Replies

I think al Awlaki was in all likelihood a total scumbag who deserved no better than what he got.

But when a president plays judge, jury and executioner of an American citizen without due process of law -- and in fact actually denied Awlaki his right to even be represented by an attorney so that he could challenge the reasons for being put on this hit list -- that president better prepared to make his case to the American people to let them know why they are safe and why they aren't also in danger of being next on his list.

Thank you for posting this article and for articulating a principled position which very much needed to find a place here on Free Republic. Someone once said that first you give the accused a fair trial and then you hang him and it is kinda important to do it in that order. I read a lot of reactions on this thread confiding to us that al Awlaki has somehow forfeited his citizenship, or his rights as a citizen, or, and this has not been expressly articulated, his right to equal protection of laws.

The framers quite consciously created a divided government of checks and balances precisely to prevent the coalescence of legislative, executive, prosecutorial, and warmaking powers in one individual or even in one branch. If we have come to a place where the president of the United States can order the assassination of American citizens by merely invoking a label, "war" we are on the verge of abandoning the Constitution.

At the very least, as you point out, Obama owes the country some sort of explanation, an articulation of an Obama "doctrine" if you will, about the power of the Executive to kill Americans.

I applaud your courage in taking what you must have known would be an unpopular stand. I looked up your about page and read some of your posts in the forum. I would like to say that you're to be complemented for your clarity of expression, which only comes as the product of clear thinking, and for your resolute determination to eschew the ad hominem.

I share much of your opinion about Ron Paul even though I have published many replies dismissing him as a potential candidate on the basis of electability but not, certainly, because he lacks constitutional principle. Even as I dismiss him, I have always been careful to point out that it is the Republican Party and now the Tea Party which is coming to Ron Paul and not the other way around. This is especially true concerning the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I fully agree with your observations that these wars are not making us safer. You are absolutely correct that our ability to project power abroad will be severely reduced by economic realities at home and, further, that will be strong abroad only as much as we are economically healthy at home. These are not necessarily my desires but my reading of reality.

Further, I hope Paul stays in the race as long as possible because his very presence shapes the debate in a very healthy direction.

If, as your name suggests, you are from Boca Raton, you are very brave indeed.

I think Obama is desperate to be re-elected he is willing to kill Americans. Just to prove he is tuff enough.

A few years ago this would have been outrageous. Especially if Bush had have done this.

I would like the Left to explain why it is OK now.

“At the very least, as you point out, Obama owes the country some sort of explanation, an articulation of an Obama “doctrine” if you will, about the power of the Executive to kill Americans.”

I agree completely. However, I believe the “slippery slope” argument that I have seen used in this thread is perhaps used merely to oppose an act that is morally though not legally correct. I do not at all accept the premise that the act is not “Constitutional.” If the “Constitutionality” of the assassination were argued before the Supreme Court (well it would never get there as it is a “political” not “constitutional” question) you can be damn sure that the act would be upheld by at least seven Justices (five if Bush were POTUS).

While rhetorically one can argue that killing Awlaki opens the door for killing Tea Party members, the better argument is pointing out the President's hypocrisy. Demonstrating he has a pattern of saying one thing but doing another; thereby, eroding his credibility, increases the likelihood that independents will continue to abandon him in favor of a credible (i.e. forthright) alternative. On-the-other-hand, one can also argue that in this instance, it demonstrates pragmatism. Politically, I can't see how it is possible to win by attacking the President for killing an enemy of the U.S. Criticizing the President for this looks like smarmy partisanship.

So, I guess my point is to applaud the death of a terrorist while asking the President to comment on the circumstances under which he approves of assassinating a U.S. born enemy and what proof was there that Awlaki met those standards. Then move on.

Paul’s very presence proves the power of modern psychiactive drugs ~ they keep him talking.

“At the very least, as you point out, Obama owes the country some sort of explanation, an articulation of an Obama “doctrine” if you will, about the power of the Executive to kill Americans.”

I agree. Pres Bush got legal opinions and articulated them before he acted - on Gitmo, on waterboarding.

There was plenty of time here. Awlaki was put on the hit list in 2010. That’s when the Obama position should have been articulated.

As Andrew McCarthy said, if the US government had taped Awlaki’s conversations, they would have had to go before a FISA court prior. To assassinate him their was no review.

Thank you, Nathan, for your kind compliments. Yes, I knew that this would be controversial, but I also hoped that it would make us think twice about all the power that we are allowing to be invested in the office of president, independent of the personalities involved.

