As I have mentioned before, I was invited to join a fantasy football league by a friend of mine. He had no interest in me actually playing fantasy football. Instead, he wanted an ally for the message board for his various internet flame-war debates with all the liberals in the league (he’s a hard-core Republican). So far, most of the topics have revolved around economics, and despite minor differences he and I have been pretty much in alignment.
But now the topic has turned to civil liberties, and my friend now finds himself debating me. Specifically, the topic is the al-Awlaki killing, and I find myself in the rather bizarre position of having to convince someone that the US government really shouldn’t be able to kill US citizens without due process. Admittedly, I’m not very good at working blue or hurling the random ad-hominem attacks as is customary in our league, but I do make the attempt from time to time. Here’s the debate so far – I’ll leave it to the reader to determine which of us has the better argument.
Boulder Drunken Irish (my Republican friend)
You guys in this league, and it was everyone but me, completely freaked out when under Bush, Jose Padilla was detained indefinitely after he attempted to detonate a dirty bomb on U.S. soil. I believe your arguments were that Padilla's rights to due process were violated. Forget the fact this guy had valuable intel and by allowing him to lawyer up would have jeopardized our ability to obtain that intel. Anyway…
Fast forward a few years and your guy Obama is in office. Last week Obama targeted and killed American born Al Quida terrorist Al-Awlaki. Now keeping w/ the same standards you held GW to, this would be a perfect example on a much larger scale of an Americans right to due process being violated.
So I would expect the league to decry such behavior and demand congress to impeach Obama……
No, nothing…. awful quiet in here….
Now me being consistent in my views. I was in favor of how the government handled Padilla under Bush. Today I say bravo to Obama for giving the green light to smoking that mofo Al-Awlaki.
Interesting article here by Reuters detailing a secret panel used by Obama to approve the killing of American citizens. Rush Limbaugh better look out…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
You guys should be outraged… Outraged I Tell You!!!!
Your Mom Plays Fantasy (Liberal #1)
I'm all about detaining f***heads. Torture 'em with blowtorches, pliers and heavy metal. Your narrow minded views on everything has once again backfired on yourself. Because you think of me as a liberal or whatever you call them these days, you assumed that I would be against detaining Padilla forever. WRONG mijo!
Smoke 'em all.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Your Mom Plays Fantasy…
You’re amazing.
Bush does it badddddd.......
Obama does it gooddddd......
I took on the entire league regarding this subject and not once did you jump in and take sides w/ me. Now, like a good liberal you play the revisionist history card since like a typical liberal you were on the wrong side of history.
You’re a hack, like your junk science called global warning.
Your Mom Plays Fantasy
I don't recall the conversation, but if I was there and did not join your side, it was probably due to guilt by association. Meaning, you're a turd, and if I sided with you in front of all, then I'd smell like a turd. But I really don't remember ever discussing that...you turd.
California Sons of Liberty (Me)
Since I wasn't involved in the league during those earlier debates, I can't comment on what anyone here said at the time. I agree that the professional left in general has shown itself to be completely craven on this issue.There are some exceptions, such as Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, who has been consistent on civil liberties regardless of what party controls the White House, but most of what I've heard from the likes of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, etc. has been rank hypocrisy.
For example, on Hardball last Sunday Chris Matthews's only concern was how the al-Awlaki killing would help Obama next November. And he said that those who were concerned with the Constitutional issues were "out to lunch." So in his mind, it was wrong for Bush to wiretap Americans or indefinitely detain them without due process, but it is right for Obama to kill Americans without due process. Evidently the left is fine with a President who claims to be judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one (as long as he soaks the rich and nationalizes health care).
I'll be the first to admit that I have been inconsistent on this. I supported Bush's post-9/11 expansion of executive power at the time. I've since come to realize that I was wrong, and that the left (at the time) was correct to raise concerns over the erosion of civil liberties in this country. Despite Obama's hope and change rhetoric, he's shown on numerous occasions (warrantless wiretapping, Gitmo, TSA, etc.) that he is fully aligned with Bush-era policies in this area. And now the "Constitutional scholar" has taken it a step further by creating an American Star Chamber.
I realize conservatives are generally quite comfortable with untrammeled executive power as long as it can be tied to national security in any way. But the principle that a single person in the government (or a small group of anonymous government advisors) can mark Americans for death anywhere in the world without so much as charging them with a crime, much less proving the charges in a court of law, should be deeply troubling (even if the way that principle was implemented in this particular instance isn't).
(BTW, I'm off to China this weekend, so I probably won't be able to discuss this for a while).
