The Government Assassination of a kid from Denver.

reply to post by Indigo5

So, what alternative to the CIA/Pentagon would you suggest for identifying active terrorists? Or are you suggesting we do nothing about it when active plotters on foreign soil are identified? I am saying that the government should prove that someone is what they claim. Don't you get why I mentioned government oversight and the NSA? They seem to think that they can do whatever they want to, Constitution be damned.

How about having a trial in absentia, at the very least before an accused person is executed?

And just what are you saying, that blowing up buildings full of people is an acceptable way of identifying terrorists?

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, what alternative to the CIA/Pentagon would you suggest for identifying active terrorists? Or are you suggesting we do nothing about it when active plotters on foreign soil are identified? I am saying that the government should prove that someone is what they claim. Don't you get why I mentioned government oversight and the NSA? They seem to think that they can do whatever they want to, Constitution be damned.

How about having a trial in absentia, at the very least before an accused person is executed?

A) That effectively does not exist in the USA..

For more than 100 years, courts in the United States have held that, according to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant's right to appear in person at their trial, as a matter of due process, is protected under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

en.wikipedia.org...

B) If it was possible, what then after the lengthy trial? An arrest warrant???...and back to waiting for him to be apprehended by a foreign government.

These terrorists fall under the rules of war for a reason.

reply to post by Indigo5

but he was killed in error according to intelligence sources that have spoke about it

That might not be true, Obama's top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan seems to have doubts and a report was ordered to establish if it was deliberate or not, the outcome of that report is unknown one must assume it is also classified. It is also highly suspicious that 2 weeks after the death of his father he, himself is then killed by a drone, could very well be a coincidence but i doubt it.

He was thought to still be in the desert with his father

His father was killed by a JSOC (not CIA) drone just two weeks before his death so this assumption you have made is quite obviously wrong.

Don't know who the CIA thought they had in their sites, but from most accounts he was mistakenly targeted.

A interesting point that i committed from the OP was that Nasser Al-Awaki's (his grandfather) home where Abdualrahman lived at the time was under consent US electronic surveillance (most probably from the "Activity"). The Boy had called home a few times after the death of his father to make his intentions of heading back to the family home in Sana'a. It is indeed very possible that the Americans intercepted this information and then used it to track the boy down and then assassinate him. This however is not confirmed although we do know that the family home was under surveillance and it is possible that the Americans used this to track down the boy.

I cannot buy that they intentionally killed him. What would be the motivation? Therefore it seems likely that the accident scenario is plausible. Although all this could have been avoided if the military stayed within their bounds, and respected the Constitution and rule of law.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


All good points. In summary...there were doubts inside the Obama administration as to whether this was misidentification or intentional targeting. An investigation was conducted...but the results remain classified.

This is a side issue to the question of legality/constitutionality.

reply to post by Indigo5


Some fallback. A trial in absentia is viewed as unconstitutional because the accused can't face his accuser, but execution without a trial is acceptable?

reply to post by Indigo5


How does an air strike on the other side of the planet defend you or I?

If they can screw up the intelligence on who is in there, what makes us believe that any intelligence is correct (particularly in light of the Iraq WMD's and Benghazi)? This is peoples lives (and deaths)...so "close enough" doesn't work for me.

How do you know that the only person killed in the cafe strike was the target? The target wasn't even there, and over a year later we can't even get any kind of story that resembles factual truth. Do you really believe a hellfire missile exploded and only damaged a small circle around 1 human? The shop didn't suffer damage? People in the area were not terrified? Do you really believe we actually have surgical precision? I could seriously trot out reams of information that would prove that notion wholly absurd.

Does the intent behind the actions matter when the results are the same: a terrified populace?

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, what alternative to the CIA/Pentagon would you suggest for identifying active terrorists? Or are you suggesting we do nothing about it when active plotters on foreign soil are identified? I am saying that the government should prove that someone is what they claim. Don't you get why I mentioned government oversight and the NSA? They seem to think that they can do whatever they want to, Constitution be damned.

How about having a trial in absentia, at the very least before an accused person is executed?

