Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Sep '11 18:33
    http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-condemns-killing-of-U-S-born-al-Qaida-2196545.php

    MANCHESTER, N.H. - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

    Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an "assassination." Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.

    Anwar al-Awlaki was considered one of the most influential al-Qaida operatives wanted by the United States. U.S. and Yemen officials say he was killed in a U.S. air strike targeting his convoy Friday morning.

    Paul made the comments to reporters after a campaign stop Friday at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. He said America's leaders must think hard about "assassinating American citizens without charges."


    If an American citizen joins the opposing forces in a war, what are we supposed to do, arrest him on the battlefield? Ron Paul, why don't you run to meet the enemy on the battlefield and shoot the non-citizens but put the cuffs on the American citizen waging war against us. Oh ya, Paul is too old and decrepid. Ron Paul will never be President.

    We are not talking labeling an American citizen a terrorist and then assasinating him on domestic soil or in US controlled territory. No, we are talking about bombing an enemy convoy on the battlefield and the US bombing killed an American citizen who had joined enemy forces. He had joined the enemy forces in a big way, I might add.
  2. 30 Sep '11 20:12
    Originally posted by moon1969
    http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-condemns-killing-of-U-S-born-al-Qaida-2196545.php

    [quote]MANCHESTER, N.H. - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

    Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anw ...[text shortened]... zen who had joined enemy forces. He had joined the enemy forces in a big way, I might add.
    I agree with you, he was fair game...Ron Paul is somewhat of a nut..
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Oct '11 03:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Ron-Paul-condemns-killing-of-U-S-born-al-Qaida-2196545.php

    [quote]MANCHESTER, N.H. - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

    Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anw zen who had joined enemy forces. He had joined the enemy forces in a big way, I might add.
    What "battlefield" was this person on? The Planet Earth?

    This isn't an attack on some "enemy convoy" where an American citizen happened to get killed. This is bombing run specifically targeting a person whom the US government has publicly accused of some misconduct BUT never charged with any criminal act (except a passport fraud indictment that was dismissed years ago). The idea that the US government can simply declare a citizen as a legitimate target to be killed by military action anywhere in the world should give anyone pause.

    Paul is right.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Oct '11 04:46 / 1 edit
    I am in agreement with the statement of the ACLU regarding this assassination:

    “We continue to believe that the targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in an interview Friday morning with Need to Know. “As we’ve seen today, it’s a program under which U.S. citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process and on the basis of standards and evidence that are secret.”


    The ACLU filed a lawsuit in July on behalf of Awlaki’s father, Nasser al-Awlaki, challenging the government’s authority to target American citizens for killing outside clearly defined battle zones, and without an imminent threat to the lives of American citizens. The ACLU accused the government of, among other things, disregarding the Fifth Amendment, which states that no American shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the organization has yet to decide whether to file a new court challenge.

    “The government’s power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent,” Jaffer told Need to Know. “It’s a profound mistake to invest any president with the unreviewable power to kill any American citizen who he deems to present a threat to the country.”

    Jaffer said the Obama administration had claimed broad war powers far beyond any granted to an American president in U.S. history, including in times of war. In the past, the authority to kill American citizens has been restricted to fixed geographical boundaries of conflict and to periods in which the U.S. was at war with a clearly defined enemy.

    “The authority the administration is claiming is not an authority that is limited to the battlefield. In their view, the battlefield is anywhere, therefore terrorists can be found anywhere,” Jaffer said. “That’s dangerous.”

    Jaffer also sharply criticized the administration for failing to live up to the expectations many civil liberties organizations had when Obama ran for president in 2008. Obama, Jaffer said, has continued many of the aggressive counter-terrorism policies embraced by the administration of George W. Bush, including the use of surveillance and other provisions of the “Patriot Act.”

    “It has certainly been surprising and disappointing to us that this administration has continued so many of the last administration’s most radical national security policies, including polices that many members of this administration criticized when they were in office,” Jaffer said.

    Jaffer also expressed frustration that many Americans who would otherwise be uncomfortable with such an aggressive use of military power in the hands of Bush, for example, are assuaged by the fact that the power is somehow “safe in the hands of President Obama.” The danger in that complacency, Jaffer said, is that, with the precedent set by President Obama, the power to target Americans for killing will likely be used — and possibly abused — by future presidents.

    “The administration is claiming war power all over the world, and the war power doesn’t distinguish between Americans and anyone else,” Jaffer said. “The fact that President Obama used the power today set the precedent that other presidents will invoke in the future.”

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/aclu-criticizes-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki-a-u-s-citizen-calling-it-a-dangerous-precedent/11813/
  5. 01 Oct '11 06:03
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I am in agreement with the statement of the ACLU regarding this assassination:

    “We continue to believe that the targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in an interview Friday morning with Need to Know. “As we’ve seen today, [b]it’s a program under which ...[text shortened]... aclu-criticizes-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki-a-u-s-citizen-calling-it-a-dangerous-precedent/11813/
    Jaffer said the Obama administration had claimed broad war powers far beyond any granted to an American president in U.S. history, including in times of war.


