Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2011/10/01 16:11:55
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
Frazzled wrote:
When in the service of an enemy power one is a military target
That type of classification doesn't hold up to scrutiny. No one is going to claim that the President of the United States, or a prominent member of Congress, is a military target for Al-Qaeda. Nor will they claim that people working in administrative arm of a hostile government are military targets.
Additionally, the fact that a person is a military target does not indicate that he cannot be assassinated. Al-Awlaki was very clearly assassinated, there's really no disputing it, though you might further contend that it was justified.
Frazzled wrote:
If you are not wearing a uniform you are effectively s spy. Bombs away!
Legally that's incorrect, simply being out of regular uniform does not render one a spy per the Geneva Conventions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Actually if you read some of his missives he was very much for overthrowing the US government (and by that I mean destorying it).
Which is a very different thing from the goal of rebellion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Nor did we have international laws and treaties on the issue (although I still affirm my general position of disregarding these as having any binding effect on the US).
Well, their ultimately non-binding because they are without any formal means of enforcement, but they certainly have conventional weight in terms of the nominal practice of armed conflict; particularly given that the US is generally quite fond of using things like Geneva Conventions as a form of rhetorical device.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Hopefully, the American public will see this idiot for what he is. Desperately trying to score political points. I know a lot of US states are very partisan, but COME ON.
Actually, in Paul's case, I don't think its really a matter of political points. He's very much a libertarian, to his own political detriment in many cases, and this particular incident lines up with that general modus operandi.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/10/01 16:22:56
2011/10/02 00:46:56
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
schadenfreude wrote:
You missed the point. The POTUS doesn't need congressional approval or a court order to kill or imprison American citizens for terrorism. The POTUS has the unilateral power to kill or imprison Americans if the POTUS deems it necessary for national security.
Indeed he does, at least in a de jure sense. But think about what you're saying here in the context of American politics, and really this thread as a whole. Even if the President has the power to kill American citizens, unilaterally, if they practice terrorism, support terrorists, or don't love puppies enough he's still ordering the assassination of American citizens. In our political culture, while that isn't going to breed universal disapproval, it is going to raise some ire. As such, while the authority may exist, its exercise is not entirely unchecked.
You've got to remember that even legal authority is only important insofar as it can be used to make people do what you want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:
Who the feth's really going to tell us we can't do this, honestly?
You probably shouldn't assume that, in the case of controversial actions, "us" really has any meaning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/02 00:48:42
2011/10/02 03:28:42
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
CptJake wrote:
Think they would do that if they didn't expect those to get used?
Yeah, and they do it all the time. That's why Izmir, Lajes, and Sather exist; to name a few.
CptJake wrote:
See a lot of members of congress arguing or submitting limiting legislation whenever the Pres talks about hunting down AQ where ever they are? Wanna guess why they don't?
Politically unpopular, which doesn't mean "Most efficient way of defending the United States." or even "Most efficient way of hunting down terrorists."
2011/10/04 14:23:42
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
biccat wrote:
It's yet another example of left-wing hypocracy. Get upset when Bush imprisons enemy combatants, don't get upset when Obama kills them.
I'm not sure if you don't consider dailykos, Rachel Maddow, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Best sufficiently left-wing or if you just made a statement without bothering to look into it first, but there's been quite a bit of criticism from the left.
I mean, I guess you might just be making a point about how politicians will alternately praise and criticize certain actions based on the party in power, in which case I'll simply say "What a startling revelation, please tell me more!"
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/10/04 16:22:47
2011/10/04 17:12:04
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
biccat wrote:
Are they calling this action a war crime? Of course not.
As I recall the charges of Bush being a war criminal were over, respectively, torture and an ostensibly illegal invasion, not assassination. Though maybe somewhere some liberal included assassination, maybe even a significant number did, in neither case would that render the collective left hypocritical.
biccat wrote:
But have there been mass protests, allegations of war crimes, or litigation on behalf of the targets on the "kill list" from interested groups? No.
The "war crimes" protests were all relatively small events, the really large ones were general Iraq War protests, which have continued under Obama, though they're not nearly so focused as the old Iraq protests tended to overlap with general Bush era policy protests; the type of thing that was taken up by the Tea Party. As for allegations of war crimes:
As for litigation, the Awlaki case featured support from both the ACLU and the CCR, both fairly liberal organizations. Moreover, I don't recall the Bush Administration being sued over the kill-list. Detention issues, yes, but not the kill-list.
biccat wrote:
Thanks for supporting my point.