And just what are you saying, that blowing up buildings full of people is an acceptable way of identifying terrorists?

edit on 1-11-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Even worse, "executed" means you send in a rather large explosive to strike out of nowhere. It isn't like we have a strictly controlled environment where a needle is inserted and the guy falls asleep (which is barbaric as well). This is an execution in the same way that Kim Jong Un executed that guy: set up up and obliterate him with an explosive missile.

Calling it an "execution" is absurd.

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Some fallback. A trial in absentia is viewed as unconstitutional because the accused can't face his accuser, but execution without a trial is acceptable?

Not my fallback, but legal reality.

Trial in Abstentia in the USA is only permitted in rare cases where someone has at least appeared in court and spoke on their own behalf, then fled justice etc.

Execution without trial, where apprehension would cost lives or otherwise be impossible, occurs on foreign battlefields on a regular basis.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Indigo5

 

How does an air strike on the other side of the planet defend you or I?

Terrorist X plots to explode a plane over LA, plans attacks on innocent Americans, tests explosives, coaches suicide bombers, inspires other terrorists, encourages and coaches folks like Major Nidal Hassan to open fire on his fellow soldiers...and that is just Anwar alWaliki...

Yes...it makes American's safer if they are stopped.

bigfatfurrytexan
If they can screw up the intelligence on who is in there, what makes us believe that any intelligence is correct

If they make a known error...then it must be assumed that they always make errors?

bigfatfurrytexan
How do you know that the only person killed in the cafe strike was the target? The target wasn't even there, and over a year later we can't even get any kind of story that resembles factual truth.

Googled around...when innocent civilians are killed in drone strikes it makes the news locally...more so because anti-American sentiments are ginned up. No other causalities were reported beyond the intended (although erroneous) target.

bigfatfurrytexan
Do you really believe a hellfire missile exploded and only damaged a small circle around 1 human? The shop didn't suffer damage?

I think your idea of "Café" might be a crowded starbucks? this was a remote outpost in Yemen. Likely a shack with a singular customer at the time.

bigfatfurrytexan
Does the intent behind the actions matter when the results are the same: a terrified populace?

Comparing impact zones and death tolls of a typical Drone Strike which can be and often is limited to s single vehicle to footprint and death toll of the Twin Towers?

Yes, intent translates to action and consequences...

There is a moral cost equation in which everyone from the President to CIA to drone operators wish they didn't have to calculate. There is exhaustive investigation and protocols where they vet targets and risk of collateral, innocent deaths. And YES, in any human endeavor and every war mistakes will be made. Whatever your ideology or opinion, those involved are not looking to kill civilians, they are looking to save American lives.

Indigo5

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Some fallback. A trial in absentia is viewed as unconstitutional because the accused can't face his accuser, but execution without a trial is acceptable?

Not my fallback, but legal reality.

Trial in Abstentia in the USA is only permitted in rare cases where someone has at least appeared in court and spoke on their own behalf, then fled justice etc.

Execution without trial, where apprehension would cost lives or otherwise be impossible, occurs on foreign battlefields on a regular basis.

edit on 1-11-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

I guess you missed my point, although I am not sure how.
Trial in absentia is seldom used because it is constitutionally unacceptable. We don't use it because it violates the Constitution. So does executing someone that has only been accused of a crime.

The Government's argument is that abiding by the Constitution is too difficult, so they will just do what they please. Pretty weak.

Do you like what the NSA has been doing?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Calling it an "execution" is absurd.

Agreed.
In that it is an extralegal operation, it is a murder.
The fact that is done to strike fear into other makes it terrorism.

butcherguy

Indigo5

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Some fallback. A trial in absentia is viewed as unconstitutional because the accused can't face his accuser, but execution without a trial is acceptable?

Not my fallback, but legal reality.

Trial in Abstentia in the USA is only permitted in rare cases where someone has at least appeared in court and spoke on their own behalf, then fled justice etc.

Execution without trial, where apprehension would cost lives or otherwise be impossible, occurs on foreign battlefields on a regular basis.

edit on 1-11-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

I guess you missed my point, although I am not sure how.
Trial in absentia is seldom used because it is constitutionally unacceptable. We don't use it because it violates the Constitution. So does executing someone that has only been accused of a crime.

