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

the psychological war argument is dicey---where is the line between political dissent and psychological war? who determines what crosses it? the problem seems to me not that it is possible to cross that line but that there's no process for making the determination. and this is a particular problem to do with citizenship, i would think. bad enough that the determination can be made about the external enemies of the moment with no meaningful process (as was demonstrated by the bush people's fabrication of consent for iraq, there can be no assumption of debate involving facts prior to a declaration of war...or, rather, there can be no assumption that a debate will take place outside the fog of manufacturing consent...so the decision seems basically political and made by an administration which then sells its decision to the public, which includes congress....this is not exactly what was imagined with the war powers act---but the right sees that sort of thing as quaint...or does when they're in power at least....but i digress)

 

Looks like you're a fan of Noam Chomsky.

Awlaki's hate sermons can hardly be classified as "political dissent". Add to this that he actively recruited new members of al Qaeda, the purported classification of incitement of hatred evolves to direct military involvement with the intention to cause harm to US armed forces and/or civilians.

Besides, politics is the grand umbrella against which rule of law is nothing but a school of thought which can be conveniently discarded. The issue is much more whether US rule of law should be applied to exceptional cases such as Awlaki, at all. As others have stated before, when one intentionally acts against his/her own nation, incites hatred against it and actively recruits members for a movement hell-bent on causing maximum damage on the nation in question, the nation's codified laws should be treated as a luxury rather than a right.

Military rules of engagement differ greatly from civilian laws. I believe the only time the rule of law should be applied to these individuals is when they voluntarily and peacefully surrender.

 

I think a valid question is whether the moral implications of this act would have been seen differently if we had targeted and killed the man on the streets of America without attempting arrest. Say in NYC or Seattle or Podunk, Alabama? Why is it ok to do it in Yemen?

 

what exactly do you mean by "hatred"---sounds like it's little more than a code word the function of which is to strip out the political dimensions of awlaki's actions and quarantine him into some special pathological space in which its ok to liquidate. so you'd be operating from within the internal language of a space that's already vaporized the question of due process for citizens and repeat the rationalization for having done it. a sort of argumentative fait accompli. which would mean that it begs the question...

 

Can you back this up? Provide a link perhaps to identify this activity as fact rather than the assertion it appears to be.

 

Does that really matter? To the individual, yes; to the powerful structure that is willing to take such actions, obviously not. Can I be a patriot, unarmed? I am. Do I attempt to change others' minds? Guilty as charged. Do I support violence? heh.
How about this: The flag alone has the ability to destroy itself.

 

The issue isn't whether he was a terrorist, there is no doubt about that but rather he was a citizen of the United States and as such has certain rights and protections that in this case were not provided to him. Whether the US is at war or not is immaterial. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he is gone and the world is safer for that. However, how does the US make a determination that one citizen is so evil that they must be targeted without regard to the basic rights afforded to all US citizens?

 

That may be the issue to you. However, we non-US citizens are equally interested in the question as to whether the USA should be able to come into our countries at will and kill people because they are "at war" with them.

I can see it's much more efficient than that pesky extradition stuff, but.. really? It's OK for the USA.. how about us? Should we have had drones flying through New York taking out people collecting money for the IRA (and anyone who is too close to them)? Is it OK when we make mistakes, too? And yes, people have been mistakenly killed as part of this approach.

 

Some info on the hatred he incited, the jihad he declared on the US and the allegations about his role as a rcreuiter:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-17/..._1_awlaki-qaeda-islam-and-muslims?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/30/f-anwar-awlaki-profile.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11658920

Now before you go and ask me about facts of his active recruitment of al Qaeda members: You show me how to get access to highly classified field intelligence, and I'll give you the data your government has on him.

 

why do you use the word "hatred"?
hated of what? the political order dominated by the united states?
how is that not a form of political dissent?
it doesn't matter if you like it or not.
it still seems that this rhetoric is a justification for the by-passing of due process, a kind of pathologization of dissent.
that this has been used to liquidate a us citizen is a Problem.
this same sort of stuff was a Very Loudly Proclaimed Problem with stalinists did it.
why is it not the same problem now?