So you really were trying to paint an entire group as hypocritical despite such a charge leaning on explicitly expressed beliefs?
I mean, I expect this from you, but it still doesn't get any less surprising when you do it, especially given its perfectly conceivable that one might believe Bush's action constituted a war crime, but Obama's did not. Indeed, there's a fairly easily made argument that this particular incident fell under the "time of war" exemption regarding the general prohibition on assassination under the UN charter. Its the same argument that was used regarding bin Laden, and the same argument the Bush Administration used regarding targets in Pakistan.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/04 17:14:29
2011/10/05 06:40:23
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
biccat wrote:
Are you seriously making the case that the Iraq War protests have continued to an even moderately similar extent to those during the Bush administration?Or that media coverage has been anywhere comparable?
I'm arguing that there are still anti-war protests, even large anti-war protests (mostly by the ANSWER Coalition, though they didn't stage their annual protest this year, probably because combat troops left last year), and that the extent of the protests is not related to the President in power, but troop levels and time from invasion. Media coverage fell off more suddenly, but had more to do with viewer interest than the prevalence of protests.
biccat wrote:
Or that protestors in the current group are even a representative sample of those during the Bush administration?
In this regard I'm arguing that Iraq War protests under Bush were largely protests of Bush first (in that they attracted more people because Bush was so unpopular, across the board), and the Iraq War second.
And, further, that since you're argument is essentially "The left is hypocritical." that it doesn't matter if the sample is representative at all, because the point I'm making is that criticizing such a massive group as hypocritical is unwise.
biccat wrote:
The American left, with the exception of a few dissenters who "raise questions" (e.g. Mr. Maddow) about the current Administration, have largely abandoned their anti-war stance since the Obama administration.
It's further evidence that the "anti-war" crowd was largely composed of those who used the war as a generalized protest against the Bush administration. If they were honest about that, it wouldn't be hypocracy.
Well, no, its still not intrinsically hypocritical. One can prioritize one belief, political party X is superior to political party Y, over another, the Iraq War is bad, without being hypocritical. In fact, for most people, this happens all the time and not just in the political sphere. For example, believing that something your boss has told you to do is stupid, but refraining from saying so because you also believe such an action would impact you negatively.
Hypocrisy is an incredibly difficult charge to make stick, even with regards to a single person, let alone a side of the political spectrum.
biccat wrote:
No American citizens were put on the kill list (which I'm not sure was even in existence prior to the present administration, although I could be wrong on that) during the Bush Administration.
Then I fail to see how litigation could be used as evidence of hypocrisy in this case, though the kill-list did exist under Bush.
The duty to approve or reject putting an individual on the kill list was granted to this small group at the CIA by President Bush, and the responsibility was extended by President Obama.
biccat wrote:
Please present this argument. How is detention a war crime (and not under the "time of war" exception) while targetted killings are not?
Detention? I'm talking about targeted killing. Bush did that too. Granted, not American citizens, but it was certainly a tactic that the former Administration used against Al-Qaeda. It just wasn't the focus of the accusations of war crimes.
biccat wrote:
The detention of "enemy combatants", and even to some extent the 'torture', under Bush was defensible under current law. This killing enters into whole new legal territory that is, at first glance, contrary to US law.
The crux of the issue is whether or not US citizenship supersedes the Authorization to use Force Against Terrorists.
As an aside, Obama actually endorsed the use of assassination (in the context of bin Laden) during his campaign, so this isn't out of left field.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/05 06:42:05
2011/10/07 13:49:35
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
schadenfreude wrote:
There is nothing in the authorization to use force against terrorists that says US citizenship supersedes anything. The language is pretty clear, if a person can be linked with the organizations behind 9/11 military force has a green light. There are no red lights for US citizenship (or any other nation's), nor are they any red lights for any national borders.
You misunderstand, I'm not talking about the language of the Authorization, I'm talking about what would happen in the course of a legal challenge to the Authorization. At the moment, the Court has ruled that its a matter of politics, but if the Authorization were used on a US citizen living in the United States, say someone like Ted Kaczynski, that ruling might change.
schadenfreude wrote:
Our solutions need to be permanent, and continuing the war for 50 more years at it's current cost in dollars and civil liberties is not a sustainable plan.
There's no such thing as a permanent solution, and sustainability is vague, liberal boilerplate.
2011/10/07 16:39:22
Subject: Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'
