|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2011 7:02:28 GMT -5
Does that really make a difference? If you kill someone does it make a difference if they were pointing a gun at you? More like threatening to retrieve a gun and point it at you. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 14, 2011 7:02:32 GMT -5
The difference is that al-Awlaki was actively fighting the US and planning attacks against us. The ambassador was not. From the Iranian POV, there's less difference than you think. Riad and Teheran are more-or-less archenemies. If one state(US) is allowed to attack and assassinate enemies in third countries, then why not the other? (For reference: Neither is. And whoever is behing the series of attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists isn't either.) And from what I'm hearing, while the existence of a plot is rather safe to assume, the evidence for Iranian involvement is rather thin, and may be untenable. I've seen citations that the planning doesn't fit in terms of style and is too incompetently done to be attributed to Quds backing. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 7:03:47 GMT -5
Does that really make a difference? If you kill someone does it make a difference if they were pointing a gun at you? Self defence is always justified. However... you have to use proportional response. If you have to kill a guy to stop him shooting you, then fair enough. If, however, you could safely disarm and restrain him until the cops arrive, then that's what you're supposed to do. I admit this thread is the first I've heard of this case, however I find it difficult to believe that if the US could identify this guy as a clear and imminent threat, that they couldn't have tried to arrest him and give him a trial in accordance with due process, rather than killing him with a predator drone. Even if he were killed resisting arrest, that's one thing. But going around unilaterally offing one's own citizens without even attempting to give them a fair trial... dude, that is not a good precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Oct 14, 2011 7:10:31 GMT -5
Well, if he knew the US was trying to get him, why not turn himself in?
I don't see a problem with taking him out. He's actively trying to attack/plan attacks against the US while hiding in the mid east amongst his terror cells. I'd expect no less from the authorities if I were doing the same he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 7:12:57 GMT -5
I admit this thread is the first I've heard of this case, however I find it difficult to believe that if the US could identify this guy as a clear and imminent threat, that they couldn't have tried to arrest him and give him a trial in accordance with due process, rather than killing him with a predator drone. Even if he were killed resisting arrest, that's one thing. But going around unilaterally offing one's own citizens without even attempting to give them a fair trial... dude, that is not a good precedent. You do realize that he was killed on the Afghanistan/Pakistan boarder. It was not like he was sitting in a house somewhere in the US. That would have been a far different story. From the Iranian POV, there's less difference than you think. Riad and Teheran are more-or-less archenemies. If one state(US) is allowed to attack and assassinate enemies in third countries, then why not the other? (For reference: Neither is. And whoever is behing the series of attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists isn't either.) And from what I'm hearing, while the existence of a plot is rather safe to assume, the evidence for Iranian involvement is rather thin, and may be untenable. I've seen citations that the planning doesn't fit in terms of style and is too incompetently done to be attributed to Quds backing. There is still a difference between a person actively trying to kill your people and an ambassador of your enemy. Don't kill the messanger is a pretty old and well understood rule. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:23:19 GMT -5
Anwar al-Awlaki was assasinated on September 30th by a US drone in Yemen. His father tried to get a court to put a stop order on Obama's attempts to kill him, but the government successfully argued that any publically-announced assasination policy was a state secret and the court couldn't have oversight. Even if Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen with the right to "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" before being "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_AwlakiThe difference is that al-Awlaki was actively fighting the US and planning attacks against us. The ambassador was not. His case was never heard in court, and he wasn't actually shooting at anyone when he was unceremoniously blown up. The assasination is justified neither by law nor by self-defence/legitimate fighting of wars. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 7:31:33 GMT -5
Well, if he knew the US was trying to get him, why not turn himself in? I don't see a problem with taking him out. He's actively trying to attack/plan attacks against the US while hiding in the mid east amongst his terror cells. I'd expect no less from the authorities if I were doing the same he did. I am, frankly, gobsmacked that you would say such a thing. First... if he's hiding out in the middle East, he can't be THAT much of a direct and immediate threat, can he? Second, why the fuck does where he is have anything to do with whether an assassination is OK or not? Dude was a US citizen, right? Is there ANYTHING in the US constitution or law that siggests the US government is allowed to kill its own citizens without fair trial just because they happen to be outside the national border? I admit there well may be, but I've certainly not heard of it. Third, yes, in a perfect world, anyone wanted for questioning would simply hand themselves in at the nearest police station. However, people tend not to. Are you now suggesting that refusal to hand one's self in be considered sufficient condemnation for capital punishment? Because I honestly can't see how your first line, in this context, can be taken any other way.As above. If he wasn't in the US, he wasn't an immediate threat, so the "self defence" rationale loses its credibility. Further, merely being outside the US' borders doesn't magically make him a non citizen, nor make assassination OK. Its not as though the US hasn't used military force to detain suspected criminals and terrorists in other people's country's before, right? Without killing them, even. Norriega springs to mind, for one. The difference is that al-Awlaki was actively fighting the US and planning attacks against us. The ambassador was not. His case was never heard in court, and he wasn't actually shooting at anyone when he was unceremoniously blown up. The assasination is justified neither by law nor by self-defence/legitimate fighting of wars. Good God, I'm agreeing with Fred! |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:34:31 GMT -5
