President publicly orders killing of citizen

peasant

Which President?
Ahmadinejad?
Mugabe?
Karzai?
Chavez even?

Nope ... fail on all counts ...it's darling Obama

The Obama Administration has taken the unprecedented step of authorising the killing of a US citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, linked to the plot to blow up a US airliner on Christmas Day.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7089899.ece

The decision is extraordinary not only because Mr al-Awlaki is believed to be the first American whose killing has been approved by a US President, but also because the Obama Administration chose to make the move public.

oops ...there goes the image

Remind me again, which Nobel prize did Obama win?

Kristopherus

How many fahtwahs will follow, I wonder. And how many will be successful?

Kiwi_knock

I am not all that surprised, expected Obama to make this type of strong statement to appease the conservatives. This is a political move not a personal one as the OP is trying to make out. The man attempted a terrorist attack on American people, the American people wanted a heavy handed response just like after 9/11. If Obama had failed to take this route he would have lost a lot of support in America, he would been seen as promoting an image that America does not punish terrorists. It would have been a debilitating political move for Obama. In no way am I condoning it, I can just understand why Obama made it.

peasant

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

I am not all that surprised, expected Obama to make this type of strong statement to appease the conservatives. This is a political move not a personal one as the OP is trying to make out. The man attempted a terrorist attack on American people, the American people wanted a heavy handed response just like after 9/11. If Obama had failed to take this route he would have lost a lot of support in America, he would been seen as promoting an image that America does not punish terrorists. It would have been a debilitating political move for Obama. In no way am I condoning it, I can just understand why Obama made it.

That's the weakest and most limp-wristed "defence" or "explanation" possible.

I just wonder whatever happened to the law and due process and all that.?

Is this the "change" he's been promising?

I'm under no illusions ... stuff like this goes on secretly all the time.
But publicly issuing the Yankee version of the fatwah on a US citizen ...that would have been a bold move even for Dubbjah

danman

Does most states in the US not have the death penalty?

Is he really the first president that called for the death of a US citizen?
How many Citizens get killed each year by the government/state?

Kiwi_knock

peasant wrote: »

That's the weakest and most limp-wristed "defence" or "explanation" possible.

I just wonder whatever happened to the law and due process and all that.?

Is this the "change" he's been promising?

I'm under no illusions ... stuff like this goes on secretly all the time.
But publicly issuing the Yankee version of the fatwah on a US citizen ...that would have been a bold move even for Dubbjah

Does the fact that Obama chose to publicise this make a difference?

PeakOutput

peasant wrote: »

That's the weakest and most limp-wristed "defence" or "explanation" possible.

I just wonder whatever happened to the law and due process and all that.?

Is this the "change" he's been promising?

I'm under no illusions ... stuff like this goes on secretly all the time.
But publicly issuing the Yankee version of the fatwah on a US citizen ...that would have been a bold move even for Dubbjah

it dosnt actually need any defence

radical extreme muslims have declared war on america, they dont see citizenship as defining their identity they see their religon as defining their identity

attempting to blow up a plane in an act of terrorism is not a crime its an act of war

D-Generate

State sponsored assassinations.... and I thought the recent diplomatic cooling between the White House and Israel was because they didn't approve of such methods...

peasant

danman wrote: »

Does most states in the US not have the death penalty?

Normal proceedings would be that the death penalty is arrived at after the person in question has been found guilty in a court of law.

The "death penalty" by presidential order is assasination.

Slight difference there

peasant

PeakOutput wrote: »

it dosnt actually need any defence

radical extreme muslims have declared war on america, they dont see citizenship as defining their identity they see their religon as defining their identity

attempting to blow up a plane in an act of terrorism is not a crime its an act of war

You're obviously one of those people who swallow every piece of propaganda they're presented with.

DublinWriter

Well, to paraphrase the great Chomsky quote, all US presidents since Truman would have been hung if they faced the same charges as applied to the Nazi leaders at Nuremberg.

Kiwi_knock

This is most definetly an atrocious act and should in no way be taking place. Obama should have to resign and live out his days in disgrace. However this is not an ideal world, in America it is seen that to gain peace that they must first sink to the level of those they wish to rid the world of. A stupid logic but one which a vast majority of Americans will agree with.

Manic Moran

Individual who is inaccessible and has declared war on the US. Nationality is irrelevant. If the choices are 'kill him' and 'leave him be to try again', I don't see how any national leader has a choice in the matter.

Didn't we have a thread on this a couple of weeks ago?

NTM

Black Swan

Obama puts one US citizen on the hit list, while the total number of US death row inmates as of 1 July 2009 was 3,279?

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year

And in terms of killing men, women, and children, Obama has a long way to go to catch up with US President Truman who ordered:

"On August 6, 1945, the United States used a massive, atomic weapon against Hiroshima, Japan. This atomic bomb, the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT, flattened the city, killing tens of thousands of civilians. While Japan was still trying to comprehend this devastation three days later, the United States struck again, this time, on Nagasaki."

Source: http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/hiroshima.htm

hallelujajordan

Shocked . . That Obama has done this and done it so publicly . . Isn't he ordering an action that would be contrary to international law ?

Manic Moran

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Isn't he ordering an action that would be contrary to international law ?

