"Communists radicals were arguing for violent revolution even going into the 1960s a la the Black Panther...how can you separate the two?"

Easy, if you know any history

1. American Communist Party didnt call for the violent overthrow of the US government which Im sure Putin can back me up on
2. McCarthyism went after marginal members of the American Communist Party who never called for violence
3. That part about the civil war is the most ridiculous thing I've read. So I guess if Lincoln effectively charged him with treason by sending out troops to shoot them, then obama chargedd Al Awlaki with treason by sending predators to kill him.

Do you think before you type?

@goldfinger there is no way due process can simply mean ample notice. Courts go out of their way to apprehend individuals to bring them to trial, there isn't simply a time limit which states "oh, time up, let's kill them." You don't see the U.S. government blowing up fugitive criminals in countries that won't deport individuals to the u.s.

@Santa so you're saying lincoln didn't charge them with treason? And if Aw-Awlaki wasn't guilty of treason according to you, what was he guilty of?

"Obi- Just slink away nothing you've said on either side of the debate has any pertinence as usual"

Combatative much, SC?

Really, why do you have to lash out even to those who AGREE WITH YOU???

And he renounced his US citizenship, jpgredsox!

And after trying to oust him from the nation, capture him, or bomb him, you don't think he had warning that the feds might have been after him?

AND after he was part of a bombing plot and a terror group that's actively at war with the US and chants "Death to America!" that he wasn't a threat???



Do you need a plane crash on YOUR front lawn before you think "Gee, maybe we aught to do something about these guys..."

oh, and @Santa - reading back, when you quoted the part of the 5th Amendment which said expect in cases involving armed forces, etc. that was intended for a member of the armed forces who commits treason, not an act involving the armed forces

Since when can the Executive charge anyone with anything? Lincoln was operating on shaky constitutional ground just as obama was. The constants are that
1. The enemy effectively declared war on the United States
2. The enemy advocated and carried out violence against the United States
3.

Al-Awlaki was killed while at war with the United States of America. He was an enemy leader who advocated violence against the United States and corresponded repeatedly with those who attempted violent acts. He declared war against the United States, renounced his citizenship, and aided in violent acts against the US. He was a enemy combatant and a valid target.

@obi
Yes, wouldn't it be nice that people who are incredibly hard to catch, U.S. citizens, can just be blown up! A man like Ted Bundy, who killed over 50 and possibly 100 people, escaped custody twice, and committed more murders in that span. He was still provided a fair trial, not executed on the spot of his last capture.

3. was a Federal court rejected the call for habeus corpus

"Combatative much, SC?

Really, why do you have to lash out even to those who AGREE WITH YOU??? "

I believe you told me my views wern't valid, if I mistook your statement meant for someone else for me I apologize for that and refer you to a page earlier when you did THE EXACT SAME THING TO ME.

I won't apologize for the fact that I find your general demeanor intolerable as usual.

@jpgredsox:

Ted Bundy was also:

1. A US CITIZEN
2. NOT PART OF A TERRORIST CELL
3. SUBMITTED TO ARREST

You're bemoaning the death of one life and one terrorist life at that, a life bent on harming other people, but to you, it's a life and MUST be bemoaned, it MUST be wrong that he was killed as he was simply because he was a life and, in your mind, not a uniform-wearing enemy soldier--

Which is admirable in one sense...

And yet far more naive in another:

Wars are no longer fought so much between uniformed soldiers, but uniformed soldiers and T-shirt-and-bomb-vest-wearing cell agents.



So the look of war changes, so changes the rules.

Ok, so people like Daniel Shays should have been executed on the spot. He was an enemy combatant against the state of Massachusetts, correct? Aw-Awlaki never actually attacked or killed anyone. His Nigerian friend with the bomb in the underpants never killed anyone. The two package bombs never killed anyone. I'm not saying he is a good person. The Unabomber advocated destruction of the u.s. government and killed more people than Aw-Awaki. He had the NYT publish a manifesto calling for revolt. He was not executed on the spot. The government, the president, cannot unilaterally determine who is at war with the us and who is an enemy combatant. Exactly, Lincoln was on shaky constitutional grounds. But you were comparing Lincoln initiating war against the Confederates as the same as Killing Al-Awlaki, which was shaky constitutionally as well

@rdivera, we had permission to be there, as far as I understand.

@obiwan, there wasn't even an arrest warrant out for him -- and we'd had him twice and let him go both times. Moreover, this was not a "killed while resisting arrest" situation. There was no attempt to arrest him. It is these things that bother me. There is no way I think it's OK to do that to a citizen in these circumstances.

I didn't say your view was invalid, SC, just that the other view was valid as well, if misplaced (ie, jpgredsox's worrying about the morality of the situation--there's at least room for a MORAL argument here, but practicality says that your view and Eden/Invictus' views--which I agreed with--are valid as well, and the more pertinent, practical take, moral hypotheticals aside.)

And my demeanor's my demeanor, I suppose...

@obi He did not submit to arrest, he escaped----twice. Even the British did not summarily execute the IRA when IRA members were captured.

@ jpgredsox - alright, you half got me on that one. I looked it up a bit more, and due process doesn't just mean that - but service of summons is a big part of due process, and I think that part has been fulfilled. So you're right, due process means a lot more as in the procedural rules of the court system, etc. However, there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. If he doesn't answer his summons, then he can be held in contempt of court and eventually just be found guilty.