The Government's argument is that abiding by the Constitution is too difficult, so they will just do what they please. Pretty weak.

Apparently you are missing my point as well? These targets are "EXTRA_JUDICIAL"...not within reach of our justice system, law enforcement and residing on foreign soil. They are actively involved in the planning and execution of attacks on Americans.

They are enemy combatants and fall under military rules of engagement and in that context are being afforded and extraordinary amount of consideration and vetting before being declared a target.

Do you like what the NSA has been doing?

Nope, but different topic...are we moving on to a derail?

Indigo5

butcherguy

Indigo5

butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Some fallback. A trial in absentia is viewed as unconstitutional because the accused can't face his accuser, but execution without a trial is acceptable?

Not my fallback, but legal reality.

Trial in Abstentia in the USA is only permitted in rare cases where someone has at least appeared in court and spoke on their own behalf, then fled justice etc.

Execution without trial, where apprehension would cost lives or otherwise be impossible, occurs on foreign battlefields on a regular basis.

edit on 1-11-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

I guess you missed my point, although I am not sure how.
Trial in absentia is seldom used because it is constitutionally unacceptable. We don't use it because it violates the Constitution. So does executing someone that has only been accused of a crime.

The Government's argument is that abiding by the Constitution is too difficult, so they will just do what they please. Pretty weak.

Apparently you are missing my point as well? These targets are "EXTRA_JUDICIAL"...not within reach of our justice system, law enforcement and residing on foreign soil. They are actively involved in the planning and execution of attacks on Americans.

They are enemy combatants and fall under military rules of engagement and in that context are being afforded and extraordinary amount of consideration and vetting before being declared a target.

Do you like what the NSA has been doing?

Nope, but different topic...are we moving on to a derail?

The question on the NSA is to point out another illegal act that is supposedly done with judicial oversight. You don't like it, so that means that you support terrorism and terrorists, according to your line of thinking. The NSA spies on us to fight terrorists, don't forget that.

Please figure this out... some bureaucrat making an accusation does not mean that an American citizen is guilty of a crime. That is why we have trials. Your plea that it is too difficult to prosecute accused persons and that they are outside the borders of the US doesn't make it right. It makes it a cop out.

Indigo5

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Indigo5

 

How does an air strike on the other side of the planet defend you or I?

Terrorist X plots to explode a plane over LA, plans attacks on innocent Americans, tests explosives, coaches suicide bombers, inspires other terrorists, encourages and coaches folks like Major Nidal Hassan to open fire on his fellow soldiers...and that is just Anwar alWaliki...

Yes...it makes American's safer if they are stopped.

Yet there was no proof presented that he did anything. All we have is the governments word for it. Do you really believe them? You do realize that they lie. All. The. Time. The US Government is one of the least credible sources of information on the planet.

If they make a known error...then it must be assumed that they always make errors?

When people get killed, yes. Those are real human beings that are really dying.

Googled around...when innocent civilians are killed in drone strikes it makes the news locally...more so because anti-American sentiments are ginned up. No other causalities were reported beyond the intended (although erroneous) target.

Right. Erroneous target. A 16 year old kid was murdered. What if that were your child?

I think your idea of "Café" might be a crowded starbucks? this was a remote outpost in Yemen. Likely a shack with a singular customer at the time.

I was thinking more along the lines of a small cafe with about 6 customers inside. Regardless, that cafe is someone's livelyhood.

Comparing impact zones and death tolls of a typical Drone Strike which can be and often is limited to s single vehicle to footprint and death toll of the Twin Towers?

I do not wish to compare to piles of sh#. They both smell, they both are sh#.

Yes, intent translates to action and consequences...

There is a moral cost equation in which everyone from the President to CIA to drone operators wish they didn't have to calculate. There is exhaustive investigation and protocols where they vet targets and risk of collateral, innocent deaths. And YES, in any human endeavor and every war mistakes will be made. Whatever your ideology or opinion, those involved are not looking to kill civilians, they are looking to save American lives.

I challenge someone in this world to prove what you say. When you look at the sheer numbers of drone strikes in the last 10 years.....i have to call BS.

