It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why not just change the constitution, In the UK we have no fixed constitution as such so our laws are so much more flexible when it comes to issues such as security.
The balance of security and liberty is always a fine balance to bring to a equilibrium but al-Awarki was a bad guy he was (allegedly) responsible for the proliferation of terrorism that lead to the deaths of innocents and as such should be naturalised to end this threat to defend the innocent. If it is not possible to capture him or if it is not possible to permanently put his operations to a end then assassinating him is the only option left, American citizen or not. It was the utilitarian choice some would argue.
Now I am not a big fan of liberal rights or however you like to label your ideology that lets you sleep at night but really this idea that assassination is always wrong is just not right.
The constitution should be changed, radically to allow more flexibility so that laws can be passed which allow the state to assassinate national security threats under specific circumstances yet ensure that only the right people are killed. How about a secret committee of senior legal and intelligence officials who advise the president who should be put on an assassination list and rip up EO1233 while you’re at it. As I understand it this is effectively what happened in the case of Al-Awlaki.
American views on security have to change or else more of you will die at the hands of terrorists.
So . . . who exactly do they mean by We the People of the United States? In your world, that would mean all the people of the world.
If I say we the people of Texas, I obviously mean people of Texas, which obviously excludes people of Massachusetts.
We the people of the United States excludes anyone not of the United States. Plain and simple dude.
Hey fair enough if you disagree with me it’s just a difference of opinion and that’s what makes this place grate.
Most of my views stem from my scepticism of having absolute human rights that work in society, I think they can limit a society and be regressive rather than progressive if they are not restricted.
In the case of Al-Alwarki his assassination is clearly unconstitutional and illegal under US law, but regardless I believe that the threat he posed or could potentially pose in the future justified his assassination therefore I don’t care how many of his human rights are breached or how many laws are broken a really bad guy is no longer a problem.
I can however completely understand and respect your difference of opinion.
PS: please restrain yourself from quoting Jefferson, it is somewhat of a cliché
Fundamentally I disagree with the classical liberal ideal’s of rights John Locke advocated, tell the people they have right to freedom of speech they will argue with each other, tell them they have the right to self defence they will all own guns and shoot each other and so on.
I believe these rights need to be restricted to control the nation to ensure the state can progress without restriction. This however is again only my opinion if yours is different then fine.
If you want to argue points of American jurisprudence then I apologise because as a Brit I do not know enough about it to have a meaningful debate about the legality of this assassination.
As I understand it the assassination was illegal, however I think that a law forbidding assassination in all circumstances is restrictive of the tools used to defend the state and therefore there should be a legal frame work that ensure assassinations of this nature can occur however safeguards must be in place.
If this were to require a change to the American constitution then so be it. I take the same view with other unsavoury yet necessary acts such as torture.
The post script was not implying that you did quote Jefferson rather that I was anticipating that you would quote Jefferson. No disrespect was intended.
Originally posted by followtheevidence
I posted this story on fb, other blogs, and have brought it to the attention of friends, family, etc. No one cares. Just jaw dropping. How can people tolerate such a blatant violation of our Constitution? I mean, no one even flinched when I shared this story. I'm totally and utterly perplexed.