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.

wes

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

Oh they most certainly are in the same league. Killing people without a trial is the same no matter who does it. Torturing people is the same no matter who does it.

I easily throw up some fun links of the people either directly tortured or tortured on behalf of the US, so here is one:

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

Now, the difference here is that the US out sourced there torture, but it make them no less responsible. So yes, the US is in the same league as the likes of Iran, when they do the same crap they do. Now, when they stop, if they ever stop that is, then they can claim to be better.

The US president, has ordered the murder of a person, and there was no trial to confirm if he is guilty of the accusation made against him. Last time I checked, guilt upon accusation is what 3rd world dictatorships do, and if the US does it, then they are no better than them.

If he is found guilty in a fair trial, and given the death penalty, then I have no issues with that. If he is killed in a fire fight with those trying to capture him, then fair enough. However, hunting him down like an animal is inexcusable and makes the US no better than Iran imho.

Zombrex

Not sure why people are shocked by this, Obama has been ordering the targeted assassinations of Taliban and Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan (often with civilian casualties) since he took office? That is what these remote drones do, they flying to a village, pin point the building the person is in, and blow it up.

Are people shocked by this because he is an US citizen?

Memnoch

There are degrees of things...

In the US there is at least freedom of the press. Just look at Fox News and their antics and what they get away with. There is also some kind of democracy (though not ideal). The opposition is strong and power does change hand every 4-8 years. And at least the U.S. is run RELATIVELY free of religious influence, unlike Iran where the hardline muslims have complete control.

There are a lot of freedoms available to people in the states that aren't in Iran.

While in the U.S. the argument is about gay marriage and open service in the military, in Iran, a gay person can be sentenced to death.

If I was to travel to another country, I'm pretty sure I know which of the two I would feel safer in.

While I do find many actions taken by the U.S. government to be utterly reprehensible, I think to equate them it Iran requires ignoring many fundamental truths about the differences between the two countries and the way they are run.

old_aussie

Don't most western countries kill those who betray their country?

They call it treason.

They should nuke Yemen, home of al-Qaeda. Do the world a favour.

PeakOutput

gizmo555 wrote: »

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?

i already said yes under certain circumstances, now im sure it would cause uproar but i can see it from their point of view, what with them being victim to terrorists attack and all :rolleyes:

also the idea that everyone you kill in war should be tried first is a joke.

wes

Wicknight wrote: »

Not sure why people are shocked by this, Obama has been ordering the targeted assassinations of Taliban and Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan (often with civilian casualties) since he took office? That is what these remote drones do, they flying to a village, pin point the building the person is in, and blow it up.

Are people shocked by this because he is an US citizen?

I think it more to do with how blantant it is, Basically, they have announced there going to kill the guy, which I don't think they have done quite so blatantly before.

wes

PeakOutput wrote: »

also the idea that everyone you kill in war should be tried first is a joke.

Not a single person stated that btw. If someone is killed during a fire fight that is very different to ordering that person be hunted down and killed.

PeakOutput

wes wrote: »

I think it more to do with how blantant it is, Basically, they have announced there going to kill the guy, which I don't think they have done quite so blatantly before.

you dont think its a good thing that he has the balls to subject his decisions to public opinion knowing he is going to get slated for them instead of hiding behind oval office privilidge or whatever its called?

isnt it the best thing for democracy that the people who disagree with these things know they are going on and can choose to vote accordingly and vice versa

old_aussie

peasant wrote: »

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.

I think once a person carries out a terrorist act he loses all rights at that point. If I saw binladen I would not need wait for a court of law to make up my mind to hang him.

PeakOutput

wes wrote: »

Not a single person stated that btw. If someone is killed during a fire fight that is very different to ordering that person be hunted down and killed.

why? they are both just as dead?

you dont see targetted air strikes on military and strategic civilian targets as hunting people / places down and killing them?

you dont see a sniper waiting for days for a general to walk his weekly path to the gym as hunting someone down?

people need to get their heads out of their asses this idea that war is somehow ok and more acceptable because you are face to face and both have equal chance went out when the british colonies started fighting back any way they could if not before

wes

PeakOutput wrote: »

you dont think its a good thing that he has the balls to subject his decisions to public opinion knowing he is going to get slated for them instead of hiding behind oval office privilidge or whatever its called?

isnt it the best thing for democracy that the people who disagree with these things know they are going on and can choose to vote accordingly and vice versa

I never said it was a bad thing, just that they have never been so blatant.