I admit this thread is the first I've heard of this case, however I find it difficult to believe that if the US could identify this guy as a clear and imminent threat, that they couldn't have tried to arrest him and give him a trial in accordance with due process, rather than killing him with a predator drone. Even if he were killed resisting arrest, that's one thing. But going around unilaterally offing one's own citizens without even attempting to give them a fair trial... dude, that is not a good precedent. You do realize that he was killed on the Afghanistan/Pakistan boarder in Yemen, while having breakfast. It was not like he was sitting in a house somewhere in the US. That would have been a far different story. 'The battlefield' isn't everywhere. I accept the extra circumstance of a US citizen fighting openly in a recognised army, or on a real battlefield. But he wasn't openly in a recognised army, and he wasn't on a battlefield in a uniform. He was some preacher having breakfast! |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 7:43:17 GMT -5
'The battlefield' isn't everywhere. I accept the extra circumstance of a US citizen fighting openly in a recognised army, or on a real battlefield. But he wasn't openly in a recognised army, and he wasn't on a battlefield in a uniform. He was some preacher having breakfast! Yes a preacher and a leader in an organization that is actively looking to kill innocent people anywhere they can. So yes the battlefield is everywhere because that is the way they operate. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:47:23 GMT -5
'The battlefield' isn't everywhere. I accept the extra circumstance of a US citizen fighting openly in a recognised army, or on a real battlefield. But he wasn't openly in a recognised army, and he wasn't on a battlefield in a uniform. He was some preacher having breakfast! Yes a preacher and a leader in an organization that is actively looking to kill innocent people anywhere they can. So yes the battlefield is everywhere because that is the way they operate. Now the US government can assasinate anyone, anywhere, without any evidence and only on their say so. Uniformed soldiers, wartime, or recognised battlefield. The world isn't a battlefield. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 7:48:17 GMT -5
If he wasn't in the US, he wasn't an immediate threat, so the "self defence" rationale loses its credibility. Further, merely being outside the US' borders doesn't magically make him a non citizen, nor make assassination OK. Its not as though the US hasn't used military force to detain suspected criminals and terrorists in other people's country's before, right? Without killing them, even. Norriega springs to mind, for one. His case was never heard in court, and he wasn't actually shooting at anyone when he was unceremoniously blown up. The assasination is justified neither by law nor by self-defence/legitimate fighting of wars. I don't care if he was a US citizen or not. At the point you go and work with an organization that is will to kill innocent people by what ever means you can I think a country, any country is more then justified in killing you when they have the chance. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:50:25 GMT -5
If he wasn't in the US, he wasn't an immediate threat, so the "self defence" rationale loses its credibility. Further, merely being outside the US' borders doesn't magically make him a non citizen, nor make assassination OK. Its not as though the US hasn't used military force to detain suspected criminals and terrorists in other people's country's before, right? Without killing them, even. Norriega springs to mind, for one. His case was never heard in court, and he wasn't actually shooting at anyone when he was unceremoniously blown up. The assasination is justified neither by law nor by self-defence/legitimate fighting of wars. I don't care if he was a US citizen or not. At the point you go and work with an organization that is will to kill innocent people by what ever means you can I think a country, any country is more then justified in killing you when they have the chance. Charges that were never proven in court, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 7:51:55 GMT -5
Now the US government can assasinate anyone, anywhere, without any evidence and only on their say so. Uniformed soldiers, wartime, or recognised battlefield. The world isn't a battlefield. What are you going to claim that he was not working to kill people? As soon as groups start following those rules on who can be killed, so will we. The rules of war are nice thoughts, but they will never stand up to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 7:52:46 GMT -5
If he wasn't in the US, he wasn't an immediate threat, so the "self defence" rationale loses its credibility. Further, merely being outside the US' borders doesn't magically make him a non citizen, nor make assassination OK. Its not as though the US hasn't used military force to detain suspected criminals and terrorists in other people's country's before, right? Without killing them, even. Norriega springs to mind, for one. His case was never heard in court, and he wasn't actually shooting at anyone when he was unceremoniously blown up. The assasination is justified neither by law nor by self-defence/legitimate fighting of wars. I don't care if he was a US citizen or not. At the point you go and work with an organization that is will to kill innocent people by what ever means you can I think a country, any country is more then justified in killing you when they have the chance. How many innocent people has the US military killed this year? Or the state of Texas, for that matter? No, that is not a flame against either of those bodies, however I hope the example might make you reconsider the phrasing of your recent statement.If the executive arm of the government has probable cause to believe a citizen is planning illegal acts of violence against others, it is the responsibility of the executive to detain that person, and for the judiciary to determine the person's guilt or innocence, and THEN, the state may impose what sentence it sees fit. If you, for example, were suspected of conspiracy to kill someone (rightly or wrongly) that suspicion doesn't give the police the right to kill you on sight. I don't see how geography changes the issue at all. Not to mention the fact that this whole thing involved the US firing missiles into another sovereign country, I assume without that country's prior consent. Although at this juncture, thats pretty low on the scale of things bothering me about all of this. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:54:51 GMT -5
Now the US government can assasinate anyone, anywhere, without any evidence and only on their say so. Uniformed soldiers, wartime, or recognised battlefield. The world isn't a battlefield. What are you going to claim that he was not working to kill people? Innocent until proven guilty. With the sole exeption of legitimate battlefield, or recognised army and uniform. Neither case fulfilled. Let's everyone be terrorists! Yay! |
|
