Those Damn Liberals at NBC . . .

Please simply tell me how you would have dealt with him, I did not ask for a discourse on Hanoi Jane or Bill Ayers. All I want to know is how you would have dealt with the situation

 

Ps as far as I know Hanoi Jane did not call for the Death of Americans, nor as far as I am aware did Ayres

 

Meet the partisanlines master of talking about ANYTHING else. I think he must have an Attention Deficit Disorder problem. He will talk about anything else but the topic of the thread. I just ignore him most of the time.

 

Besides, regardless of her method, she was right about Vietnam as history has proven.

 

If he was deemed a serious threat to the security of the United States, then there's nothing stopping the Commander in Chief from authorizing a mission to go take him into custody. He's either enough of a threat to justify sending a mission or he's not. If he's not, then "well, it's more convenient to just kill him" is not an acceptable alternate choice, in my opinion. Nor is it a legal choice, according to the Constitution of the United States.

The United States is supposedly a nation which is governed by the rule of law, not men. The Constitution of the United States is unequivocally clear on the matter of limiting and defining the power of the government in its dealings with citizens of the country, as briefly explained in one of my posts in the other thread on this topic.

Al Aulaqi was a citizen of the United States. He was very likely guilty of numerous crimes. According to the laws of the United States, that is a matter for a court to decide. When the Executive branch of government takes upon itself the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, it's setting itself above the law. Some people are OK with that, some aren't.

 

Thank you Recusant I am aware that the order could have been given to mount a incursion into anther country to take him but what I asked is "WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE". Not what the government should or should not have done.
While we are at it what about the rights of those who were endangered by his activities? They seem to have been forgotten in all of this.
Now my own position is fairly clear I would have had him killed if I could not have taken him alive for trial.

 

This is no longer the black and white issue it once was. Prior to 9-11, I'd have agreed with you 100%. After 9-11 the bar was lowered by the Bush doctrine and the actions of terrorists themselves. First, the terrorists targeted 3,000 innocent civilians and then the Bush Administration sought and got the power to do pretty much anything they wanted to do in the name of national security. Like it or not, the role of judge, jury, and executioner was already awarded to your government in new broad sweeping legislation.
As I said, the terrorists themselves, who nobody is lobbying for, brought this upon themselves when they attacked civilian targets and justified it by saying that the American people were complicit in the actions of the American government. If an American then chooses to go overseas and joins the people that lowered the bar that previously kept enemies from attacking noncombatants, they should suffer the same consequences as any of the other terrorists American-born or not.
This is an example of the kind of powers that we carelessly grant to our own government when they effectively use fear to gain unlimited powers and who were the fear mongers during the last administration? You guessed it, our Right-wing friends. Now they can see the results of their collapsing in the face of fear for the sake of a little imagined security. Every ill-conceived ideal comes back to bite you in the ass eventually.

 

If I were the Commander in Chief the the United States, I would endeavor to protect and defend the laws of the nation, as I had sworn to do when I took office. The legal course of action (as I see it) is explained above.

How would anything for which I've advocated infringe on the rights of "those who were endangered by his activities"?

 

Except for the fact that the current law gives the Commander-in-Chief literally unlimited powers and coincidentally was the law of the land when Obama took office.

 

The Constitution of the United States has not ceased to exist, nor has it ceased to be the law by which the country is governed.

If by "new law" you mean the AUMF, perhaps you could point out to me the part of that legislation which says that the Constitution of the United States is no longer valid.

The United States has frequently targeted "noncombatants" itself. The "bar was lowered" long before the attacks of September 11.

We have a precedent of an American-born terrorist (one who actually killed American citizens, by the way, which as far as I know, al Aulaqi was not even accused of doing). Timothy McViegh received a fair trial and was given a lawful sentence.

What's this "we" crap, kemosabe? I don't recall voting to grant these powers to the Executive. I don't recall the Supreme Court ruling that the Executive could execute American citizens without trial. I don't recall anybody saying that the Constitution was no longer the law of the land.

 

So you are then saying that there has been a successful Constitutional challenge to the powers granted to the president by the legislation passed under the Bush Administration? I guess I missed that. You can dwell on what once "was" or you can acknowledge "what is". Your choice.

See answer #1. The legislation passed was broad enough to drive a truck through by any legal interpretation and has not been degraded by any Constitutional challenge I know of.

I can't speak to nonspecific actions unlisted here but I do not find it hard to imagine that any number of covert actions were part and parcel of U.S. foreign policy. Pretty much like any country on the planet.

