Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption

[countingbeans]

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The preeminent concern of the state is to provide security for its citizens.[/quote]

Since when?

Executing citizens in the name of “national security” wasn’t listed in the Constitution as far as I’m aware. Maybe I was absent the day they went over it.

I’m not even going to get into the conversation about whether this execution of a citizen actually adds to the security of its citizens. I mean, I guess in newspeak we can say “killing citizens is securing citizens”.

If a targeted killing occurred in the U.S. where domestic law enforcement actually has the capability to apprehend an individual, then yes, it would be an unforgivable crime. A regional commander of Al-Qaida who planned and inspired numerous attacks against American citizens operating in an ineffectual state such as Yemen? His death was both necessary and justified. You cannot conflate domestic law enforcement operations with those of counter terrorism.

The fact you are sitting here, justifying this action, and honestly believe you are correct here, means the terrorist won.

They won. You’re helping them, and our kids and I lost.

Awesome.

Tyranny comes, wrapped in a flag and a warning label “for your protection” on it. Fuck the Bill of Rights, we have terrorist a half a world away to drone strike!

[Bismark]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Due process is a idealistic pipe dream when the individual is operating outside of the U.S. in an extremely hostile and fluid wartime environment.[/quote]

What’s laughable is thinking executing him and his teenage son on their way to pick up a bunch of apples is appropriate course of action, and should cause no concern for the “simple folk” back home that “just don’t understand” and wallow in their “idealistic pipe dreams” of freedom and natural rights.

GTFO with your pro government gibberish. [/quote]

The word execution implies that he was in custody and under the power of legitimate authorities. That wasn’t the case. How was it inappropriate? What would have been appropriate? Even if we assume something like natural rights exist, (and ironically are constructed by the state) Anwar al-Awlaki knowingly and willingly forfeited them when he began engaging in acts of war against the U.S. Should the man who lead the most prolific affiliate branch of Al-Qaida in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans been allowed to operate with immunity? You fallaciously assume that this event was a reflexive action on the part of the administration. Had American or Yemeni forces had a realistic proposition of finding him and then apprehending him (which they didn’t), they would have done so.

Pro-government? I’m pro-drone strikes. Compellence is far and away the best option for combating civillian-centric terrorist groups. I suggest you go read Hobbes’ Leviathan. Government is much preferable to the alternative.

[magick]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Because he was never captured.[/quote]

Sure.

And yet everyone back in the day knew him as a traitor and he probably would have gotten shot without a trail the moment the Continental forces got their hands on him.

I don’t know much about the drone attacks on U.S. citizens that Obama ordered.

What I do understand to be true is that they were in foreign territory and professing to be a part of an organization that was actively fighting against U.S. forces abroad.

Tell me how that is in any way different from what Benedict Arnold, the quintessential American traitor, did.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I want the default government position to be “due process”. And unless the dude picks up a rifle and shoots an arresting officer, he gets due process. If the citizen is engaged in an open act of warfare (actually firing on people during the drone strike) that is a whole different situation. But driving his teenage son to school? Yeah, no, we need to not be bombing his car at that point. [/quote]

So you’re saying that the fellow needs to be engaged in an act of aggression at the moment the U.S. forces decide to attack him without due process?

Fair enough.

But then aren’t you opposing, not the fact that he didn’t get due process, but rather the fact that he simply wasn’t doing anything to Americans at the time?

I mean, there’s not much difference getting bombed while you’re driving your son to school and getting bombed while you’re shooting an American; you’re still being targeted largely because of actions you’ve supposedly committed beforehand.

So either he’s getting bombed because of what he’s doing at the time, or because of his prior actions.

Due process doesn’t count in either of those. We still take to court criminals whose deeds are pretty much set in stone.

If due process is relevant here, then the American terrorist fellow would have to be apprehended, brought to U.S. soil, and given a trial.

The very act of being bombed, no matter what he’s doing at the time, is a denial of his right to due process.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The word execution implies that he was in custody and under the power of legitimate authorities. That wasn’t the case.[/quote]

Semantics & other fallacious bullshit irrelevant to the topic at hand.

How was it inappropriate?

Direct violation of his constitutionally protected right to defend himself. Particularly against government charges.

What would have been appropriate?

eyeroll.

Even if we assume something like natural rights exist, (and ironically are constructed by the state)

Not that it isn’t clearly evident, but your perspective is completely warped.