Boulder Drunken Irish
Steve…
Let me get this straight, you are advocating giving terrorists access to civilian courts, the same terrorists who are at war with the United States. You are also advocating mirandizing terrorists, the same islamo facist pigs who at war w/ this country. When in the history of this nation, other than now under Obama, have we acted so irresponsibly?
Wow, since you joined that narrow minded religion that is Libertarian, you have lost your fricken mind. Liberal… Libertarian… you both have something in common, short term memory.
Now run off to China....
(I believe it's on....)
Lager Monsters (Left-leaning independent)
This is actually a pretty interesting topic. The reason is because of what constitutes "at war." In years leading up to and including World War II, it was quite clear with whom we were at war, since Congress (and therefore, the people of the United States) was the entity who could officially declare war.
The reason was that our country went to war with nation-states, not with people or shadowy organizations. As we all know, in times of war or "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety," it is possible that habeas corpus can be suspended. But how do we know where to draw that line?
This was why everyone questioned the Padilla case. What nation did Padilla represent? Under what nation's orders was he acting? Padilla didn't fit into the ready-made nation-state box that all of our laws were written around. Whatever his motivation, whatever his affiliation with al-Qaeda, basically he was just a dude who wanted to kill lots of people. If we can detain Padilla indefinitely without representation, the thinking went, why give any suspected murderer a lawyer? Just execute them. But by introducing Islamic terror into the equation, you can get away with it.
But we are at war with terror! We are at war with al-Qaeda! OK, but then how do we define "terror"? Who is in al-Qaeda, exactly? They don't exactly hand out passports like nations do. It would be like trying to determine who is in the Mafia.
Jose Padilla was obviously a danger to U.S. citizens. But so are a lot of other people. How do we determine who is eligible for representation and a fair trial and who is not?
I don't have the answers. For the last 10 years, as a nation, we have been trying to rewrite the rulebook. We're still working on it.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Lager Monsters...
A different kind of war means a different kind of rulebook. You can't compare conventional war w/ the war on terror. Terror is sponsored by many countries in and out of the Middle East. We can not go island (country) hopping as we did in the Pacific during WWII. Instead we need to strike where the threat is clear, present and real. Sometimes we may not know of the threat until days or even hours before the event happens. Therefore, to prevent the threat from happening, our intelligence agencies need to be creative and thinking outside the box. To treat this as a simple domestic police action and to be weighted down by bureaucracy would only hasten the threat to realization. We can not go back to the pre 9-11 mentality that allowed 9-11 to happen. As the 9-11 Commission pointed out, they were at war w/ us, we were not war w/ them.
Also, from the standpoint of constitutionality, it is my understanding that a time line for due process to occur has never been defined. Likewise, a speedy trial is not defined; correct me where I’m wrong. Padilla has since been granted access to lawyers and courts. So in my opinion, constitution upheld. Also, his relationship w/ Al Quida was established, he was not some random dude trying to kill people.
As for Anwar al-Awlaki, he gave up his constitutional rights when he moved to Yemen where he became a spiritual motivator for Al Quida and planned three terrorist attacks in the United States. It would have been irresponsible of Obama not to take out this threat, just as it was irresponsible for Clinton not taking out Osama when he had the chance back in 1996. We all know how that one ended…
California Sons of Liberty
You are advocating giving terrorists access to civilian courts, the same terrorists who are at war with the United States. You are also advocating mirandizing terrorists, the islamo facist [sic] pigs who at [sic] war w/ this country. When in the history of this nation, other than now under Obama, have we acted so irresponsibly?
Wow. One post and you’re already off topic. I offered no opinion on any of the items mentioned above. Your topic, if you recall, was about Obama’s extra-judicial killing of an American in direct violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Unlike you, I don’t actually trust Obama (or any government official for that matter) to manage my health insurance. I don’t trust Obama to manage government spending. I don’t trust Obama to make decisions about tax policy. I don’t trust Obama to “save or create jobs.” Hell, I wouldn’t trust Obama if he told me the sky was blue. So why would I trust him with the power of summary executions of American citizens? We all take it for granted that al-Awlaki was the evil guy he’s been made out to be (and for the record, I don’t doubt that he was). But the only things we think we know about al-Awlaki come to us from the guy who killed him. That’s hardly a legal standard that either small-government conservatives or civil libertarians are comfortable with – if they understand anything about the Constitution and why it was put into place, that is. Big-government types like you, on the other hand, can rest easy.
Sorry to jump back a bit – Lager Monsters, good points. Well said.
