Originally posted by Xcathdra
Using their same argument, Alawaki is in the same boat.
Well, it IS a different boat. The boat Alawaki was in was blown up. And that is the problem with this comparison. With Bush/Cheney, there are
accusations. It has yet to get to judicial review. With Awalaki, he was killed before anyone even knew his name.
When a person looks at you and says im going to kill you, you dont have to wait for that person to pull the gun and get a round off before you can
act. The intent was established when the comment was made, and is part of US law when it comes to justifiable defense and a justified
The US and the individual are different. You cannot, literally, point a gun at the US. What you CAN do it point thousands of ballistic missiles at
us. And we see how that was resolved: diplomacy. The shotgun diplomacy deployed by our presidents is nothing like that. What passes for diplomacy
now is a UAV loaded with a missile.
Awalaki was an individual. Individuals are brought to justice before being killed unless they are killed while being brought to justice. A UAV is
not an attemnpt to bring justice, but rather an attempt to subvert it by denying due process to another human being. On a side note, i vehemently
oppose the death penalty as well (due to Cameron Todd Willingham), but that is a different debate.
We are already there and the US is heading towards the slope. However, on the other side the system they use accepts the eye for an eye mentality.
When the rules that govern us dont account for that setup, we have a problem.
And what is this problem? That we have the moral dilemma of either having to concede some of the demands and develop diplomatic ties with the region,
and not the regions dictator/puppets, or we are going to have to stoop to a lower level and sacrifice our morals and ethics as a nation? Is that a
Character is what you do when no one is looking, it is often said. What then can be said about this behavior in full view of the entire world? We
presume to have "interests" in their lands, because their leaders that we have bought and paid for say we do. The people seem to disagree. As an
American, that means something to me. The People are the highest form of government. That is, if i try to view this objectively, away from the
influence of western media.
Because the argument people are using is that the attack on him was unconstitutional because he was a US citizen. My response was he can associate
with whomever he wants. In this case he chose a group is is actively at war with the US. Under US immigration laws, the moment he took that route, he
himself gave up his citizenship through his actions, which are spelled out and clear.
Ahh. and this may explain it.
My argument has nothing to do with citizenship. Ben Franklin once said, "Where there is liberty, there is my country." Besides me being a
nationless man, I also believe all humans have the same rights as us to due process. Citizenship is a moot point for me.
Being arrested in a foreign country for a crime committed in the US, and during that custody you talk to the foreign police, you cant claim that your
miranda rights were violated. If your going to plays stickball in brooiklynn, you better know the rules.
I would still assume habeus corpus and due process to be the rights of all humans. Awalaki received neither. No one even knew him before this.
No idea.. maybe they should act like cowards and hide behind civilian populations where they know full well any atack on them will result in civilian
casualties. I get what your saying, however it doesnt excuse terrorist tactics.
No, but it makes the US a terrorist organization, only with bigger and more expensive bombs. Would you accept the above logic if it were your family
that were innocent and killed in the line of reckless fire.
I agree however if a US citizen is going to cross over and take up arms against the United States, regardless if its for religious, personal,
terrorist, etc reasons, the fact remains they established their loyalty.
loyalty to humanity comes before loyalty to country. Violating rights is an atrocity of government.
As many many many people pointed out with calls to arrest Bush and Cheney.
Why is it ok to push action against those 2 and not alawaki?
Are Bush and Cheney still alive?
Then what is your point?