US POLITICS XXXIX

[DizoakiusMaximus]

That's the great thing about us. Everybody agrees with us on at least one thing or the other.

Libertarianism. Come for the legal weed, stay for...well the legal weed is pretty good.

That is perhaps the best thing I've heard in this thread yet.

[awesome possum]

Jose Padilla. It already happened to him.

What happened to him sucked and shouldn't have been done that way, but wasn't he convicted by a court in the end? And wasn't this the beginnings of the Bush administration testing out it's newfound powers? Powers that were eventually taken away from it by the public? Unless you have any further examples that are more recent?

Did you read through what you just wrote? Political speech is now a capital crime? Really? If I say the military personnels overseeing Gitmo deserved to be summarily executed by all means available, I am now an enemy of the state and can be killed on sight without trial? Don't we mete our justice on actions, and not political philosophies?

I guess I see a difference between political speech and hate speech that declares you will be acting towards the goal of exterminating a country and it's people while encouraging others to join you. You don't?

Great analogy. Animals have limited rational thought capacity and can only react through base instincts.

:rolleyes:

If by we you mean, well, you and me, then no, we're not losing rights since we're not actively campaigning for the demise of the United States.

But it's OK to actively campaign for the demise of the United States as long as you don't get caught doing anything physical? Is it OK for me to walk around your house declaring that I'm going to kill your mother and your father and everyone you love? Or do you think the cops would eventually be called to stop me?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But it's OK to actively campaign for the demise of the United States as long as you don't get caught doing anything physical? Is it OK for me to walk around your house declaring that I'm going to kill your mother and your father and everyone you love? Or do you think the cops would eventually be called to stop me?

You do see how the point was just proved right? The cops will be called. They'll take you to jail. You will be charged with criminal threats. An attorney will be appointed. The evidence against you will be presented and you will be given the opportunity to refute it. The police will not follow you home and murder you in your bed.

[alguien]

PS Strange thread it is that I, a person who loath everything that libertarianism stands for, am arguing in the same corner as Tormund. Maybe I have gone so far into the left that I'm coming out on the right-side?

And also Ser Possum, Shryke, and myself, fellows who mostly post liberal seem to agree with FLoW.

For me it comes down to trust. In wartime situations, US administrations have historically exceeded their powers to preserve the safety of our country. This is nothing new. But I'm also not convinced that it isn't occasionally necessary.

So then the question becomes do I trust the current administration to use their power responsibly? I didn't with the previous one. I do, for now, with Obama.

ETA: or to put it in terms those of us who've just finished reading the latest Dresden book can understand, perhaps having the Blackstaff is a necessary evil.

[awesome possum]

You do see how the point was just proved right? The cops will be called. They'll take you to jail. You will be charged with criminal threats. An attorney will be appointed. The evidence against you will be presented and you will be given the opportunity to refute it. The police will not follow you home and murder you in your bed.

And you think that is what's is going to happen to al-Awlaki? The military is going to follow him to where he's hiding out and murder him in his bed? You honestly don't think they'll try to capture him first and foremost?

If you don't, then I think it's pretty pointless to continue debating this with you until you take off the tinfoil hat.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And you think that is what's is going to happen to al-Awlaki? The military is going to follow him to where he's hiding out and murder him in his bed? You honestly don't think they'll try to capture him first and foremost?

Good grief you aren't even in sight of the central point of the debate are you? The entire point is not what they will or won't do, it's what they are allowed to do. The entirety of the point is that it cannot be allowed for one person, or even a group of people, other than a jury of your peers in open court to hold the power of life or death (and possibly not even then, in my mind).

[Watcher]

Right. I gotcha, but people were talking about trying him in absentia so as to make whatever we do to him "perfectly" legal.

This. Tormund, Terra and others... Would convecting him in absentia of treason and maybe accessory to murder make you more comfortable with putting him on a "kill list"?

