Yes, there was evidence. You are misinformed Eden.

"I thus think that this standard establishes that, above all, human beings shall not be used as the means to an end."

I disagree AGAIN, dpgredsox (though I'll have the common courtesy not to call you "dumber than dirt"...courtesy not everyone here shares, as we can all see...)

You view morality dogmatically and in a very Kantian sort of way.
I view it half Nietzschean--ie, fuck morality--and half-Utilitarian, ie...again...Spock?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Thanks, Spock. :)

Human beings CAN be used as a means and SHOULD be used to a means if the ends will justify those means AND--and here's the caveat before a whole truckload of "HITLER was OK with the ends justifying the means too! *GASP!*" vitriol comes my way--those means are agreed upon as valid in a society BEFORE their use.

That is, it is IMMORAL for Hitler to suddenly pop up and decide that genocide is justied, as obviously this was not something the majority of Germany people agreed to; even if we allow for many being Anti-Semetic, hardly ANY Germans, or people of aNY nationality, for that matter, would consider genocide a fair trade practice as a matter of course for the government to use as it felt was needed.

In short, the German people may have signed up for Anti-Semetic treatment of Jews in Hitler's era; the did NOT sign up for their tax marcs to go towards immoral and illogical use in the Holocaust.

NOW.

WE DO live in a government where MOST of us would say "Yes, if there is a terrorist and you have reason to suspect he'll harm ME, or people I might care about, or even just fellow Americans, YES, go ahead and use force if necessary, but remove this threat."

You can debate if this is a GOOD view we should have as a people, but nevertheless, most people WOULD be OK with the above scenario, especially in a post-9/11 USA.

So, I would say in the USA, as we've given the government popular consent to do so, they CAN use people as a means to an end until 1. They exceed the consent the majority gives or 2. They use this power in such a manner as to commit a harm greater than the one they are trying to prevent.

Case in point HERE:

The Japanese-American Internment Camps during WWII.

POPULAR CONSENT ALLOWED for FDR to create these...
But the Constitution AND basic human decency and logic went against this...

And the net gain was next to nothing, while the net loss was immense in trauma and arguably the greatest black mark on America's record in the 20th Century.

The ends did NOT justify the means, even though the means were given by popular consent, ergo, this was not a good move and was wrong.

Understandable, perhaps, givent eh great amount of pulbic anger and panic after Pearl harbor, but wrong nonetheless, FDR's worst decision by far, one of only two great black marks--the other being the court-packing scandal--on the record of the greatest President of the 20th century and, in my view, the best Democratic President and tied with Lincoln for Best President Ever honors.

So.

I do agree that every human lfie has some value.
I DISAGREE with your assertion that this means that said value is untouchable.
I assert that it is perfectly morally-permissable to take one value over another.
It makes logical sense to take 20 million lives over 1.
Hence, it makes logical and moral sense to me to murder Hitler to save the others.

Your assertion that Hitler is a "special" instance because it was a war and that makes him "fair game" doens't work, in my opinion--

Terror cells ARE actively set against the USA, and while I'm not about to say we should plan a decade-long invasion of the Middle East and invade the wrong country and spend billions of dollar there while our own economy hits the skids...

I DO think we can consider terrorists as being actively at war with America.

As such, a terror agent IS a permissable assassination target.

@Eden, Draug:

Was there evidence or not?

Rather hard to discuss this with utterly-conflicting facts, ie, evidence vs. none.

;)

A murdering terrorist bastard is dead. Good.

Some of those who helped him (including another American citizen/traitor) are dead too. Good.

None of the good guys were harmed doing it - which they certainly could have been if we'd tried to snatch the guy and bring him to trial. Good.

I guess the question is "where do you draw the line?" Consider the following:

The IRA murdered 2000+ people. If the UK had used drones to take out IRA terrorists in their homes in Ireland how would you have felt? Would that have been a Good Thing?

If they'd been taken out in their "safe houses" in New York instead, would that be a Good Thing? If it killed some of his helpers too (who happened to be American citizens), would that be a Good Thing? It's what the CIA did to Al-Awlaki - would the White house have praised it or would they have been outraged? How about Fox News?