Lager Monsters
Boulder Drunken Irish, you and I feel much the same way. Your point of, "You can't compare conventional war w/ the war on terror" is absolutely spot-on and I agree 1,000%. My only issue is that when confronted with this new danger, it sometimes feels as though we are making up rules as we go along, which doesn't sit well with me, but at the same time, I understand that clear and present dangers to U.S. security have made it necessary to do so. Just don't ask me to be comfortable with it.
The "weight of bureaucracy," as you put it, is in many ways what makes the United States great. One person or one party (like the Communist Party in China) cannot go in and create drastic change overnight. The bureaucracy of Congress is intended to prevent this from happening. That was great in 1800 when threats were coming at you in a sailboat traveling across the Atlantic Ocean and you had the luxury of time. But we didn't go and completely rewrite the Constitution during the Cold War, which in my opinion, presented a threat of much greater widespread destruction than terrorism, and we should not do so now. But I get it -- a bureaucracy isn't much help in the face of terrorism.
Regarding Padilla, I was not trying to make the case that he was random. He definitely had ties to al-Qaeda and deserves what's coming to him, no question. My point was that in many ways, al-Qaeda itself is a pretty random organization in and of itself. Where is its headquarters? Does it have any rules or laws? Is there a regimented procedure for a person to become a member? I'm not a terrorism expert, but I'm guessing the answer to these all of these questions is no. That's the whole point of al-Qaeda -- it is a shadowly, loosely constructed organization with no center (not unlike the Mafia), which is what makes it so difficult to destroy.
Also, from the standpoint of constitutionality, it is my understanding that a time line for due process to occur has never been defined. Likewise, a speedy trial is not defined; correct me where I’m wrong. Padilla has since been granted access to lawyers and courts. So in my opinion, constitution upheld.
It is true that "due process" and "speedy trial" are not defined by the U.S. Constitution, but if you were arrested for a non-terrorist crime and held for three years without being formally charged of a crime, I don't think anyone would find that "speedy" or following "due process."
While a time-table for those phrases was never formally set by the Constitution, all you need to do is look at how those rules have been defined in the millions of cases that have been brought to court previously. Padilla was not treated the same way as others who have been arrested, nor was there a plan of what we were going to do with the guy at the time of his arrest. Yes, he got access to lawyers and courts, but only after the Supreme Court stepped in and said you have to charge him or let him go. This was the whole reason for the outcry. Obviously, Padilla also was not a run-of-the-mill criminal, which was what made the detention necessary.
But this gets back to my original point -- how do we determine who is eligible for due process, lawyer representation and a fair and speedy trial, and who is not? Should there be a separate set of laws for terrorist suspects? If you believe the answer is yes, OK -- let's talk about what those laws would be. If the answer is no, you really can't support the way either the Padilla or al-Awlaki cases were handled.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Lager Monsters…
No disagreement on all your points. However, I will never cry for some terrorist who gets a MOAB up his ass, regardless of constitutional rights. However, I do agree w/ your concern over a potential slippery slope. As for being in jail for three days, I’m married w/ 3 kids, I could use the vacation.
Steve…
First, I am not off topic. You stated the following…
But the principle that a single person in the government (or a small group of anonymous government advisors) can mark Americans for death anywhere in the world without so much as charging them with a crime, much less proving the charges in a court of law.
There are two key phrases in your quote, “charging them with a crime” and “proving the charges in a court of law.”
-Charging them with a crime:
If you’re charging terrorists w/ a crime and placing them under arrest, you would read them their Miranda Rights. So you are advocating mirandizing terrorists, correct?
-Proving the charges in a court of law:
Sounds like you are giving terrorists access to civilian courts. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Second, you wrote, “Big-government types like you, on the other hand, can rest easy.”
I'm not the one advocating big government here, it is you. Lighting up some terrorist w/ a hellfire missile deployed from an unmanned drone is what I call efficient government. You advocating Miranda Rights and access to civilian courts for terrorists is big government. Not the mention the fact in most cases you’ll need to mobilize the military to arrest these terrorists, again more big government.
My approach is simple and efficient and can be summed up in one acronym, WWJBD.
California Sons of Liberty
If you’re charging terrorists w/ a crime and placing them under arrest, you would read them their Miranda Rights. So you are advocating mirandizing terrorists, correct?
It depends. If an alleged terrorist is arrested on US soil, then yes, Miranda applies. If an alleged terrorist is captured by military forces on a foreign battlefield, then the military would have jurisdiction.
Proving the charges in a court of law: Sounds like you are giving terrorists access to civilian courts. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Same as above. The specific venue may vary, but the due process requirement remains.
I'm not the one advocating big government here, it is you. Lighting up some terrorist w/ a hellfire missile deployed from an unmanned drone is what I call efficient government. You advocating Miranda Rights and access to civilian courts for terrorists is big government. Not the mention the fact in most cases you’ll need to mobilize the military to arrest these terrorists, again more big government. My approach is simple and efficient and can be summed up in one acronym, WWJBD.