As for agree or disagree, I am pretty sure hunting and killing someone is illegal in international law, but then the US considers itself above such laws.

Gurgle

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

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

Yes.

To sign it quietly and not publicise it would have been hanging an axe over his own neck. How bad would it look if (when) it got leaked?

He would be accused, and rightly, of talking one game while playing another.

wes

PeakOutput wrote: »

why? they are both just as dead?

Killing someone in the midst of a fire fight is self defence, the other is cold blooded murder.

PeakOutput wrote: »

you dont see targetted air strikes on military and strategic civilian targets as hunting people / places down and killing them?

Attacking a military installation would be very different, to targetting a man for assasination. One is a part of war, another is cold blooded murder. Just, because you are in a war, doesn't excuse all violence.

Also, attacking civilian targets would be very wrong, and I would view it as cold blooded murder, as well as being illegal under International law, and I would say such a thing is no different than a terrorist doing the same thing.

PeakOutput wrote: »

you dont see a sniper waiting for days for a general to walk his weekly path to the gym as hunting someone down?

Shooting an unarmed man walking to the gym would be murder. Why wouldn't it be.

PeakOutput wrote: »

people need to get their heads out of their asses this idea that war is somehow ok and more acceptable because you are face to face and both have equal chance went out when the british colonies started fighting back any way they could if not before

So basically, war makes it ok to be as bad as terrorist then? Honestly, you seemed to suggest attacking civilian targets as being ok, as long as its war. If it ok for the US, then why is not ok for AQ to attack civilian targets?

wes

old_aussie wrote: »

I think once a person carries out a terrorist act he loses all rights at that point. If I saw binladen I would not need wait for a court of law to make up my mind to hang him.

Ok, by that logic, anyone can be murder someone, as long as you say there a terrorist, or they believe they are a terrorist.

old_aussie

This muslim terrorist is not a civilian enemy he is considered a military enemy of the state.

The policy of targeted killings is controversial. President Ford issued an order in 1976 banning political assassinations. Yet Congress approved the use of force against al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks. People on the hit list are deemed to be military enemies of the US and not subject to Mr Ford’s ban.

Yemen, land of muslims who have sex with little 13 yo girls and home to terrorists.

PeakOutput

wes wrote: »

Killing someone in the midst of a fire fight is self defence, the other is cold blooded murder.

no its not murder but i have a feeling we will not agree

Attacking a military installation would be very different, to targetting a man for assasination.

arguably you could save many lives by killing the top man in an installation so that it cant run anymore instead of blowing the installation up and everyone in it yet you seem to suggest the latter is preferable

Also, attacking civilian targets would be very wrong, and I would view it as cold blooded murder, as well as being illegal under International law, and I would say such a thing is no different than a terrorist doing the same thing.

bridges / power stations etc are all fair game in war as they offer strategic advantage to the enemy military

Shooting an unarmed man walking to the gym would be murder. Why wouldn't it be.

eh?? because he is a general who is trying to kill you and your friends and family and is in command of thousands of armed people with the same goal? do you really not see that? you really dont think these things happen and are perfectly 'acceptable' in war

So basically, war makes it ok to be as bad as terrorist then? Honestly, you seemed to suggest attacking civilian targets as being ok, as long as its war. If it ok for the US, then why is not ok for AQ to attack civilian targets?

the twin towers dont offer any strategic advantage to the US and the only reason for the attack was to strike fear into the civilian population by killing as many of them as possible. blowing up a bridge is not the same thing


i understand your not going to agree with me(its a centuries old moral / philosophical debate after all) i just cant fathom how you come to your conclusion

wes

old_aussie wrote: »

This muslim terrorist is not a civilian enemy he is considered a military enemy of the state.

So, declaring someone a "enemy of the state" make it ok to murder them? Also, last time I checked civilised countries, tend to have trial to establish the guilt of someone.

old_aussie wrote: »

The policy of targeted killings is controversial. President Ford issued an order in 1976 banning political assassinations. Yet Congress approved the use of force against al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks. People on the hit list are deemed to be military enemies of the US and not subject to Mr Ford’s ban.

