Forget for a moment who the target is and what he’s done. Consider the principles enumerated in the Constitution regarding citizens and if, despite what the reason, this is a direction the country should take. Don’t forget, IRS agents are now armed. I wonder how many tax cheats will end up ‘suicided’ after an audit?
There has been almost universal silence among Congressional Democrats on the Obama administration’s recently revealed decision to authorize the assassination of a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, has been accused of providing inspiration for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged “underwear bomber,” and Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter. In recent weeks, there has been a dramatic surge in U.S. government chatter about the alleged threat posed by al-Awlaki, with anonymous U.S. officials accusing him of directly participating in terror “plots” (his family passionately disputes this).
Several Democrats refused, through spokespeople, to comment on the assassination plan when contacted by The Nation, including Senator Russ Feingold and Representative Jan Schakowsky, both of whom serve on the Intelligence Committees. Representative Jane Harman, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee, said recently that Awlaki is “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”
One of the few Democrats to publicly address the issue of government-sanctioned assassinations is Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. “I don’t support it — period,” he said in an interview. “I think people in both parties that are concerned about the Constitution should be speaking out on this. I can’t account for what anyone else doesn’t do.”
“We are at war. This individual is overseas actively engaged against us in this war.”
That is the fallacy that is used to justify it. The “war” on terrorism is no more a “war” than the “war” on some drugs or the “war” on poverty. It is a international law enforcement problem. And characterizing such a problem, a problem that has been in existence since ancient times and one which will _never_ be completely eradicated, as a “war” simply allows the executive branch to remain in a perpetual wartime mode that has been used throughout our history to “justify” the incremental destruction of our civil liberties.
Winston, re #31
How is “poverty” a law enforcement problem?
and…
The war “on some drugs” might be ‘won’ by legalizing those drugs.
Would you treat terrorism the same way? (Of course not.)
and…
Your implication that a ‘real’ war eradicates a problem, while a ‘fake’ war like terrorism does not, doesn’t have credence. I can’t think of any war where the underlying problem has been ‘eradicated’.
War is a generic description of any violent conflict between social entities. The war on drugs is really a war with drug suppliers. The war on terrorism is really a war with terrorists. The fact that they aren’t easily targeted doesn’t make it any less a war.
As for the destruction of civil liberties, all wars do that. As the threat subsides, the liberties come back in balance. the root cause for the loss of liberty is selfishness and poverty. Government reacts to the problem by trying to maintain stability.
Re: Bobbo, #7… Nicely said. Common sense should prevail.
Bobutt, in general it’s been unacceptable to purposely target one specific individual for assassination, in so far are the rules of warfare are generally accepted.
This started to change in Vietnam and now we seem to accept it all together. Again this a moral judgment, in our case based on Western belief. Asiatic belief would have little problem with it. The longer you fight a differing culture the more you are forced to adapt to the culture you are fighting.
So what is wrong with the ‘Tea Party’ idea of bringing back a strong Constitution of trimming back on government interference and closing our borders. You solve the civil rights concerns at the borders, no gets in from a country that has terrorist activity unfriendly to our country. With the government going back to tariffs for it’s financing we wouldn’t be so active in the world and our income tax could go down and jobs could be created here instead of Mexico or China. Just in case you haven’t noticed neither country is really buying our products, the few we still make.
Target citizens overseas, well doesn’t our constitutional rights end at the border, if you ‘re in China, Iran, Cuba the certainly do. Nor have we ever treated individuals that are citizens of the United States of America that war against us for another country as anything else than traitors.
Whatever……………………………….
Traaxx
Well thank you Traaxx for a thoughtful response. I welcome disagreement.
In general, means there are exceptions.
I recall a story about “Lord whoever-it-was” that had George Washington in the crosshairs and thought a gentleman shouldn’t kill another gentleman at distance. And England lost its colony as a result.
I recall the German Army was ready to give up after the Rhine was crossed if not before. Hitler was targeted for assassination by the Allies and by the German Army. United Common Sense failed though, the Head of the Monster was not severed, and as a result a million more people died in a war because YOU want “rules” followed. Rules created by those same Monsters so they can have their way with the governed/subjugated.
Don’t be a tool.
Seems a bit melodramatic to call the death of an Anti-American who happens to be an American citizen as an “assassination”.
“Assassinations” are reserved for people in high public office or are celebrities. I don’t see this guy as either.
Whether the person is a foreign or domestic threat fighting to nurture harm to the American people, they are a soldier fighting against us on the battlefield. If they get killed. Oh well.
It’s not an assassination. They were simply KIA. Don’t elevate this guy’s status because by calling his death an “assassination” because he happens to be a U.S. Citizen.
I will whole heartily support it so long as I’m one of the snipers. Why not, I’m really good with guns, especially riflers although I don’t like having them around 🙂
Crazy people. Do you really want to put guns in an insane person like me who tries his best to avoid it at all cost hahahaha I don’t know whether to stop laughing or just double over lmao.
Sure.. Adopt the principles of the enemy.. Kill.Kill.Kill. Kill baby Kill. To damn many people on the planet, this is one solution..