Incorrect. The term “big government” refers to more than just the size of the federal budget or the number of public sector workers. It also incorporates the degree of control government has over the lives of its citizens. Due process is the cornerstone of western jurisprudence, and is probably the single most important restraint on government power. By casting that constraint aside just because Bush or Obama point a finger at someone and shout “Terrorist!” you’re actually granting the government the power of life and death over its citizens – and government doesn’t get any bigger than that. Your approach is simple-minded and can be summed up in one phrase, “Totalitarian dictatorship.” This is not a slippery slope. This is a precipice.
Boulder Drunken Irish
By casting that constraint aside just because Bush or Obama point a finger at someone and shout “Terrorist!” you’re actually granting the government the power of life and death over its citizens – and government doesn’t get any bigger than that.
Steve…
Can you give me an example where this has happened or are you just suffering from libertarian paranoid schizophrenia? Padilla got due process since he has had his day in court. Anwar al-Awlaki was on the battle field and as you stated above, the military has jurisdiction.
WWJBD
California Sons of Liberty
An example of what? Of the US government singling out a citizen for summary execution? You started this thread with the example. Padilla eventually got due process only because of pressure from civil liberties groups – from people making the same arguments I’m making now. Al-Awlaki got none. He was not on the battlefield, he was in Yemen. Had he been killed while engaged in hostilities against the US military on a battlefield in Afghanistan then there would have been no controversy. The expectation on the battlefield is that the military will break sh** and kill people - not that they will check the nationality of every insurgent who's shooting at them before returning fire.
Off the battlefield, or whenever the government takes prisoners, the government has a burden of proof that may not be dispensed with simply because you wet your pants every time you hear the word “terrorist.” That someone is a terrorist is precisely the thing that the government must establish in a court of law (civilian or military, depending on the circumstances) by a preponderance of the evidence. The government cannot simply allege a US citizen is a terrorist and then bomb his house. (Well, I guess it can now). This is not designed to protect terrorists, by the way. This is designed to protect you and me from arbitrary government power.
But despite our difference of opinion on this, I really do get where you’re coming from. Now that you’re on the Obama bandwagon, you don’t want to let a crisis go to waste. That’s understandable, and I suppose you can be encouraged by the fact that Obama has now killed more people – Americans and foreigners alike – than any other Nobel Peace Prize winner.
We just want different things. I want to live in a constitutional republic where my fellow citizens and I are innocent until proven guilty. You want to live in a banana republic where everyone is considered guilty until carpet-bombed. If it helps, you’re more likely to get what you want than I am.
Lager Monsters
Damn! Advantage, Stephen Smith!
Boulder Drunken Irish, did you know there is a group of people who are U.S. citizens who were responsible for killing over 10,000 Americans (nearly 3X the number who died in the World Trade Center) in 2009? All of the deaths were completely preventable. It would be very easy to profile the individuals who comprise this group. Much like a terrorist, there is no discernible pattern to when or why they kill. They strike randomly and without warning and are a very real threat to every American's personal security.
Do you believe that, whenever possible, we should arrest this group of people and deny them due process, a speedy trial and legal representation?
Boulder Drunken Irish
Steve…
Yemen is most certainly a battlefield in the war on terror. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were planned from Yemen (and by Al Awlaki). Al Quida’s Arabian Peninsular division (AQAP) operates freely out of Yemen. Are you telling me that terrorists can now operate out of countries deemed by the libertarian party as safe heavens or non battlefields? What, are you guys now the ACLU for terrorists?
Al-Awlaki defected to Yemen and declared war on the U.S. He planed not one, not two, but three attacks on U.S. soil since 2009. Al Awlaki’s actions made him an enemy of the state. 0bama was acting entirely within his rights as the commander and chief to defend this nation from a foreign threat.
You wrote, “This is designed to protect you and me from arbitrary government power.”
Spare me the speech. Al Awlaki planned the failed Christmas day bombing of an airplane over Detroit (underwear bomber) and the attempted SUV bombing in Time Square. It was just dumb luck that those attacks weren’t successful. Next time we won't be so lucky. I may be on that plane or walking down that sidewalk. To take this threat out makes me safe, not your delicate sensibilities.
Lager Monsters…
Wow, you’re comparing the swine flu to 9-11. OK……
The swine flu strain called A-H1N1, which did the bulk of the damage in 2009, originates in pigs. Swine flu is also preventable. However, since you want to play this game, I’ll bite. To prevent swine flu we should round up all them pigs for slaughter. No big deal to me. “Pigs are filthy animals and I don’t eat pigs.”