Timothy McVeigh is driving his truck-bomb, primed and ready with the 5 minute fuse already burning and one minute from his target. The nearest cops are too far away to stop him, but he's in open country right now now and you're tracking him with an armed drone... Do you follow the law, due process, etc. and let him reach his objective and kill 167 people or do you take the bastard out without warning using the drone?

I'm sure you've all seen and read "Clear and Present Danger". Drugs do a lot of damage to all countries. So should we defend ourselves by taking out South American drug lords? If we use drones to do it it'd be a lot less risky for the good guys and we wouldn't have to tell the gov'ts of the countries involved until its all over, so there wouldn't be any leaks or warnings. A Good Thing or not?

How about a bunch of bank robbers holed up in a shack in the woods. Do we send in the cops and risk their lives in a potential shoot-out or do we send in a drone?

How about a banker who's been avoiding paying his taxes. That harms the country. You know his money's in the Cayman's. You know he hid it well. You know he'll have a brilliant and expensive lawyer and you know you'll never get a conviction. Send in a Drone to take him out in his home in The Hamptons. [Bonus: After the first 2 or 3 you'll probably find the rest of them start paying their taxes in full. A win-win situation.]

So, where do we draw the line?

And this is worth repeating... A murdering terrorist bastard is dead. Good.

The US Government has not released their evidence for reasons of national security, but he has been on public record as taking credit for and supporting various attacks.

Missing the forest for the trees. There wasn't enough evidence to get an indictment; that's really all that matters.

@SpeakerToAliens:

"The IRA murdered 2000+ people. If the UK had used drones to take out IRA terrorists in their homes in Ireland how would you have felt? Would that have been a Good Thing?

If they'd been taken out in their "safe houses" in New York instead, would that be a Good Thing? If it killed some of his helpers too (who happened to be American citizens), would that be a Good Thing?"

-Drones taking them out? Raises a good logical point, but I would say that, logical or not, that'd seem to paint the UK as an agressor and cold and paint the rebels as being the victims, so while it's logical, it would seem to be a political liability, and as international support for the IRA could hurt the UK long-term, I suppose troops might make more sense...a few deaths to stop a whole-scale loss.

-I'd also like to point out at this time I'm neither Irish nor Englush, so if I've made a mistake there, I apologize, and I'll say I'm really impartial here, and don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak.

-As an AMERICAN, however, I will say, no, it'd be a BAD thbing if the UK blew them up in New York and damaged American property and endangered and killed American lives...not only do I say this as an American not wishing to see American deaths, but logically...well...

Risk/Benefit:

Is risking an alliance with the USA via killing American civilians and attacking USA targets and property and, as a result, potentially weakening or even severing the USA/UK alliance, described by Hitchens as one of if not the strongest single alliance in the world, worth killing a few terrorists?

For BOTH our nations' sakes...I hope not...

@Eden puts it perfectly. There may have been evidence, but the guy was an American citizen, and for christ's sake there was no trial that found him guilty of anything. We're leaving it up to the government to determine if an American "enemy" combatant in an undeclared war is worthy of assassination.

(Also, as an aside...

Obama was elected to be the ECONOMIC PRESIDENT...

And yet...pulling out of Iraq...killing Bin Laden finally...nabbing this terror agent...repealing "Don't ask, Don't tell"...

Most of his positives have thus far came in the military/international sector, while at home, it's been Congressional bitchslapping him, low approval ratings, a Stimulus that no one seems to know WHAT it did, and a Healthcare bill that's maybe a step in the right direction, but rather flawed and faces heavy, HEAVY opposition, almost splitting the nation 50/50 on it...

The poor guy was elected to save the economy and just be OK internationally, and so far he's at least had some success militarily/internationally and has failed economically.

Funny how life works out sometimes.

Just an interesting observation.) ;)

Yemeni courts not only indicted him but found him guilty in abstentia. The only reason our courts didn't is because the feds wouldn't release the evidence they had for national security sake.

I have no problem with this. I have more of a problem with Troy Davis getting put to death under the questionable circumstances of the only evidence being witness testimony, some of which had been reversed and others of which was clearly questionable as far as motives were concerned.

