Missing the Point on Assassinations

[tribute_13]

I'm amazed at the mindset of my fellow Americans. The fascination for bloodshed and the unquenchable desire for retribution can drive those with the best intentions down a very dark path. People say Al Awlaki was a terrible man and therefore deserved to be assassinated regardless whether he was a citizen or not. He committed a crime against the nation and got what he had coming to him.

Let's for the sake of argument agree with this tenant.

Where do you go from here? We have people committing crimes against society everyday here in America. An American citizen goes into a bank and robs the place, kills a pregnant woman and rapes a teller. Are they assassinated? No, they're arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. Timothy McVeigh, the mastermind behind the OKC Bombing, was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Serial killers do unspeakable acts. Acts of cannibalism, kidnappings, murders. Yet they're all arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. Why would this situation be any different? It has nothing to do with terrorism or whether he was guilty or not. It has to do with the fact that Due Process of Law is not to protect criminals, but to protect people from being wrongly accused. It's a very dangerous precedent to set when you use a legitimate criminal as a scapegoat to circumvent the rule of law. We understand it. Sadly, the rest of the nation does not. It's seriously depressing.

 

[centure7]

People say Al Awlaki was a terrible man and therefore deserved to be assassinated regardless whether he was a citizen or not.

Being a terrible man isn't even illegal, depending on what terrible means. A cop once gave me a ticket and I told him: "You are a terrible person." But my God I'd hardly see how that justifies an execution Before saying he deserved to be executed I think we actually have to know exactly what it was that was terrible. Because again, being terrible does not warrant the death penalty in and of itself.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

a nation who loves killing but is afraid of death.

think about it.

 

[tribute_13]

I was just saying for the sake of argument. Even if that point was conceded there is still no justification for blatantly ignoring every citizens birthright of being protected from unilateral control.

 

[freeforall]

Sometimes I wonder if Obama even knows the proper steps to take for his actions as president. I've always thought he (and others before him) just didn't care.

 

[Minlawc]

I completely agree. I compare it to the big time gangsters that everyone usually knows who they are. They can't try them because of connections, bribes, and etc. that they use. So they get off free. Why don't we, like everyone seems to want with terrorists, just start assassinating all of them Boondocks Saints style. I mean, Organized crime hurts and kills a lot more Americans than terrorism does.

 

[TheTexan]

Everyone knows Awlaki was a terrible man and he deserved to die.

We know this, because our government told us so.

Our government has time and time again proved it can be trusted to make these sorts of decisions. So we should let this go.

(not)

 

[freshjiva]

Playing devil's advocate, those who support the assassination of Awlaki point out:

1) Awlaki had verbally renounced his citizenship;
2) Declared war on the United States;
3) Was on foreign soil

The above three conditions, according to their argument, mean that he is no longer subject to the protection of the 5th Amendment and is an enemy combatant. This makes it legal under international law to target him for killing. The same precedent holds for Osama bin Laden (except for #1 above), whose assassination Ron Paul supported. This makes Ron Paul's position inconsistent.

 

[Anti Federalist]

a nation who loves killing but is afraid of death.

think about it.

I owe you rep for that when I get more ammo.

Yes, people, do think about that...

You'll find it a pretty powerful symptom of the sickness that is rotting our nation from the inside out.

 

[Simple]

If he was so bad why did we invite him to the Pentagon *after* 9-11??!?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

 

[puppetmaster]

Playing devil's advocate, those who support the assassination of Awlaki point out:

1) Awlaki had verbally renounced his citizenship;
2) Declared war on the United States;
3) Was on foreign soil

The above three conditions, according to their argument, mean that he is no longer subject to the protection of the 5th Amendment and is an enemy combatant. This makes it legal under international law to target him for killing. The same precedent holds for Osama bin Laden (except for #1 above), whose assassination Ron Paul supported. This makes Ron Paul's position inconsistent.

can you show where he did #1?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Playing devil's advocate, those who support the assassination of Awlaki point out:

1) Awlaki had verbally renounced his citizenship;
2) Declared war on the United States;
3) Was on foreign soil

The above three conditions, according to their argument, mean that he is no longer subject to the protection of the 5th Amendment and is an enemy combatant. This makes it legal under international law to target him for killing. The same precedent holds for Osama bin Laden (except for #1 above), whose assassination Ron Paul supported. This makes Ron Paul's position inconsistent.

Ron said in several interviews after the assassination that he did not approve of the bin Laden killing, citing other terrorists that have been tried in US courts.

 

[king_nothing_]

Playing devil's advocate, those who support the assassination of Awlaki point out:

1) Awlaki had verbally renounced his citizenship;
2) Declared war on the United States;
3) Was on foreign soil

The above three conditions, according to their argument, mean that he is no longer subject to the protection of the 5th Amendment and is an enemy combatant. This makes it legal under international law to target him for killing. The same precedent holds for Osama bin Laden (except for #1 above), whose assassination Ron Paul supported. This makes Ron Paul's position inconsistent.

1) You can't just verbally renounce your citizenship, as far as I know. There are procedures for doing it, and saying aloud "hey yo, I renounce my citizenship" does not qualify.
2) The "enemy combatant" argument does not fly, because we're not in any declared war, and there is no official war battleground.
3) bin Laden was officially charged with murder and conspiracy to murder before 9/11.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Good OP. Another point people miss: the 5th and 6th amendments don't apply to US citizens, they apply to the US govt. There is no loophole for not offering due process to non-citizens.

In a case like this, where a bad dude is hiding out overseas, and the local govt refuses to extradite (of course, we didn't even ask) a letter of marque or reprisal could be issued, but the Constitution gives that power to Congress, NOT the prez.

 

[Revolution9]

a nation who loves killing but is afraid of death.

think about it.

Sounds like a viral meme infection. Israel has the same issue.

Rev9

 

[acptulsa]

Obama was just covering Dubya's butt. Conservative talk radio hosts are now covering Obama's butt. There's your left/right paradigm for ya.

Trials reveal truth. Funerals bury it. What's the mere Constitution in the face of a need to bury the truth?

 

[phill4paul]

You mean all I have to do is say "I renounce my citizenship?" Hmmmmmm.......

 

[Paulatized]

You mean all I have to do is say "I renounce my citizenship?" Hmmmmmm.......

not according to this: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

 

[Paulatized]

To me the point is the circumvention of the trial (due process) and the usurpation of this process by the executive branch which in turn becomes the judge, jury and executioner (king). The Declaration of Independence recognizes the self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the unalienable right to life and that governments are instituted to secure this right. Our nation being based on this premise devised the Constitution to guard this right and included the 5th and 6th amendments to insure that a person is charged (to spell out the offense)and is afforded his day in court (to have the opportunity of defense against the charges).

Notice the words “all men.” Imo this means everyone has the right to life, but not all countries guard the protection of that right as does our Constitution, which is indeed is one thing that has made our country exceptional. To allow the president to assume this power defies a founding principle of our nation and we become a nation of men rather than of law.

Especially with the defined “battlefield” in the War on Terror so vague (how do you define battlefield when there is 1)no congressionally declared war, 2)no country/s to be at war with (leaving the defined battlefield as anywhere there is a declared terrorist). It becomes too easy to circumvent the law, with support from, instead of outcry, from the public.

 

[loveshiscountry]

You mean all I have to do is say "I renounce my citizenship?" Hmmmmmm.......

say it three times, just like getting a divorce