If you want to assume you have no rights, go ahead. You already speak as if you have none. But please, stay out of my life.

They aren’t “constructed” by the state, they are either protected by the state or ignored. Many other, more articulate people than myself have written about the subject, I suggest you read it.

Anwar al-Awlaki knowingly and willingly forfeited them when he began engaging in acts of war against the U.S. Should the man who lead the most prolific affiliate branch of Al-Qaida in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans been allowed to operate with immunity? You fallaciously assume that this event was a reflexive action on the part of the administration. Had American or Yemeni forces had a realistic proposition of finding him and then apprehending him (which they didn’t), they would have done so.

Yes, this is why we just sit back and let the State tell us how all these criminals it apprehends are just guilty, and let them be thrown in jail without trail.

Oh wait, domestic and international are two different things, right, right.

Government is much preferable to the alternative.

Just lol. A government that can stand up and proclaim “he was an enemy of the state, so we killed him.” No further proof than that, and the people cheer it on, IS THE ALTERNATIVE.

[countingbeans]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Because he was never captured.[/quote]

Sure.

And yet everyone back in the day knew him as a traitor and he probably would have gotten shot without a trail the moment the Continental forces got their hands on him.

I don’t know much about the drone attacks on U.S. citizens that Obama ordered.

What I do understand to be true is that they were in foreign territory and professing to be a part of an organization that was actively fighting against U.S. forces abroad.

Tell me how that is in any way different from what Benedict Arnold, the quintessential American traitor, did.[/quote]

How do we know he was guilty of what the government has told us he was guilty of?

[H_factor]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Just lol. A government that can stand up and proclaim “he was an enemy of the state, so we killed him.” No further proof than that, and the people cheer it on, IS THE ALTERNATIVE. [/quote]

Not that the rest of your post was not good, but this is awesome.

Of course it’s no big deal to be against any of this as long as you are not the enemy of the state right? I mean sucks for those bastards, but at least it wasn’t me. I’m clean. I’m good. They aren’t going after me.

Or at least one better fucking hope when the state’s word is all that is needed.

[H_factor]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Because he was never captured.[/quote]

Sure.

And yet everyone back in the day knew him as a traitor and he probably would have gotten shot without a trail the moment the Continental forces got their hands on him.

I don’t know much about the drone attacks on U.S. citizens that Obama ordered.

What I do understand to be true is that they were in foreign territory and professing to be a part of an organization that was actively fighting against U.S. forces abroad.

Tell me how that is in any way different from what Benedict Arnold, the quintessential American traitor, did.[/quote]

How do we know he was guilty of what the government has told us he was guilty of?[/quote]

C’mon beans we know that people in power are always honest and trustworthy.

[magick]

Sorry, countingbeans, I edited a lot more in to that post of mine.

[magick]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nothing wrong with speculating as long as we designate it as speculation.

Knowing what I know about Washington I doubt he’d have signed a shoot-on-sight order for Arnold had he been captured. That’s my speculation.

Is your speculation more valuable than mine?
[/quote]

I was actually talking more about the Continentals who were incredibly angry at Benedict Arnold for defecting, not Washington =P If they caught him, he’d probably be dead within the hour. If nothing else, Americans back in those days acted what they felt without fear.

And I agree. What I know about Washington also tells me that he wouldn’t designate a shoot on sight order, though it is also true that the Continentals liked shooting British officers in battles.

[magick]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Believe it or not, I tend to lean toward Bissy’s viewpoint on this particular subject Hesitantly, I might add, and open to changing my mind.

For instance, if an American (citizen) seaman had switched sides in the War of 1812 and Commodore Perry spotted him aboard a British man-o-war manning a cannon in the North Atlantic, and recognized him for who he was, I cannot imagine Perry ordering his life to be preserved so he could be captured, returned to the US and tried.

He would’ve executed him on the spot with a well placed cannon or musket shot if possible. And if the seaman’s teenage son would’ve been with him and died from the same cannon ball I don’t see the injustice.[/quote]

A counterpoint would be that the military acts on a completely different level than normal civilians.

I believe the military reserves the right to shoot deserters on sight. Used to, anyways.

But, of course, an American who is actively known to be working with a terrorist group might no longer count as a normal citizen, and can be killed on sight too.

