Should the flag protect those that are intent on destroying it?

Plenty of controversy over the US killing two Americans suspected of terrorism without due process.
See here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/politics/targeting-us-citizens/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

al-Awlaki has consistently and persistently pursued terrorism against the United States and its people. However, he was never afforded his day in court. So now there are outcries ranging from the ACLU to Ron Paul. I'm somewhat conflicted on this. al-Awlaki has been linked to many terrorist plots, it is easy to say 'off with his head' but what about someone who only was involved with half as many plots, or just one or two?

Should the flag and all the rights provided under US law protect US citizens intent on destroying it? That will be the debate. Personally, I'm all for it. But I can see that this is a slippery slope. This is a new world. Old laws don't embrace the complexities of the world we live in. Just as copyright laws are tested in the digital age. Possibly, we need a newer definition in the legal system to avoid controversy. Don't know. That's for minds far greater than mine.

 

My opinion on al-Awlaki is much the same as Saddam Hussein. The world is a better place for neither being in it, but I don't think that is adequate justification for war or for murder.

I'm not sure I have a better answer.

 

How far off from "killed in action" during a war is what happened to al-Awlaki? Is there any doubt that the U.S. is literally at war with Al-Qaeda and that he was a senior member of the enemy group. No trial is necessary to determine that. To me it's the same as if he was leading an enemy charge against our troops and was killed. So this was no different than if U.S. troops would have shot him in a "more conventional" engagement of war. Yes, war is horrible.

 

I'd draw the distinction between armed combatant and peaceful protestor. Think about it this way, police officers engaged in shoot-outs with suspects aren't afforded the luxury of due process. Similarly, an American terrorist who is actively waging a violent campaign against Americans should not be protected by the principles he seeks to destroy.

/Soapbox.

 

This is pretty simple to me. If we are who we say we are and stand for the things that we say we stand for, then everyone gets their day in court. Period. The rule of law is paramount.

 

There is no such thing as a "War on Terror". It's a meaningless phrase. It certainly doesn't define a "war" as I know it - how and when is it ever, realistically won, for a start? Without due process, how is it determined when it is OK to inflict punishment on an individual (or kill them)? Is it OK to simply affix the term "terrorist" to them after the fact? The "Well, we knew he was guilty" argument is the argument of the lynch mob.

This was the thinking that led to Guantanamo, most of whom have never been found guilty of anything and are now looking to sue their governments for involvement in their illegal rendition.

Terrorism is a crime of violence. It should be treated as a crime and its perpetrators treated as criminals. I, for one, however, require proof first.

Once we abandon due process we surrender the right to claim any moral authority. If w do that, we are on a fast and slippery slope to thuggery and to becoming criminals ourselves.

What does that flag stand for?

(Disclaimer: I am not an American, but speaking as a westerner).

 

In a war, enemy doesn't get normal legal due process. I'm not even talking about any general "war on terror". Agreed, that is a questionable definition. But I don't think there's any doubt we are at war with Al-Qaeda and he was a prominent leader. Al-Qaeda directly attacked the U.S. several times and killed many people and they aspire to continue that war and he in particular played a very active role in attacking the U.S.

 

Really? How will this war end? Will anyone captured be treated as a POW? (Actually, we know they won't already). Where is the battlefield?

This killing may be justified (in your opinion), but what about the innocent people killed using the same process? These drones have been in use in Pakistan and Yemen for some time now, and there have been "mistakes".

I would submit that nobody is "at war". We are engaged in hunting down criminals. It is a much better paradigm to follow and considerably less likely to create martyrs or inspire recruitment to the terrorists' cause(s).

There is nothing new about terrorism. It was going on long before I was born. In fact, when I was born, my father was engaged in jungle patrols to root out terrorists in the Malay jungles (and has fought them in Aden, Cyprus, Ireland and other places). There is no "new world" and the old laws work perfectly well.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a total bleeding heart. I can see that there are times when a surgical kill on a dangerous person is an opportunity that should be taken, and is taken. However, let's not pretend that it is legally or morally "OK" to do so. Let's also not make it policy and widen the use of the approach.