But, if as Obi said he renounced his citizenship (link Obi?) then this case is a mute point because he's not a US citizen. Also, I'm sure the Yemenis government (even if its the one we no longer support) gave us permission for the drone strikes, so no international law broken there

No he isnt talking about morality AT ALL he is saying it is illegal

*moot point*

Also, jpgredsox - we can't just go over to Yemen and arrest him. The Yemenis would have to arrest him (as they tried) and then extradite him to the US. And Ted Bundy wasn't at war with the United States, or classified as an enemy combatant, so different scenario

Morality is closely related, although I haven't been stressing that today. The means do not justify the ends. The death of Al-Awlaki does not justify how it was brought about (basically Invictus's point earlier)

The prosecuted members of the CP weren't marginal. They essentially jailed the entire politburo and many others. 140 total. Once again "free speech" in America exists only for blithering bourgeois banalities, anybody who challenges the system in any meaningful way is repressed.

The CP didn't actively organize or incite "violent revolution" in the US, but the Smith Act was used to basically say that generalized/abstract advocacy is sufficient, and that believing in Marxism Leninism and distributing M-L literature sufficed. That interpretation was only struck down in the late 1950s, finally putting an end to official repression. Of course by that time the CP was basically a shell of its former self anyway, so the government didn't need to continue the Smith Act.

We went into Pakistan to grab Bin Laden. if this guy was really as much of a threat as he was, why shouldn't we have sent troops in? Nevertheless, that's not what I am advocating. He could easily have been tried in absentia. But we couldn't arrest him-----There wasnt even a warrant out for his arrest!!!!

@semck83:

Well, if he was part of a bombing plot AND had renounced his US citizenship...

Doesn't he renounce certain rights with it?

Furthermore, as they'd tried to capture him in the past, he should have had it in his head, I should think, that MAYBE staying in the country he was trying to plan bombing attacks on wasn't the most secure idea.



Again, not saying it's black-and-white morally here, there's definitely a bit of murkiness...

But then most real-life situations have murkiness, and in this particular situation, I must agree that practicality and caution win out over hypothetical moral high grounds...

I'll grant that it DOES set a bit of a dangerous precendent, but I'll also say that this isn't the first time a deomocratic government has engaged in murky dealings for protection, and it won't be the last...

And not ALL of them went the way of Nazi Germany, it doesn't HAVE to be that slippery a slope--as longa s people REALIZE the slope they're on--say, by discussing it like adults over some manner of communication via an Internet forum of some kind--and recognize that this is the exception and NOT the rule to be adapted...

We will survive as a republic.

A republic doesn't have to ALWAYS act like a republic, after all...it has its moments of mass mob mentality, and its moments of dictator-like control...

But as longa s the people realize the importance of RETURNING to that state of republic in the end, it'll be alright.

"Ok, so people like Daniel Shays should have been executed on the spot. He was an enemy combatant against the state of Massachusetts, correct? "

Considering this was before the constitution this means it is completely irrelevent, your historical knowledge continues to impress. But if he refused to surrender in the range of a loaded musket while continuing to lead his troops in battle, yes he could have legally been killed under the constitution.

"Aw-Awlaki never actually attacked or killed anyone. His Nigerian friend with the bomb in the underpants never killed anyone.The two package bombs never killed anyone."


He encouraged and facilitated the shooter in Texas... Your current events are as lacking as your history

"But you were comparing Lincoln initiating war against the Confederates as the same as Killing Al-Awlaki, which was shaky constitutionally as well"

Shaky does not = illegal, shaky means its in a gray area which is caused by the constitution interacting with real life

@redsox:

"He did not submit to arrest, he escaped----twice. Even the British did not summarily execute the IRA when IRA members were captured."

1. If he ESCAPED...well, it sounds like they tried to arrest him before twice and he escaped both times, and when you have a bomb plotter escaping your arrest attempts...that doesn't sound like a ticking-time-bomb of a threat (pun definitely intended.)

2. AGAIN with the UK and the IRA...well, I'll ask--and how IS that situation with the IRA? PEaceful and peachy in Ireland doing it that way, is it?

Putin- Were the communist leaders prosecuted in the 50s actively calling for violent acts in the United States.

No.

There were groups in the 1960s (Black Panthers one example) and 1970s (Symbionese Liberation Army), particularly the latter, as they actually engaged in gun battles with police, who advocated the destruction of the U.S. government, like the Unabomber, whom you mysteriously refused to comment on. Information that Aw-Awlaki was an instigator of the Fort Hood shootings are extremely suspect...it remains a very real possibility Hassan had legitimate mental problems, and terrorism was not a factor.

@obi...Northern Ireland is relatively peaceful due to the Belfast accords and the peace process...although I would still prefer IRA activity...

"There were groups in the 1960s (Black Panthers one example) and 1970s (Symbionese Liberation Army), particularly the latter, as they actually engaged in gun battles with police, who advocated the destruction of the U.S. government, like the Unabomber, whom you mysteriously refused to comment on. "

First, The Black Panther party did not and does not advocate the violent overthrow of the US government despite what whispers you hear around your suburban kitchen table. Second, none of those groups (or people as your "brilliant" unibomber example joined a foreign group that is actively at war with the United States of America