[DizoakiusMaximus]

This. Tormund, Terra and others... Would convecting him in absentia of treason and maybe accessory to murder make you more comfortable with putting him on a "kill list"?

Seeing as you used my quote, I'll answer for myself: No.

Trying someone in absentia has always seemed wrong to me. If you're going to try someone, they should be there. Now I understand the whole crux of that problem is that first the guy has to be captured, but it shouldn't matter. How can someone be adequately defended, if they do not have access to their counsel and vice versa?

If they convict him for accessory to murder (for Ft. Hood, I assume), then they need to convict Bill O'Reilly for the same thing for saying that the abortion doctor who was murdered by a listener of his (god save me I don't know his name) should be killed. We don't know that he ordered that guy to go kill people or if that guy just brought it up to him and he didn't tell him not to do it. That's why a real trial is needed.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This. Tormund, Terra and others... Would convecting him in absentia of treason and maybe accessory to murder make you more comfortable with putting him on a "kill list"?

Not really, no. If someone is convicted of murder and escapes prison do we shoot them on sight? Of course not.

Look, if this guy is killed resisting capture, no biggie to me, for the most part. However, he currently resides in a country with whom we do not have an extradition treaty. He is therefore beyond the reach of law. That sucks, but it is the case. If we want him, we can talk to Yemen about solidifying and extradition treaty. We can't just go sending CIA goons into sovereign countries to kidnap/kill people, no matter how badly we want to.

But Tormund! He plans to kill Americans!

So, apparently, does the president. He can't do it from Yemen. Someone has to come over here if they plan to kill anyone.

But Tormund! He's an imminent threat to our well being!

Fuck off, Nikita Kruschev had 17000 nuclear missiles pointed at our heads. That was an imminent threat to our well being. We seemed to get by without executing citizens without trial.

But Tormund! I'm scaaaaaaaaaarre..OW! Torumund is beating me with a shillelagh again!!

[Watcher]

Seeing as you used my quote, I'll answer for myself: No.

Trying someone in absentia has always seemed wrong to me. If you're going to try someone, they should be there. Now I understand the whole crux of that problem is that first the guy has to be captured, but it shouldn't matter. How can someone be adequately defended, if they do not have access to their counsel and vice versa?

If they convict him for accessory to murder (for Ft. Hood, I assume), then they need to convict Bill O'Reilly for the same thing for saying that the abortion doctor who was murdered by a listener of his (god save me I don't know his name) should be killed. We don't know that he ordered that guy to go kill people or if that guy just brought it up to him and he didn't tell him not to do it. That's why a real trial is needed.

I agree there should be a trail. But not trying him in absentia has it's own set of difficulties. Snatching him from a foreign country to bring him to America for trail would also be illegal. If that guy is so dangerous, there has to be a way to address it, which is why I think a fair trail would be a good start

[TerraPrime]

This. Tormund, Terra and others... Would convecting him in absentia of treason and maybe accessory to murder make you more comfortable with putting him on a "kill list"?

If the existing rules governing trial in absentia are followed, then I will cease to protest that the order to execute this man violates his Constitutional rights. I might, depending on how these trials are done (I really don't know how it compares to a regular trial), challenge the Constitutionality of the whole trial in absentia concept, but I will accept that until we change the Constitution, the government is doing a legal action.

And that's all aside from how I feel about such a kill list, in itself. I'm still not sure how I feel about that.

[Swordfish]

Have we targeted U.S. citizens before? I honestly don't know.

Regardless of antecedents, U.S. citizens are protected by the U.S. Constitution. What is being reported seems to me is against the Constitutional rights of a U.S. citizens, in terms of execution without trial of one's peers.

Obama would seem to agree with you.

Or at least, he used to......

Or perhaps..... Nah......

UPDATE: When Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination, the Constitutional Law Scholar answered a questionnaire about executive power distributed by The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, and this was one of his answers:

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

[Obama]: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

If that guy is so dangerous, there has to be a way to address it, which is why I think a fair trail would be a good start

Right, which is exactly my point; a fair trial involves the defendant being present. A trial in absentia would really only be a farce, and would eventually be decried the whole world round as a railroading. Make it legal, make it transparent, make it just.