    Was the Obama administration operating on any war powers beyond those granted to the previous American president?
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Oct '11 06:23
    Originally posted by JS357
    Jaffer said the Obama administration had claimed broad war powers far beyond any granted to an American president in U.S. history, including in times of war.


    Was the Obama administration operating on any war powers beyond those granted to the previous American president?
    Yes. I know of no historical instance where the US specifically targeted and then killed one of its citizens in a non-war zone.
  7. 01 Oct '11 10:58
    I agree with Paul, although non-US citizens should be tried as well, not killed, preferably. There is something profoundly primitive about rejoicing over the death of a fellow human being.
  8. 01 Oct '11 13:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes. I know of no historical instance where the US specifically targeted and then killed one of its citizens in a non-war zone.
    Do you know of any historical instance where a US citizen was a ranking member of an enemy force we're at war with?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    01 Oct '11 14:08
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Do you know of any historical instance where a US citizen was a ranking member of an enemy force we're at war with?
    Well, a lot of people at www.freerepublic.com would say Obama is one instance.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Oct '11 14:09
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Do you know of any historical instance where a US citizen was a ranking member of an enemy force we're at war with?
    Al Capone? A "war" against organized crime is about as much on a legal war under IL as a "war" against AQ.
  11. 01 Oct '11 14:11
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I agree with Paul, although non-US citizens should be tried as well, not killed, preferably. There is something profoundly primitive about rejoicing over the death of a fellow human being.
    It's unrealistic to expect any country to "arrest" members of enemy forces they're at war with instead of killing them.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Oct '11 14:16
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    It's unrealistic to expect any country to "arrest" members of enemy forces they're at war with instead of killing them.
    Is it "realistic" to expect a country to bring charges against its citizens before killing them?
  13. 01 Oct '11 14:17
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Al Capone? A "war" against organized crime is about as much on a legal war under IL as a "war" against AQ.
    Great. Now enemy forces can just remove their uniforms and be downgraded to "organized crime" organization, tieing our hands.

    Maybe you can lead the strategic effort of traveling abroad to the most dangerous parts of the world and arrest your way to bringing down al-Qaeda.
  14. 01 Oct '11 14:18
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Is it "realistic" to expect a country to bring charges against its citizens before killing them?
    In 99.9999% of cases absolutely.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Oct '11 14:22
    A statement from a UN official last year:

    Statement of U.N. Special Rapporteur on U.S. Targeted Killings Without Due Process
    August 3, 2010
    Statement of Professor Philip Alston, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, NYU School of Law, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (2004-2010), and author of a report on targeted killings submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council in June 2010:

    The United States' assertion of an ever-expanding but ill-defined license to commit targeted killings against individuals around the globe, without accountability, does grave damage to the international legal frameworks designed to protect the right to life. Targeted killing -- defined as the intentional, premeditated, and deliberate use of lethal force, by a state or its agents acting under color of law, against a specific individual who is not in the perpetrator’s custody -- is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Targeted killing is usually legal only in armed conflict situations when used against combatants or fighters, or civilians who directly engage in combat-like activities, and international law requires that any state that uses targeted killing must demonstrate that its actions comply with the laws of war.

    To comply with its accountability obligations, the United States should disclose when and where it has authorized its forces, including the Central Intelligence Agency, to kill, the criteria for individuals who may be killed, how the U.S. Government ensures killings are legal, and what follow-up there is when civilians are illegally killed. Disclosure of these basic legal determinations is the very essence of accountability, but the United States has so far failed to meet this requirement. Instead, it has claimed a broad and novel theory that there is a 'law of 9/11' that enables it to legally use force in the territory of other States as part of its inherent right to self-defence on the basis that it is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and undefined ‘associated forces’. This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defence threatens to destroy the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the UN Charter, which is essential to the international rule of law. If other states were to claim the broad-based authority that the United States does, to kill people anywhere, anytime, the result would be chaos. The serious challenges posed by terrorism are undeniable, but the fact that enemies do not play by the rules does not mean that the U.S. Government can unilaterally re-interpret them or cast them aside. The credibility of the U.S. Government's claim that it has turned the page on previous wrongdoing and seeks to uphold the rule of law in its actions against alleged 'terrorists' is called into question by its targeted killing policy.

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/statement-un-special-rapporteur-us-targeted-killings-without-due-process


    The Chilean Secret Service blew up former Chilean Ambassador to the US Orlando Letelier in Washington, DC on September 21, 1976. If the Chilean government had claimed he was part of the international Communist conspiracy that was at "war" with Chile, would that have made the assassination legal under the same principle the Obama administration is espousing?