Reading this thread I came to the conclusion that other than the (+1), we really need a (-1) and even a (-10) option....

I assume that we are all talking about the deaths of Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemini-American recruiter for a militant group, and Samir Khan, a Pakistani-American English-language propogandist, who were both killed in a drone strike that was targeting Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, a Saudi militant who has constructed bombs for al-Qaida's branch in Yemen.

al-Asiri, the man whose bombs have been meant to take down American aircraft and assassinate a Saudi prince. The same man who planned to go to Iraq to fight the Americans, was arrested in Saudi Arabia, when released attempted to create a new terrorist cell, was discovered, had six of his colleagues killed as they fled the country, entered Yemen on August 1, 2006, and joined Nassar al-Wahishi (the leader of al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula).

If the first two men I mentioned are indeed the one's spoken of, I would like to remind everyone that al-Asiri was the target of this strike, not al-Awlaki nor Khan.

I would also like to point out that al-Awlaki has evaded several airstrikes aimed at him (which I would consider a pretty good warning that the U.S. is out to kill you), and has been linked to the attempted bombing of a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day, the Fort Hood shooting by Army Maj. Nidal Hasan (though whether he was merely a recruiter or had a role in the operation is not yet clear), and the attempts to bring down two cargo jets over the U.S. with times explosives.

Having a role in the attack of U.S. military personnel (whether as a recruiter or an operator), constitutes an attack on the United States military, an act of war, and an act of treason.

The Constitution of the United States of America reads: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Over time, al-Awlaki had risen to the top portion of the American terrorist target list. This operation is not new, it has been a long search and process that al-Awlaki was well aware of.

On a side note, I would also like to add that when al-Awlaki's exact location had been identified, they did not immediately strike because he was surrounded by civilians, including women and children.

^Sounds to ME like he was given ample warning and was a fair target, then...

So, how is he not analogous to the Hitler/Death-of-One?Deaths-of-Many Murdern example, dpgredsox?

the Hitler/Death-of-One>Deaths-of-Many Murder example from above

Ask yourself this, are you willing to sacrifice yourself to save the many? I wouldn't and a country that promotes such a philosophy sounds dangerous to me.

If you go outside of your OWN legal system then where does it stop? Ever heard of "function creep", it happens everywhere, and this day it might be a suspected terrorist against whom they have solid evidence, tomorrow they do it against a guy who they suspect but have less solid evidence and the day after they just eliminate someone 'to be sure'. You cannot set foot on this track. Same counts for torture and Guantanamo Bay. There is no such thing a justified torture if you want to be a civil country. Besides studies have shown that torture as an interrogation technique is unreliable and ineffective.

Not to speak of Abu Ghraib, this was not even for interrogation, but pure humiliation, for whatever reason. Perhaps to create hate against the Americans..
And there were clear signs this was coming from above, yet they investigation stopped at an officer in command?

IN short, you should not torn on your own morals and ethics, because morals are not flexible, they are not bendable, once you do you lose them all together.

I'm sure you all have heard of: "When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

And it's true, if you allow other people to be threated wrongly, then there is absolutely no guarantee that it will stop at your doorstep. Yesterday it were "just Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan" (which is also illegal). Today it is a American Muslim, and tomorrow it's Julian Assange. The day after its your brother deserting from the army after all the shit he's seen, and next is a political candidate that speaks out against "the regime".

They call it the "salami-tactic" because you like salami, you cut of small pieces over and over again from what is justified and allowed, chipping away at your morals and making you get used to it, until there is no salami left.

Like the whole TSA debacle, first it are airports, then it are Football stations, then comes public transport and then come schools and kindergartens... They say you have a choice, until there is no choice left.

I wonder how long it will be before I, too, can be assassinated as an Enemy of the State without trial on the basis of 'secret evidence' that no one is ever allowed to see on the grounds of 'national security'.

"Tolstoy was an evil terrorist mastermind who was plotting the downfall of Western Civilization and had been implicated in numerous terrorist attacks. He was killed in a targeted drone strike on his fortified compound in Southern California today. You should all be glad he's dead. God Bless America!"