Indigo5
Terrorist X plots to explode a plane over LA, plans attacks on innocent Americans, tests explosives, coaches suicide bombers, inspires other terrorists, encourages and coaches folks like Major Nidal Hassan to open fire on his fellow soldiers...and that is just Anwar alWaliki...

Yes...it makes American's safer if they are stopped.

how does applying a random hypothetical reach the conclusion this kid deserved what he got? Last I checked in America we base innocence or guilt on preponderance of evidence and reasonable doubt. There is no preponderance of evidence that this boy was such a threat to us that he needed a summary execution in lieu of due process. We don't go into Mexico and assassinate narco traffickers for which we have an actual trail of evidence tying them to crimes, we utilize appropriate channels and extradite them. We are a nation of laws and once we stop honoring our own laws then its already too late because we have become that which we rally against.

If they make a known error...then it must be assumed that they always make errors?

lets put some perspective on this... In Pakistan alone since 2004 we have killed upwards of 900 civilians, nearly 200 of them were children. That is not a mistake, its a pattern.

I think your idea of "Café" might be a crowded starbucks? this was a remote outpost in Yemen. Likely a shack with a singular customer at the time.

haven't travelled outside the states much have you? In the middle east, the cafe's are where many men gather to smoke hookah's and gossip like old ladies at bingo. Yemen is also world renowned for their coffee. The cafe's, even in small villages are literally the hub of the community. It's the one place people gather in fairly decent numbers outside of the mosque.

[Yes, intent translates to action and consequences...

There is a moral cost equation in which everyone from the President to CIA to drone operators wish they didn't have to calculate. There is exhaustive investigation and protocols where they vet targets and risk of collateral, innocent deaths. And YES, in any human endeavor and every war mistakes will be made. Whatever your ideology or opinion, those involved are not looking to kill civilians, they are looking to save American lives.

intent may translate to action, but nowhere has intent been demonstrated. How long have you been working for the DOJ? you express a similar discontent for the constitution when it doesn't agree with you as anyone who's been a lifer there. Rationalizing the death of children in the name of saving Americans is as baseball and apple pie as Dick Cheney shooting a judge in the face while bird hunting. And while members of our military may not actively be seeking to kill civilians, they don't run from the task either. Neither the POTUS nor the CIA give two flying f^(#$ about the decisions being calculated as they aren't actually making those calls. It's called plausible deniability and it's how they sleep at night by pretending they aren't involved. Sorry, but I for one am not willing to conflict my morals with the cost of childrens blood on my hands.

peter vlar

Indigo5
Terrorist X plots to explode a plane over LA, plans attacks on innocent Americans, tests explosives, coaches suicide bombers, inspires other terrorists, encourages and coaches folks like Major Nidal Hassan to open fire on his fellow soldiers...and that is just Anwar alWaliki...

Yes...it makes American's safer if they are stopped.

how does applying a random hypothetical reach the conclusion this kid deserved what he got?

Wasn't random or hypothetical, that is what has been declassified about Anwar al-Awaki.

I have never argued that his son, who was targeted erroneously, got what he deserved...he didn't. It was a mistake and a horrific one. Yes it needs to be investigated, and purportedly was, though the outcome of that investigation is still classified. My position is that mistakes do not invalidate the strategy of drone strikes, but rather in all wars, no matter how hard we try, mistakes will happen. They need to be accounted for, but the Drone program has merit in the battle we are fighting.

peter vlar
Last I checked in America we base innocence or guilt on preponderance of evidence and reasonable doubt.

And in war on foreign soil, "extra-judicial"...those standards are not applied for good reason.

If they make a known error...then it must be assumed that they always make errors?

peter vlar
lets put some perspective on this... In Pakistan alone since 2004 we have killed upwards of 900 civilians, nearly 200 of them were children. That is not a mistake, its a pattern.

I Appreciate numbers...can you provide a valid source?

reply to post by Indigo5


On the 1st point, fair enough. I was probably reading quickly and mixed up the 2 and assumed you were talking about the son.

