Posted on 07/09/2012 4:13:25 PM PDT by lbryce
In the August issue, Tom Junod examines an entirely new application of power on the part of the president — the targeted killing of individuals deemed to be threats to the country. So far, thousands have been killed, most prominent among them Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The decisions to target are made and the lethal missions are carried out without any public accountability, even when those targeted are Americans and even when, on one occasion, one of those Americans was a teenager. Over the course of this week, Junod considers five of the larger implications of his story on The Politics Blog. —Eds.
He was just a boy.
Let's start there. He was an American boy, born in America. Though he'd lived in Yemen since he was about seven, he was still an American citizen, which should have made it harder for the United States to kill him.
It didn't.
It should at the very least have made it necessary for the United States to say why it killed him.
It didn't.
His name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and he was 16 years old when he died — when he was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, by the light of the moon. He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also born in America, who was also an American citizen, and who was killed by drone two weeks before his son was, along with another American citizen named Samir Khan. Of course, both Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were, at the very least, traitors to their country — they had both gone to Yemen and taken up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Awlaki had proven himself an expert inciter of those with murderous designs against America and Americans:
(Excerpt) Read more at esquire.com ...
*********************************************
I don't think I equated you to anything, you took offense to my post.
As far as the rest...I don't trust our government. I want our government to stay within the constitution and I believe they are starting to push the envelope. That isn't pacifism, that is treating government with suspicion.
FBI Director Mueller unclear on targeted killing rule within the US
Senator Rand Paul: I am concerned about one person deciding the life or death of not only foreigners but U.S. citizens around the world. And the chance that one person could make a mistake, you know, is a possibility. So having the president decide who he's going to kill concerns me. I would rather it go through a court, and there are actually secret courts, the FISA court investigates intelligence information. And most of these decisions aren't made like this. They make the decision over weeks and months. They target people and go after them. I see no reason why there couldn't be some sort of court preceding, even a secret court preceding, to allow some protection. I mean even in the United States where we have the best due process probably in the world, we have probably executed people wrongfully for the death penalty. They have found out through DNA testing, many people on death row are there inaccurately. And even Republicans have pulled back their beliefs some on death penalty. So I think when we decide to kill someone, that's obviously the ultimate punishment. We need to be very, very certain that what we're doing is not in error.
“FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “three criteria” for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
Pressed by House lawmakers about a recent speech in which Holder described the legal justification for assassination, Mueller, who was attending a hearing on his agency’s budget, did not say without qualification that the three criteria could not be applied inside the U.S.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-have-to-check-with-holder-whether-targeted-killing-rule-is-outside-us/
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1496349721001/fbi-unclear-on-targeted-killing-rule-within-us/
Since its been my experience that at least 85% of Freepers totally ignore the procedural requirements for a Constitutional Declaration of War, the cheering for a blatant violation of the Right to Due Process probably shouldn't come as such a surprise. :-(
"Your" meaning? Really? You think "your" meaning is the defining meaning of the word "traitor" when we're speaking of a head of state's claim to the unchallengeable power to order a killing anywhere in the world?
Question: is a limited government with enumerated powers under a written Constitution a new or problematic concept for American conservatives?
What you're defending is what Barack Obama did --- that's what this thread is about, that's what you read at the top oif the thread --- and Barack Obama IS ... you know very well what he is.
A good man wouldn't want this power.
A bad man will never let it go.
Obama killed his own son?!
Yep. Dad was traitor; kid was a citizen “in name only.” Hate to say it to Obama, but “Good shootin’, Tex.”
I’m afraid that some FReepeers’ sense of right and wrong is basically what you could find in a madrassa.
I’m afraid that some FReepeers’ sense of right and wrong is basically what you could find in a madrassa.
If yiu trust no man with the power to deal with traitors then surrender now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.