The framers quite consciously created a divided government of checks and balances precisely to prevent the coalescence of legislative, executive, prosecutorial, and warmaking powers in one individual or even in one branch. If we have come to a place where the president of the United States can order the assassination of American citizens by merely invoking a label, "war" we are on the verge of abandoning the Constitution.

Excellent points! Yes, but the public today seem to regard that system of checks and balances as "government red tape". The Constitution gets defended in theory but not in practice and both the Left and Right want to treat it like a Chinese food menu.

We been slipping down the slippery slope so long that now, a president can declare war on his own without the requirement of Congressional approval, and no one utters a peep -- we just get the bill and a whole lot of propaganda about why "they deserve what they got". We've allowed a president to go off and attack another country without being forced to answer to Congress -- and not even the American people have a problem with it as long as it is under this vague, nebulous "War on Terror" title or the other equally nebulous "International Responsibility to Protect".

Now, we are also allowing a president to specifically target an American citizen for death, deny him any right to a defense and just kill him based on "guilt by association" and exercising his "freedom of speech". (There is no evidence that we've seen that Awlaki killed anyone -- other than preach against the US and hang out with bad guys.) And not only did he do it, Obama is bragging about it, expecting congratulations and even getting it from so called conservatives! God Help us!

Again, let me restate it -- I'm glad a bad guy like Awlaki got what he probably had coming -- if they had just killed him in a raid on the enemy camp, I'd have no problem with it. It's the fact that an American citizen was specifically targeted for death on nothing more than the president's word, with any defense due him denied, and then that president brags about how tough he is and refuses to even show us any evidence that would warrant such a unique action, that troubles me.

Given all the powers we allowing a president, why don't we just crown him "king" or "dictator' and get it over with? It's what most people on both sides of the aisle seem to want from a president -- and a presidential candidate

I remember a time when politicians and political commentators felt the need to question and defend certain principles like what Jake Tapper does here -- not just report the news that fit their personal agenda -- it was the norm, now it's the exception.

I remember a time when a Conservative ex-governor named Ronald Reagan shocked and stopped other Conservatives in their tracks as they were about to pass something called the Briggs Amendment that would have barred "homosexuals and their sympathizers" from teaching in California schools. Reagan was about to run for president, but he risked it all to defend against guilt by association and against using the word of children as a political weapon that could destroy someone's life. Right or wrong, that took guts -- something that people of the time admired him for. Today, we praise the gutless politicians who cater to our egos and tell us what we want to hear.

I remember a TV show with Buckley and Vidal in one of their arguments. Buckley defended a principle even though he openly admitted that he didn't live up to it. Of course, Vidal accused him of being "a hypocrite", but it was Buckley's response that stayed with me for the last 40+ years. Buckley said the equivalent of, "We, as people and as a country, need to strive to meet ideals and live by principles, even if we sometimes fail and get called hypocrites. Because if we don't at least try, we will never be better than we are and indeed risk being far worse than we are." I wasn't a Buckley fan at the time, but what he said stayed with me.

I share much of your opinion about Ron Paul even though I have published many replies dismissing him as a potential candidate on the basis of electability but not, certainly, because he lacks constitutional principle.

That's the rub. Ron Paul is eminently electable -- even ignored by the news media and trashed by the GOP -- he is still a top tier candidate that bests Obama in several polls. Even the aggregate polls put him in the top three in terms of electability. It's that the GOP elite rejects Ron Paul -- because they know that if he is elected, the games and horsetrading days and the bailouts are over -- which is why they will fight tooth and nail to shove any one of the others down our throats -- and Republicans, even Tea Partyers, will likely swallow. I honestly think that the GOP elite would rather deliberately lose an election and return Obama to office than support Ron Paul for president --and their unwitting and well manipulated supporters echo their sentiments.

The very reasons that the GOP hierarchy hates Ron Paul is the very reason that his supporters love him -- because he stands his ground on Constitutional principles, even when it's tough because he's alone out there, and he knows that his detractors are going to twist his position into what it's not. The guy actually puts himself on the line for Constitutional principles he's been consistently defending for the last 35 years. And, if anyone watches his predictions from 10 or 20 years ago on youtube, those principles and issues he's defended have proven to be correct over and over.

In 2008, the GOP backed pragmatism over principles and lost. Obama talked principles (his talk was cheap & his "principles" proved to be "flexible" & Marxist) and won. But once more, the GOP is likely going to offer the pragmatic candidate, hoping that the American people will be so disillusioned that they will have given up on "that stupid principles" thing. And the results will either be a devastating loss or a pyrrhic victory where Party will once again trump principles -- and America loses no matter what. That makes me very sad, Nathan, very sad.