As to the extrajudicial aspects because its a foreign country and we are at war... 1. they were American citizens. they hadn't been charged with a crime period let alone one that warrants a death sentence. 2. who have we declared war on? Yemen? These were American citizens, we extradite them and put them on trial, even if it's for show. We haven't declared war on anyone and per the Geneva convention what we did is a war crime.

Here are the sources I neglected to link previously regarding children and civilians killed in drone strikes-


www.policymic.com...

www.newrepublic.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

If we(the US) are going to be trotting the globe on a mission to export American exceptionalism and democracy it is then imperative that we lead by example. we can't just talk about being a nation of laws and of justice, a bastion of freedom where everyone gets a jury trial when we don't extend the inalienable rights given under the constitution to our own citizens out of convenience because they're overseas and don't have to deal with the media fallout because we can somehow link them to Muslim extremism.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


How would the U.S. know that that particular boy would be in that location at that time?

I think it's premature to conclude that the missile was aimed at one child only, and not a group of terrorists.

peter vlar
reply to post by Indigo5

 

As to the extrajudicial aspects because its a foreign country and we are at war...
1. they were American citizens. they hadn't been charged with a crime period let alone one that warrants a death sentence.
2. who have we declared war on? Yemen? These were American citizens, we extradite them and put them on trial, even if it's for show. We haven't declared war on anyone and per the Geneva convention what we did is a war crime.

1. Yes...There have been 3 American Citizens that have been specifically targeted and killed on foreign soil. The question is, should American Citizenship exclude them from being targeted? If on US Soil where they are legitimately within reach of our Law enforcement and judicial system...YES. On foreign soil where foreign governments do not recognize the US Legal System and where US Law Enforcement has no authority? Where local governments are either unwilling or incapable of apprehension? So Anwar-alWlaki counched the Christmas day bomber, worked with him on his suicide message. tested the explosives, planned the attack. He also coached Major Nidal Hassan who murdered 13 Americans and injured 30, he also devised/plotted/planned the bomb inside a printer being shipped...blow up the plane over a major US City. The US gov. managed to foil 2 of 3 of those plots. Major Nidal Hassan succeeded in his attack. How long do we allow it to continue without taking action? If a terrorist is proudly plotting to kill Americans and hiding in remote regions on foreign soil, shall we grant him immunity due to his technical American citizenship?

I say no.

peter vlar
Here are the sources I neglected to link previously regarding children and civilians killed in drone strikes-

www.policymic.com...

www.newrepublic.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you. I see a big picture evolution in our military policy.

WW2 - We indiscriminately bombed civilian populations in Japan with Nuclear Weapons.
Iraq wars 1 & 2, we exhaustively bombed and invaded and occupied.
Afghanistan, slightly less bombing, but still invasion and occupation.

Then we ask the question...If terrorists have no allegiance to any country or geography...how many countries will we invade and occupy...how many bombs? How many innocent civilians will we kill?

Drones and special forces limits civilian deaths and collateral damage more than any other tactic/strategy that any nation has ever employed.

We can choose to eliminate any action what-so-ever...but I believe that will make a second 9-11 more likely.

The counter argument is that drone strikes make a 2nd 9-11 more likely by inspiring hatred toward America.

What is that equation? I believe if done with as much precision and accuracy as possible, with targets limited (and errors in targeting limited) that if we take out folks we know to be planning attacks, it works out in our favor.

IF...we choose to afford technical American citizens immunity from targeting wherever they hide on the globe...do you not think that Al-Qaida will exploit this? There are certainly others beyond Anwar alAlwiki that have American citizenship through technicality.

I remember scud missiles flying through Baghdad...it seems horrible primitive now.

I wish no action was necessary, but as long as action is necessary, the drone program and spec ops is far, far, far more conservative than the last administration's policy of bombing and invasions.

If we(the US) are going to be trotting the globe on a mission to export American exceptionalism and democracy it is then imperative that we lead by example. we can't just talk about being a nation of laws and of justice, a bastion of freedom where everyone gets a jury trial when we don't extend the inalienable rights given under the constitution to our own citizens out of convenience because they're overseas and don't have to deal with the media fallout because we can somehow link them to Muslim extremism.