Presidents order military actions. Military actions often require people be killed.
This is clearly assassination, when the president names the targets, and not a conventional military action with military ends in mind. Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico, married and lived in Yemen - his ancestral home. There are allegations that he incited others to violent acts - all unproven. He was killed by US drones in Yemen. Do you imagine we are at war with Yemen or New Mexico ?
Probably. Where have all the people concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under Bush gone? How military actions in other people's countries are making them sympathetic to the terrorists? The creeping borders between "counter-terror" and "war"?
Face it - most Dems are only concerned with civil liberties and anti-militarism to the extent it furthers their partisan ends. It's a means to an end, not a principle.
When we're in a war we don't put enemy soldiers on trial before shooting them.
What war are you talking about. There is no declared war, and the only open hostilities are in Afghanistan. Killing a rabble-rouser from New Mexico while in Yemen is not a war, except in newspeak.
I have no issue with the targeted killing of terrorists, imminent threat to the safety of civilians or not. They choose to take part in organizations that advocate the deliberate killing of every day people who are going about their lives, death is a suitable reward for that choice.
So who defines "terrorist" outside of the ministry of truth ? That is the crux of the problem. Your idea that
they "join
organizations"(or that it's voluntarily) seems like total nonsense. How do we know who is or is not a member of these nefarious organizations ? The US military was busy labeling most Iraqi insurgents as "Al-Qaeda", when it seems clear that this was untrue and most are just home-grown nationalists and disgruntled ex-military who wanted the US out.
So you are accepting the uncontested and uncontestable word of the executive that they are only killing "bad guys". That's incredibly gullible. I am not suggesting that al-Awlaki couldn't use a little killin', but I have no intention of ceding that massive power to decide to an unchecked single branch of government headed by a single individual..
That said, as an American, I am extremely uncomfortable with killing any US citizen without so much a convening a grand jury. Where is the line drawn on that? Must they be outside the US in a country hostile to our interests? Or does it just have to be a country with a non-extradition policy? Or worse yet, someone here in the US living at one of those militia compounds? I can't quote them as directly saying so but I'm pretty sure the guys who came up with our Constitution didn't intend for due process to amount to a secret meeting between the President and advisers he has chosen to surround himself with.
It doesn't only apply to US citizens. People generally should have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and we must respect those rights generally - even if their own governments don't. Yes our observation of these rights can in practice be limited as a result of criminal prosecution or declaration of war (and them limited to combatants).
"Due process" clearly means "due process of law" and when the executive is also the judge, jury and executioner - there is no law in force. We need Congress to authorize and outline the power and limits of any actions like these, and that may involve the executive making a detailed case to a jury of sorts.
It may well be that the decision to take up arms against the US was seen as a tactile rejection of their US citizenship and the loss of all rights and privilegs you would normally be accorded
In the case of al-Awlaki there is no evidence he ever "took up arms", tho' he apparently advocated that others do so - but where is this evidence presented to an impartial juror ? Yes if you are attacked by anyone you have a right to self defense. If we are legitimately at war, then there is no necessity to identify the citizenship of your opponents in a combat situation. That's not the issue - never was.
Well, we do have the power to not move to a country filled with terrorists then start hanging out in their camps.
So you feel than moving to a particular country which doesn't even appear on a state department warning list justifies murder ? IOW you believe the government is the source of all your rights and legitimately controls your life. Sheeple much ?
I suspect the kill list has a better vetting process.
We shouldn't have to 'suspect' or 'guess'. The procedure should be public and designed protect rights, even if the process cannot be public.
The fact we can count the victims with our fingers shows it to be a pretty exclusive club. And, hey, if SEAL Team Six bursts in my windows tonight to murder my ass it would be a hell of a way to go.
Count the victims on your fingers !!! The state department admits that over 2000 have been killed in drone attacks. At least 43 "military leaders" killed in Pakistan.
I don't see why killing people who are not US citizens would merit less consideration than killing US citizens. Talk about exceptionalism. There ought to be a pretty strong barrier to killing humans when there may be other options.
And I actually don't mind the drone program; I'm hoping there are just such standards.
Using drones isn't the problem. Sending drones regularly into nations we are not at war with is problematic. Listing named individuals based on their writings and not their actions for assassination isn't war, it's assassination.