But, then again, why isn’t this the case for normal murderers on the streets? Why aren’t police given the right to just shoot a murderer on sight? Is the fact that one is just a supposed simple murderer, while the other is a supposed murderer who also happens to be working with a terrorist organization?

Would that mean if home-grown terrorists like the ALF (Animal Liberation Front; look them up, they’re fucking crazy) managed to actually kill someone, then the Obama admin. would sanction a kill on sight order on them?

So complex!

[countingbeans]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

A counterpoint would be that the military acts on a completely different level than normal civilians.

I believe the military reserves the right to shoot deserters on sight. Used to, anyways.

[/quote]

Not to quibble but my hypothetical guy didn’t have to be a deserter. What if he’d been a seaman on a merchant ship who decided to fight for the enemy, the British? I think an American naval captain could’ve have ordered that cannon shot to take him out without violating the Constitution and the seaman’s right to due process in the American court system.

Would I be wrong? If so why?[/quote]

In your example the gentleman and his son are on a military vessel and that brings with it the expectation that you will be fired upon.

Had that same solider been on a trade ship, there would be zero reason to fire upon them, and if the need was there to capture the man, than that is the course of action.

The person who was slaughtered with a drone wasn’t exactly riding in an armored personal carrier.

And we aren’t talking about a typical war time scenario here. This is a war with an ideology, an idea, not another state. You can’t engage in traditional state v state warfare in an idea v idea war.

Basically it boils down to, if the terrorists truly hate us “for our freedom”. Then doing anything other than following that rule of law to the T means they won.

We’re fighting an idea, a belief. We can’t act just like that idea and expect to win in the end…

[countingbeans]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Because he was never captured.[/quote]

Sure.

And yet everyone back in the day knew him as a traitor and he probably would have gotten shot without a trail the moment the Continental forces got their hands on him.

I don’t know much about the drone attacks on U.S. citizens that Obama ordered.

What I do understand to be true is that they were in foreign territory and professing to be a part of an organization that was actively fighting against U.S. forces abroad.

Tell me how that is in any way different from what Benedict Arnold, the quintessential American traitor, did.[/quote]

How do we know he was guilty of what the government has told us he was guilty of?[/quote]

I think being seen wearing a redcoat and leading British soldiers in battle would be a strong indication.
[/quote]

I’m being cute here. I mean, obviously there is evidence against both men in question in this thread.

Let me use an example to illustrate why I’m very much against this action by our government.

CT has a whole bunch of people that won’t register their guns right now. What happens when the first one opens fire on the police that come to confiscate them? Think about the public’s reaction, the media’s reaction and the leftist in power’s reaction.

Now, do you really want to roll the dice with this kind of precedence that it is just a “slippery slope”? The only difference will be foreign soil v domestic. They set an outlaw cop on fire recently in CA for going AWOL. That isn’t that far of a step from just shooting the second man that refuses to register his weapon.

[countingbeans]

[quote]magick wrote:

So you’re saying that the fellow needs to be engaged in an act of aggression at the moment the U.S. forces decide to attack him without due process?

Fair enough.

But then aren’t you opposing, not the fact that he didn’t get due process, but rather the fact that he simply wasn’t doing anything to Americans at the time?[/quote]

Defensive wars are the only just wars. Offensive maneuvers during a defensive war are just moves.

However this isn’t a typical war. It is a war with an idea. It places us in a unique position. You can’t win (we largely have already lost, NSA, HLS, etc) if you break your own set of rules. Alinsky’s rule 4.

[quote]I mean, there’s not much difference getting bombed while you’re driving your son to school and getting bombed while you’re shooting an American; you’re still being targeted largely because of actions you’ve supposedly committed beforehand.

So either he’s getting bombed because of what he’s doing at the time, or because of his prior actions.

Due process doesn’t count in either of those. We still take to court criminals whose deeds are pretty much set in stone.

If due process is relevant here, then the American terrorist fellow would have to be apprehended, brought to U.S. soil, and given a trial.

The very act of being bombed, no matter what he’s doing at the time, is a denial of his right to due process.[/quote]

Sure, but it is quite a bit more justified if the person bombing is defending his or her life (or the lives of soldiers on the ground) than it is to just bomb a man fro driving to church.

His killing likely invigorated more people to join his cause than it prevented anything. Again, this is war of ideology. Not state control of resources. unfortunately we’re playing the latter and losing the former.