Yeah, so they found a loop hole, to kill people with out a trial under there own laws. So once the US congress says its ok to kill people, thats all find and dandy, and US is of course above international law.

old_aussie wrote: »

Yemen, land of muslims who have sex with little 13 yo girls and home to terrorists.

Ah, so that make it ok to kill people in Yemen. Btw, you can have sex with 13 year old girls right here in the EU (Spain specifically), as well. Does that make it ok to kill people in the EU, if the US decided to do so?

Also, the US houses plenty of "terrorists" themselves, they even back some of them...

wes

PeakOutput wrote: »

no its not murder but i have a feeling we will not agree

Yeah, it is murder, something the US is very good at, and has practiced the world over.

PeakOutput wrote: »

arguably you could save many lives by killing the top man in an installation so that it cant run anymore instead of blowing the installation up and everyone in it yet you seem to suggest the latter is preferable

If someone took out a US general or the US president in the exact same way, they would be called a terrorists, and it would be called murder. So, when the US does it is murder. The US isn't special or exempt from this.

PeakOutput wrote: »

bridges / power stations etc are all fair game in war as they offer strategic advantage to the enemy military

So, US power stations and bridges are all fair game for AQ. Does this include trains btw? I am sure AQ could argue strategic advantage for blowing those up, but when they do its terrorism, but the US does it, its a-ok.

PeakOutput wrote: »

eh?? because he is a general who is trying to kill you and your friends and family and is in command of thousands of armed people with the same goal? do you really not see that? you really dont think these things happen and are perfectly 'acceptable' in war

Ok, so it ok for AQ to hunt down and kill Obama, or a US General, even if they are unarmed and on there way to the gym, but we both know if they did exactly that it would be called terrorism.

PeakOutput wrote: »

the twin towers dont offer any strategic advantage to the US and the only reason for the attack was to strike fear into the civilian population by killing as many of them as possible. blowing up a bridge is not the same thing

Really? So striking the world trade center, which directly hit the US economy is not a strategic target in the same way a bridge is? Sorry, but there both civilian targets, and those who target them are no better than one another.

PeakOutput wrote: »

i understand your not going to agree with me(its a centuries old moral / philosophical debate after all) i just cant fathom how you come to your conclusion

I can't fathom why some people supports the state terorrism of the US, and then condemn it when the other guy does the same thing. The double standard is nothing short of rdiculous.

PeakOutput

wes wrote: »

If someone took out a US general or the US president in the exact same way, they would be called a terrorists, and it would be called murder. So, when the US does it is murder. The US isn't special or exempt from this.

So, US power stations and bridges are all fair game for AQ. Does this include trains btw? I am sure AQ could argue strategic advantage for blowing those up, but when they do its terrorism, but the US does it, its a-ok.

Ok, so it ok for AQ to hunt down and kill Obama, or a US General, even if they are unarmed and on there way to the gym, but we both know if they did exactly that it would be called terrorism.

they can certainly try, the question is who would you prefer to be in control?given that conflict is inevitable but we are in the most peacefull times in human history which ideals do you think should take precedence? the everyone is free to live as they please within the law and worship who they please and earn what they please or the one were you have to live how a few religious old farts say you have to live?

the latters ideals have led to thousands of years of conflict the formers has led to the most peacefull time in human history

Really? So striking the world trade center, which directly hit the US economy is not a strategic target in the same way a bridge is? Sorry, but there both civilian targets, and those who target them are no better than one another.

deliberately killing civilians is unacceptable. targetting strategic infrastructure is not

Brabbitte

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"?

The only reason they did not do that was because the Irish Government would have 'hit the roof' for lack of a better expression. And also the Irish people would been lining up to join the IRA. The UK government tried this in the 1970's in a little atrocity known as bloody Sunday, and they nearly had the Irish government lining up to invade the North. The IRA and PIRA was a completely different situation to what is going on now. And, at least they gave warning when they were going to bomb something (most of the time).

(im Irish, and I am most certainly not condoning what they did!! I do not have any respect for the IRA or PIRA or any other paramilitary or terrorist organisation)