He was also in a friendly country when apprended, this country. The odds of sending in the Oklahoma State Police to successfully apprehend Al Aulaqi seem pretty remote don't ya think?

Again, the powers were granted or just plain taken as precedent by the Commander-in-Chief during the Bush Administration right after 9-11 and remain unsucessfully chanllenged. A recent challenge to the constitutionality of the secret legal justification for killing U.S. citizens brought by the ACLU was tossed by a NY district judge. The judge concluded that government's actions "seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution." Still, she concluded, citing a "veritable Catch-22" of a "thicket of laws and precedents," she could not order disclosure of the Department of Justice memorandum supporting the 2011 drone killing of alleged al Qaeda militant. It may be unconstitutional or it may not be but at this point is also precedent and may just reflect the new reality of the world we live in. No borders, no countries, no declaration of war, just targeted killings. The only constant in war throughout history is that it changes. We have to change our attitudes and practices before our enemies use our own inadequate strategies against us. Not defending or supporting either side just saying that the game has changed and so must we.

 

Eh, as I recall, the main reason the colonies created these documents was for profit. The King of England wanted a larger portion, and the colonies balked.

Granted, that isn't the only reason, but face it (or not), it always comes down to greed.

These were rich men who created these documents, not people like me. People like me were the white slaves...one step above black slaves, two steps above Indians who got in the way of profits.

Worship the documents as you see fit, if they are so sacred to you. They are not to me. To me, they are just as flawed as the men who wrote them.

Want an example? What did Martha Washington think after the reading of George's will? My guess is "You dumb bastard!" Apparently George stated that his slaves be set free....upon the death of Martha.

My beliefs are ruled by what is right, more than anything else. (shrugs) These drone attacks fall well within those guidelines.

 

Meet the partisanlines master of talking about ANYTHING else. I think he must have an Attention Deficit Disorder problem. He will talk about anything else but the topic of the thread. I just ignore him most of the time

 

This is a question of interpretation, really, and I'm half-interested in using the Bill "Nuclear Option" Clinton tactic by debating what each letter in the alphabet means ...for five years each...just to prove the point.

I'll do it, don't make me do it lol

 

Can anyone prove that al Awlaki did anything worse than what Bill Ayers did? Or that speaking out against America is a crime (e.g., Hanoi Jane)?

I'm not defending al Awlaki, but I don't see how his crimes are any worse than Bill Ayers. For God's sake, Ayers bombed the Pentagon!

So, the question was "how would we deal with al Awlaki"? I wouldn't have treated him any different than we treated Bill Ayers or Hanoi Jane.

 

I'll make one last point, regarding this, and then I'll cease from addressing any more comments from you on the constitutionality point...before I burn-up any good-will/political capital I may have left with you lol

There is plenty stopping him from capturing some of these people, though it would take some time to accomplish the feat, and there is a potentially higher price to pay for the effort.

Given enough time, these types of people could be arrested and brought to trial. The key words here are "time" and "could", as there are serious difficulties legal-wise and tactical procedure-wise. Nine times out of ten, the subject would die in the attempt, and so would some of our people who are making the attempt.

Just look at how long it took the police to kill Dorner here in America. Another officer died in the attempt to kill him at the cabin. Notice I didn't say that they attempted to capture him, as I firmly believe that the decision to "kill on sight" was already in place, many days ago.

"Capture" isn't easy, and lives are at stake here. Any attempt to capture these types of people (terrorists) carries a price that isn't cheap. Are the lives of our soldiers/FBI/people that expendable? Don't forget the potential casualties to civilians had they been given more time.

Sorry for all the abuse, Recusant....I'll shut up now lol

 

If anyone ever needed proof that there is, indeed, a God in heaven, there it is in so many words. Hallelujah!

 

The last time I checked al Aulaqi was violating no American laws. Our laws may be effective in Oklahoma, but not in Yemen. Just like Illinois could not prosecute McVeigh for what he did in Oklahoma, USA cannot prosecute al Aulaqi for what he did/does in Yemen. And that is even assuming that Yemen would let any American police force into their country to capture anyone.

 

No goodwill burned as far as I'm concerned, and I certainly don't consider your posts here to be abuse, either.

It's not that I consider the Constitution of the United States to be particularly sacred, but I think that the citizens of the U.S. who condone the government ignoring it do so at their own peril.

 

see, the discourse between IQ, Recusant, and Joe (and a small interlude by rlm) is what intelligent conversation looks like, you should be taking notes Coin.