It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I'm sorry. I misunderstood the issue was whether the government's decision to assassinate humans was justifiable. Morally not "legally". Sorry for the mixup. Thanks for posting.

gj




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


So what are the limits on that authority? Surely such decisions are subject to law in some way?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I could care less about the "rights" of people like him. Treason is an offense punishable by death. I say, take him out. Why risk giving him a chance to escape justice in front of one of our sympathetic liberal judges or jury. Where is the justice for the innocents that may be killed by men like this, either directly or indirectly.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Theoretically, all you need to do is to notify two people on the National Security Council, and then declare it classified, unless it's changed since '89.

IIRC, only about 30-50% of PDs are ever declassified. More than half never see the light of day. You want to train Uribe's best in counter-insurgency against Chavez, you dispatch people and equipment using a PD, and classify it.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lambs to lions
 


If he is guilty as charged he has brought this on his own head. Nevertheless, if the courts cannot be trusted, as you suggest, then that's an issue in itself that needs addressing.

The point is not to let the guilty go free — but to try those who are accused such that justice is done, and seen to be done.

Even Saddam Hussein was granted that (though the process was far from ideal)!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Are you saying there are no checks and balances? Who scrutinizes such decisions? Is there any legal input — or are such decisions ostensibly 'above the law'?!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
pauseforthought.... Pause For Thought. Your post brings us an important question and instructions for responding to it at the same time. I'm trying to do just that and concentrate on both the pause and the thought, but it's difficult with the background agitation caused by our strong belief systems and their impact on our rational process.

Pardon me if I missed the boat with this paraphrase of your initial question, but weren't you asking if citizens/the governed/human beings should expect this kind of treatment? Or it it was morally or even legally justified? The fact these things happen are inescapable, but humans have no obligation to perpetuate the practice IMO. It is highly understandable that many of those among us feel compelled to view the situation using the "reality" perspective. But as I said, I misunderstood the question to be what "should be" rather than what "is" followed by a detailed rationalization of "why" to express a preference for a particular view point.

My contribution is this: no human being should be compelled to express or support views that defy their fundamental humanity - so should we expect our sociopolitical institutions to oppress us: NO. Thanks for the post!

gj
edit gibberish elimination

[edit on 7-4-2010 by ganjoa]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Are you saying there are no checks and balances? Who scrutinizes such decisions? Is there any legal input — or are such decisions ostensibly 'above the law'?!


There's not much, no. It's pretty much the whim of the prez, you have to have the "advice and consent" of the NSC, but in practice, it only used to require two people.

EO's are a bit more scrutinized, but PDs are the wild west of presidential declarations.

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool" - Paul Begala



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


Notwithstanding the fact that this is a complex issue I thought the US Constitution was specifically designed to make arbitrary decision-making without recourse to the law impossible.

There are very high principles at stake here. And I agree it is well worth mulling them over carefully.



[edit on 7/4/10 by pause4thought]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Much more succintly put than my rant.


We can take the spirit of constitutional principles to heart and live our lives accordingly - but our tendency is to enable our institutions to control us.
I think we're on the same page, I may be trying to read it upside down or backwards.

gj



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join