If so, might I ask what the practical 'legal' option is?

NTM

Kiwi_knock

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Shocked . . That Obama has done this and done it so publicly . . Isn't he ordering an action that would be contrary to international law ?

Will be interesting to see the international political reaction to it, would not be surprised if it is ignored. Can see no meaningful repurcussions coming from this decision. Apart from the obvious death threats he would receive, he most likely will not be internationallity condemned. Instead he will be patted on the back for taking such a hardline towards terrorism

Dannyboy83

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Shocked . . That Obama has done this and done it so publicly . . Isn't he ordering an action that would be contrary to international law ?

Not sure how politics trumps morality in this case.
Self Defence is moral too.

An eye for an eye.

peasant

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

An eye for an eye.

Well, one of the reasons why we westerners are at "war" with those fundamentalist islamic terrorists is because apparently we have set of values that we need to defend against those barbarians with their medieval shariah laws

If we now publicly act the same way, we might just call it quits, call a truce and all go home.

PeakOutput

peasant wrote: »

You're obviously one of those people who swallow every piece of propaganda they're presented with.

what propoganda would that be?

PeakOutput

peasant wrote: »

If we now publicly act the same way, we might just call it quits, call a truce and all go home.

you go present that to them then and see if you cum back with your head

there are more ways than sitting in front of a judge and jury for due process to take place

many many people have been tried in absentia(think thats the word)

do you think and pen pusher walked into the oval office and said 'i think we should kill this guy' and obama said ' ok, were do i sign?'

peasant

PeakOutput wrote: »

do you think and pen pusher a CIA / homeland security official walked into the oval office and said 'i think we should kill this guy' and obama said ' ok, were do i sign?'

Yes

He might have asked his advisers about going public though

wes

The US government, acting like a 3rd world dictatorship? I am not surprised at all. This kind of crap puts them in the same league as Iran, imho.

Memnoch

wes wrote: »

The US government, acting like a 3rd world dictatorship? I am not surprised at all. This kind of crap puts them in the same league as Iran, imho.

I was watching an episode of the Daily Show, where Jon Stewart was interviewing this journalist who had been imprisoned in Iran, she'd written a book about her experiences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxana_Saberi

Basically, she is of mixed heritage (half iranian) and went there to learn more about the country and to talk to the people there, and maybe write a book about it. So they arrested her, threatened to kill her unless she confessed and then used the same confession in her court case to convict her. (All political posturing it turns out).

She also talks about how in prison she met many other political prisoners who were likely to be sentenced to death.

Most people here would consider me to be some kind of left wing hippy liberal. And I'm no fan of many American policies, past and present. But Iran and U.S. are not in the same league at all, and it's ludicrous to suggest that they are. Yes I know about Gitmo etc.

PeakOutput

peasant wrote: »

Yes

He might have asked his advisers about going public though

:rolleyes:

after how much consideration and investigation do you think went into it?

the idea that these decisions are taken lightly is laughable as is the idea that terrorists deserve the same rights the rest of us have

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

Individual who is inaccessible and has declared war on the US. Nationality is irrelevant. If the choices are 'kill him' and 'leave him be to try again', I don't see how any national leader has a choice in the matter.

Didn't we have a thread on this a couple of weeks ago?

NTM

For many years, PIRA members and similar paramilitaries, who had undoubtedly declared war on the UK, were difficult if not impossible to extradite from Ireland or the United States to the UK. Since they were "inaccessible" to the UK justice system, does this mean the UK would have been justified in conducting an assassination programme in Ireland and the US, targeting those whom the UK government deemed by executive proclamation to be "guilty"?

PeakOutput

gizmo555 wrote: »

For many years, PIRA members and similar paramilitaries, who had undoubtedly declared war on the UK, were difficult if not impossible to extradite from Ireland or the United States to the UK. Since they were "inaccessible" to the UK justice system, does this mean the UK would have been justified in conducting an assassination programme in Ireland and the US, targeting those whom the UK government deemed by executive proclamation to be "guilty"?

of course this isnt about america or ireland or the uk its a general principle

terrorist = fair game

gizmo555

PeakOutput wrote: »

of course this isnt about america or ireland or the uk its a general principle

terrorist = fair game

It is a general principle that governments should be free to assassinate those whom they can't bring to trial?

Look at what happened in the 80s when the Spanish took this course in respect of ETA members whom the French wouldn't extradite. 27 people were killed and many more injured. A high proportion of them were innocent of any involvement with ETA.

PeakOutput

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is a general principle that governments should be free to assassinate those whom they can't bring to trial?

yes

im not saying they should have a free hand but then i dont believe they have one right now although you guys seem to think they just kill who they like when they like on a whim

which is clearly not true and ridicolous

gizmo555

PeakOutput wrote: »

yes

So, if in the 70s and 80s the UK government had conducted a campaign in Ireland and the US of assassinating people it believed to be IRA members, that would have been OK with you?

peasant

PeakOutput wrote: »

the idea that these decisions are taken lightly is laughable as is the idea that terrorists deserve the same rights the rest of us have

It doesn't matter if this idea was taken lightly or indeed heavily.

Terrorists do indeed have the same rights as everyone else until they are stripped of those rights by a court of law.
Otherwise the whole thing just turns into a witch-hunt.