"What proof do you have that he was an evil terrorist?"

"Sorry, that's classified. Look, I know we lied to you about 9/11, some wars, the economic collapse, and a few other things you haven't found out about yet, but just trust us on this one, okay?"

And keep watching the TV and our news channels! We will keep you up-to-date about the last foiled terrorist attacks on the White House and the Pentagon!

Like most things with foreign policy and this administration, this was fundamentally a good thing that has been handled awfully. Killing this Benedict al-Arnold was a great thing, but it's dreadful that no legal framework was set up to make sure that this isn't abused. There's nothing wrong with assassination in this turd's specific situation, but you REALLY need to make sure this doesn't set a precedent which could allow a future president to launch a drone strike on moonshiners or some other such act of tyranny.

@obi, my issue is not with his dying, per se. Sure, death of one, death of many, or however you want to frame it. My issue is with the lack of due process for the US government killing an American citizen. To say that it's actually for the good of the many at all, you have to say he really is a terrorist. Well, there's supposed to be a trial first to determine that kind of thing.
So it's an evidentiary / process issue, not a fundamental death/no death issue.

@semck:

Well, that's what I don't quite understand about your position:

I AGREE...due process is necessary.

But if they hunted him and he evaded airstrikes aime at him, and he was linked to the Christmas Day bombing attempt and was told so...

Well, that seems to ME to be a clear warning to the man to either A. submit to arrest or B. not stay in the country.

And if he's linked to that attempted bombing, then he's not a mere suspect--in which I might be inclined to agree that using lethal force when a person is just a suspect and not a proven threat IS a breach of power and protocal--but rather a real fugitive/wanted man, with evidence to back up and link him to the charges...

Well, then it seems like they had both reasonable cause to search him out--ie, he did something wrong via terrorism/a traitorous act--and reason to use lethal force, as if someone's linked to bombing, he's probably enough of a threat to bring the rifles and SWAT team for.

I agree with Locke:

If you give so much to the state as to forfeit your all of your liberty for security, such a state is not worth living in, as life without liberty is hollow and not worth living.

But I must also agree with Hobbes:

You can't do all that much with liberty if you're dead due to a lack of security.



Sending men to the ghettoes and gallows for just being suspected "Enemies of the State" is immoral.

But not taking preemptive measures against a known and credible threat is illogical.

Locke's morality and Hobbes' logic...

It requires a balance of the two, not one or the other.

I really feel amazed that almost all americans are discussing if the government can kill a citzen withou the due process but don´t give a shit about the US don´t have the right to enter another country that isn´t an enemy and launch such a strike. How would you feel if Cuba launch some preemptive strike against some Miami targets where some Cuban people classified as traitors plot to bring down the Castro government?

And after that you don´t understand why almost all eastern countries hates America.....

I agree, Americas seem to value American life higher then other life for some distorted reason..

The same people who advocate bombing the AfPak border approve of the Awlaki assassination. When we bomb these militants and kill, let's say, two militant for every one civilian, that entire civilian's family will now work with the Pakistani Taliban or the Haqqani Network. We're not making friends by bombing a sovereign country, we're hurting our worldly prestige and we're creating more enemies.

"I really feel amazed that almost all americans are discussing if the government can kill a citzen withou the due process but don´t give a shit about the US don´t have the right to enter another country that isn´t an enemy and launch such a strike."

What a generalized statement that disappoints me. There is a discussion about this man killed without due process and it can't be had without someone attacking Americans for something not even relevant to the topic...

tolstoy's last post made me LOL for 5 minutes

@Lopt and others - Americans value American life. Brits value British lives. Germans value German lives. Chinese value Chinese lives (well, party followers lives). Japanese value Japanese lives (and honor). As a general rule of thumb, every nation values their own lives. Those that don't are generally ruled by dictators who only care about theimselves, their familes (assuming they are loyal), and their loyal friends.

Speak for yourself, Fag-Naur.

Canadians value ALL LIFE. I'm certain that the English, Chinese, Germans etc. will echo MY statement, not yours. Nations go to war, but not because they've decided that other nationalities do not deserve to live.

You're a simple bitch.