 

It appears as if you are so supportive of the US and confident that this intelligence (for which you are not privy) is sufficient to warrant his death, that you feel comfortable enough to present the alleged activities as fact on this thread and rally 'round the decision to exterminate him? Me? I've never been very good at the blind faith thing. Probably makes me a bad American.

There's all sorts of incitement around. Some of it very entertaining. Watch Fox News for an hour and you can see for yourself how hilarious it can be. Sorry, I'm not trying to minimize those inciting violence, but in all fairness, it's not limited to extremist Muslims. They do seem to be the flavor of the decade though. Personally, I have never believed the best way to conquer extremism is through war. Simply because it's ineffective. It only seems to breed more of it.

And, as most thinking people know, the drum beat rhetoric of war has little to do with the real reasons most wars are fought. This one is no exception.

 

When Awlaki criticizes, even denounces and condemns, US culture and political structure, it's all good. When he states ""rise up and kill Americans without the need for a legal Islamic opinion." it's incitement of hatred and violence. Especially, if compounded with his position of responsibility as a religious commentator and leader.

Now, regarding due process: as I mentioned to Willravel in the other thread, our main difference is that you frame the issue in civilian terms and I frame it in military terms. In military terms, his incitement can be considered propaganda for overall combat purposes and intentions, leaving only the case of him surrendering to the US Government where his privilege to due process should be maintained.

I'm not more supportive of the US Government as other nations, Germany for example. However, in combat situations and given the fact that field intelligence is highly classified and very sensitive, there's no real alternative recourse other than to accept the case of Awlaki.

By your logic, any and all extrajudicial killings in all situations should be outlawed. I mean, why fight wars? Do away with them so we can replace military conflict with courtroom battles.

 

Guys, this is different. These people hate our freedom. We've never given them any rational reason to dislike us. We're fighting for the right to live in accordance with our ideals, and we'll be damned if a commitment to living in accordance with our ideals is gonna get in the way of winning that fight.

And anyways, the government said he was bad and that they needed to kill him. Why can't you take their word for it? Don't you know we're at war?

 

Hey, Remixer! I have a rebuttal in 46 parts....

 

Yet you assert as fact, hearsay information you admit you are not privy to. Information you blindly trust is true.

 

remixer--but that framing is *the* issue, yes? what and who determines whether a civilian or military frame applies? when it comes to a citizen, is this not a matter that requires due process? do you not see the problem here? the blurring of the line that has traditionally separated military from criminal is what protected the citizenry from finding itself subject to the military. it's the basis of the few good things the united states has maintained across it's history--that the military is split away from matters involving citizens. i admit freely that i am working a slippery slope argument here--but still, it seems to me that this distinction is so important that this kind of argument is justified in this situation. there's a parallel problem--one that disturbs me a bit less, but which still obtains--in the entire "targeted killings" program/idea--it blurs the idea war/not war in a dangerous direction. what is war? what is not-war? i mean if this is normalized. where is battle? everywhere? how is this not a path to state terrorism?

 

If this killing is ok, I wonder what is not ok. I don't want to propose a slippery slope fallacy here, but I would like to know where the line is drawn. If Awlaki was in, say, Russia, would that drone killing still be justified? If he was in Saudi Arabia? Italy? France? UK? What if he was inside the US? What if, instead of a Muslim fanatic, he was a Timothy McVeigh copycat, would that be ok?

Because it seems to me quite obvious that these killings seem to only get the OK when we are talking about Muslims in countries with even less regard for their citizen's lives. Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan seem to be ok places for these things because hey, what is the big deal about all that collateral damage and the rule of law in these places, right?

 

This is my question, too. I think there would be an entirely different take on this event by the people who support it if were to have happened in, say, Detroit. The distance makes it more abstract and easier to rationalize.

 

that genius and stateman newt gringrich apparently said: the president signed an executive order to kill him. that was due process.