Then hang the fucker if/when you get a conviction.

[Shryke]

Did you read through what you just wrote? Political speech is now a capital crime? Really? If I say the military personnels overseeing Gitmo deserved to be summarily executed by all means available, I am now an enemy of the state and can be killed on sight without trial? Don't we mete our justice on actions, and not political philosophies?

Um, TP, he's on the list because of actions. He's been preaching against the US and recruiting for terrorists for awhile now. He only got put on the List because he started actually participating in attacks on the US.

[Annelise]

You're so fucking scared of this guy you're willing to give one man - one man - the ability to have someone killed on nothing more than his say so.

Well, evidently it required more than just the President's say so in this case.

[Shryke]

Obama would seem to agree with you.

Or at least, he used to......

Or perhaps..... Nah......

So back then, Obama said the President lacks the power merely to detain U.S. citizens without charges. Now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documents today, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.

Wait, when did he get declared an unlawful enemy combatant?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nymeria,

Tormund and DizoakiusMaximus, I get where you're coming from, I really do. But IMO sometimes it's necessary to take pre-emptive action before anyone else gets killed. There is no moral high ground here. No matter what, we're going to get bloody on this one. This guy is not going to simply turn himself in peacefully and surrender to our rule of law. My guess is that he will force them to kill him anyway--he wants to be a martyr after all. I say we oblige him, for the safety of Americans both at home and overseas.

This isn't the first time we've ever issued a capture and kill list, and it's not the first time we've authorized assassinations. The only difference is that Obama put it out in the open and let his intentions be known. Do we condemn him for that? In effect, he's taking responsibility for that decision and the outcome. It took guts to do that--and AFAIK even the Republicans aren't exactly up in arms over it. (Now that's news!)

Isn't this logic precisely the same as the logic the Bush Administration used to justify the war in Iraq.? The whole idea that if we didn't act preemptively we'd be putting more people at risk. Is that really what we want to start using against individuals? How is that different from denying the Gitmo detainees some rights as well simply because they are not in the U.S.? How is that different from allowing torture when it's really important that we get the information.

Tormund is right. Either these rights are protected in the U.S. or they are not. If they can be set aside at the whim of the executive they offer no protection at all.

[eta]

I say whim deliberately. What is the check upon the power of the executive to put someone on a hit list because his or her advisors have determined individual X to be a danger to the nation? How can that be stopped by either the Judicial or the Legislative branches?

[Annelise]

Wait, when did he get declared an unlawful enemy combatant?

I thought it was a matter of al Qaeda being declared a military enemy by Congress? Hell, I don't know.

[Shryke]

I thought it was a matter of al Qaeda being declared a military enemy by Congress? Hell, I don't know.

Well yeah, that's what I mean.

This guy is on the same list as Al-Queda. Which, afaik, means he's been declared a military enemy of the USA. Which, afaik, is not the same as being an "unlawful enemy combatant".

[alguien]

But Tormund! He plans to kill Americans!

So, apparently, does the president. He can't do it from Yemen. Someone has to come over here if they plan to kill anyone.

But Tormund! He's an imminent threat to our well being!

Fuck off, Nikita Kruschev had 17000 nuclear missiles pointed at our heads. That was an imminent threat to our well being. We seemed to get by without executing citizens without trial.

But Tormund! I'm scaaaaaaaaaarre..OW! Torumund is beating me with a shillelagh again!!

Gee, I can play this game too.

But Tormund, we've done things like this for YEARS. The man is on the same list as Al Queda and has gone through extra clearance to get there. What if its the best and most practical solution to a terribly sticky problem?

I don't care! Constitution is ALL and does my thinking for me! There are no exceptions. Ever. Government bad! Guns good! Roar!