel as evidence, you guys reply with "there still has to be due process! I don't accept secret memos!"

Get off it. You're much more annoying with your yip-yap than I could ever attempt to be.

EDIT: There's a huge difference between someone who spouts theoretical elements of an ideology and code of ethics, and someone who does the same but considers the realities and practical ramifications. I have met dozens of daydreamers like you guys here in Afghanistan, and they contribute in a minuscule manner to ... anything. "Let's fight for gender equality, when conditions for physical survival and a secure home aren't even met yet!"

 

Sounds to me like Awlaki is an exception. I think his "assassination" was justified.

/Law220 argument

 

The road to the proverbial hell is paved with well intentioned assassinations.

 

Interesting thread. Not sure why I haven't seen this before. Maybe because I'm sick and tried of the whole GWOT and the current political scene in the US. I'm just fed up with these wars and I don't believe they're making us any safer. Osama bleed the USSR dry and I think that was his plan all along for the US... and it's working. We're pretty broke yet still spending, what is it, a billion a month?

As to the OP, fuck I don't know. Was this guy actively planing and plotting attacks on the US or it's allies? Was he a clear and present danger? The government, as well as many on here, say yes... without a doubt. Myself I've gotten pretty cynical if the DOD told me the sun was going to raise in the morning I'd probably make sure I had an alternate heat source on hand just in case. Could the US have arrested him? Given the difficultly in getting OBL I'm guess the answer would be no. Seems to me too many officials in that area of the world tell the US one thing and do a completely different thing. We got OBL in Pakistan without really any help from them, heck they didn't even know he was there... right. And they're our ally, which is why they're looking to, or already have, charged the doctor who helped us gather intel used to get him with treason. They're our ally when we're handing out checks. Once the check clears? Not so much.

Specifically on the subject of killing Mr. Awlaki I usually use "if Bush/Cheney did this would I feel the same?" In this case that answer is probably yes. I think we should get the hell out of their sandbox and start working on making our sandbox more livable.

 

Useless waste of time.

 

With this summation you aren't characterizing anything I've written here. What's more you haven't been able to make even single point that proves Awlaki's assassination legitimate. Because you can't, because you are privy to no more real information than anyone. Talk about yammering. So lacking any kind of real information to share that makes you a "winner" you resort to bullying. Charming.

 

I know, right?

 

i suppose its a matter of one's immediate context. where remixer is, people get whacked. its a war zone. there's intel and there's evidence. intel is dicey in terms of accuracy but hey its dog eat dog and if a few people get whacked unnecessarily so be it. the calculation is utilitarian and your side controls the weights and measures. in the states, it isn't a war zone and this is another in a long string of legal end-arounds courtesy of the "war on terror"---if you are in it or sympathetic, awlaki was simply an expedient, a means to an immediate end (liquidate the enemies of the state...you know, basement stairs of the kremlin style.) in the context of a vaporous war without end. for those of us outside, this reads (with variations, but summarizing) as yet another flouting of the rule of law in the fine mode set into motion by the bush people, using the same kind of "legal" figleaf. i'm sure that my disgust with the obama administration for not dismantling the "war on terror" is not particular.

 

On page 3 of this thread, I posted a link to the UN report on drone killings. I don't know whether anyone read it. This part is interesting and, I think, applicable:

I, for one, see no reason why the USA shouldn't publish the process undertaken to ensure that such killings are carried out legally (along with other information suggested in the conclusions). I also wonder whether " less-than-lethal means" were feasible in this circumstance and, if not, why not - after all, the Yemeni's counter terrorism forces were trained by the USA. There need be no calamitous security breach in doing this (though I can see a "We never tried, because we don't trust the Yemenis" argument being made, causing diplomatic issues and failing to persuade many).

Paint me as naive if you wish. However, I don't believe I am. I have held the equivalent of US TS/SCI clearance (I no longer do, because it is only ever valid when in a particular role and is rescinded on leaving that role). Remixer, I doubt very much that your "special knowledge" extends nearly as far as you claim. If it does, your mentioning it here would be sufficient to lose you your clearance.