 

Then how do we control the process to determine when a surgical strike should be taken? Who makes that determination? Surely we have to have some sort of control over this. Executive order, perhaps?

 

Exactly, rule of law should be followed no matter what. The rule of law protects us all from unlawful action by our government. We as a nation should worry less about how we are beholden to our flag, we should be worried how our government holds itself accountable to our constitution and rule of law. Ferk a flag.

Any use of the military should be approved by Congress. That might be written in a document that I've seen somewhere.

 

Except every rule of law is ridden with exceptions...

 

Uh... War Powers.

 

i'm bothered in principle by the whole targeted murder program. seems to me another step toward turning into what we--whatever that means---claim to oppose. we turned into a soft-authoritarian system in order to counter stalinism (that messy democracy...too slow when confronting a mean dictator---the national-security state idea from 1948)...now we're turning into a "terrorist" operation. of course the u.s.of a. had Reasons for their actions and "terrorists"...um....well wait.....but we have laws!....except when they're suspended in a state of emergency (code red!) or war (against....what exactly?).....so we're totally different except for all the resemblances (throwing conventional rules out the window, hunt down...take out unsuspecting targets)....without due process, it's murder---anyone gonna get charged with it?

blurring the war/not war line...not good...
making citizens into military targets. it's a bad idea.
treat "terrorism" as a military object--a remarkably bad idea courtesy of the bush administration.

 

Doesn't the US kill its citizens every fucking day? I'm willing to believe that someone gone abroad to plot & scheme was a fair target. I'm unwilling to believe that any one of us is less dangerous than the organization we serve. "The flag" imperils its people as much as it can protect anyone from themselves.

The flag has no obligation to protect those intent on destroying it. Figuring out who they are is its responsibility.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with extrajudicial killing. I mean, come on, the president and the DOD clearly said that he was bad, and those folks are never wrong about anything. They certainly would never, and I mean never, put political interests above human life. Why, that just doesn't happen. I think this sets a good precedent. I say to Obama, "Who do we kill next?"

Maybe eventually we can just start randomly killing people on the no-fly list.

 

Pfft, we wouldn't have these little moral dilemmas if the bad guys would unite under one flag and wear easily identifiable uniforms.

/Redcoats

 

& if everybody was similarly armed, we might be more polite. Manners seem to differ.

 

one of many blog posts on this question. this one is interesting because it jumps off from an attempt to actually spell out the rationale for liquidating citizens:

http://spencerackerman.typepad.com/attackerman/2011/10/ben-wittes-standard-assassination.html

 

I stated the below in the twin thread on this topic in the Economics & Politics forum of TFP:

"I don't see much of a problem here.

It can be easily argued that Awlaki was a conspirator in an organization/movement the United States has declared war on, and as an enemy combatant civilian treatment does not apply. Enemy combatants get killed in the battlefield, unless they surrender by themselves.

The points made on the issue of drone strikes are incomprehensible to me. By the same logic, bombers should be outlawed. That drones have killed innocent civilians, as bombers have, is due to nothing more than inaccurate intelligence. Besides, drone strikes have done extensive damage to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Intelligence is great to have, but it's very hard to obtain in these parts. You can't just walk up to a suspected terrorist/insurgent lair and identify for certain who's an innocent civilian and who is not. Unless you know a better way to combat these people, you have little to argue against. That is, if you don't prefer your country admits defeat and gets the hell out.

I think it's great that a sea-change in the US administration has occurred in the past few years. It has been since early 2010 that your nation has really stepped up the effort to combat the enemies in this region, and you've done an enormous amount of damage that the average civilian has no idea about. With the change in attitude towards Pakistan, a country that actively funds and trains Taliban/al Qaeda/Haqqani insurgents who then go on to kill US civilians and military personnel (moreso the latter), I couldn't be happier.

Read more: http://www.thetfp.com/threads/the-a...dist-and-american-citizen.1715/#ixzz1ZY9Q4ATH"

Adding to that, as others pointed out in the other thread: Awlaki was a propagandist for the al Qaeda cause and was, in effect, waging psychological warfare against the US. It is my belief that distributors of propaganda must be identified as a military threat and removed in a manner appropriate to a military threat.