You have anything productive to bring to this conversation?
Advantage me against all you biotches!!!!
WWJBD
California Sons of Liberty
Yemen is most certainly a battlefield in the war on terror.
No it isn’t. To accept “the entire planet is a battlefield” claim is to stretch the term beyond all meaning. There was no declaration of war against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force didn’t cover al-Awlaki (or Samir Khan, btw) because no one has claimed they had any connection to that attack.
Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were planned from Yemen (and by Al Awlaki).
That’s what your Dear Leader has claimed, and you continue to accept allegations as proven fact. As long as you do, we’re going to continue to talk past each other. It’s probably true in this case, of course, but no evidence was presented, no due process granted before he whacked al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on that list? Don’t know. What are the criteria for getting on that list? Don’t know. Where is the evidence? Don’t know.
Are you telling me that terrorists can now operate out of countries deemed by the libertarian party as safe heavens or non battlefields?
No one has said that suspected terrorists shouldn’t be pursued, stopped, punished. The only point of caution is that we not throw the Constitution out the window in the process.
Al-Awlaki defected to Yemen and declared war on the U.S. He planed not one, not two, but three attacks on U.S. soil since 2009.
That’s the allegation. Guilty until proven innocent (or summarily executed, whichever comes first).
Al Awlaki planned the failed Christmas day bombing of an airplane over Detroit (underwear bomber) and the attempted SUV bombing in Time Square.
So you’re willing to throw out centuries of western jurisprudence and the US Constitution over a guy who couldn’t even blow up his own crotch?
It was just dumb luck that those attacks weren’t successful. Next time we won't be so lucky. I may be on that plane or walking down that sidewalk. To take this threat out makes me safe, not your delicate sensibilities.
That’s basically the point of defending the Fifth and Sixth Amendments from these kinds of violations. Today the target is al-Awlaki, about whom no one cares. The next time we might not be so lucky. Because if we accept the premise you’re offering (the entire world is the battlefield, the executive branch can at its sole discretion kill anyone – including Americans - on that battlefield on nothing more than an allegation) then the lives of US citizens become subject to the whims of the federal government. You may trust Obama with that kind of power, but I don’t.
Your Mom Plays Fantasy
Do you guys ever spend time with your families? ****? This conversation is solving nothing. Talk some sh** about football!!!! Please, this is a football league. Lighten up.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Steve…
To accept your premise that we might… Might… be next, would require an Orwellian leap that I just don’t buy. I am not concerned because we still have the checks and balances in this country, as Lager Monsters stated above, that in my opinion will keep our elected officials in check. On that note, we still have elections. If you don’t like the fact that Obama used the powers provided to him under the constitution and greased some terrorist who happens to be an American living abroad, then vote him out.
Other reasons why I’m not concerned that the government will confuse me for a terrorist are as follows…
-I ain’t moving to Yemen to work for Al Quida (AQAP)
-I wasn’t the spiritual advisor to two of the 9-11 highjackers
-I don’t broadcast on-line to western Muslims encouraging Jihad against the U.S.
-I don’t have connections w/ or serve as the spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood Shooter, Underwear Bomber, and Time Square Bomber
-I haven’t been “accused” of training the Underwear Bomber
I think that’s it… oh wait, one more….
-I haven’t called for the murder of a U.S. Cartoonist simply because she drew a picture of Mohammed
Yeah, I think I’m pretty safe. I may drink and swear a lot, occasionally drive really fast, but other than that I have been a good guy. Therefore, I’m not afraid that Uncle O is coming to get me. We’ll, I am afraid he may be coming to get my money but other than that, I feel safe, especially w/ Al Awlaki six feet under…. or is he fish food like Osama?
One more thing... just because you can't convince me that I'm wrong, doesn't mean we are talking past each other. It means I don't buy what you're selling, hence a debate.
California Sons of Liberty
…we still have the checks and balances in this country…that in my opinion will keep our elected officials in check. ...If you don’t like the fact that Obama used the powers provided to him under the constitution and greased some terrorist who happens to be an American living abroad, then vote him out.
But you’re supporting the elimination of the single most fundamental check on our elected officials. Voting Obama out will do nothing to change the precedent that has been set, and that is what is most important. Plenty of people voted against Bush because of his stance on civil liberties, and what has it gotten them? A guy who took those abuses and expanded them. I don’t object to Obama using his powers under the Constitution. I object to him violating his oath to uphold the Constitution (not that he’s alone in that regard), as he obviously has in this case.
Other reasons why I’m not concerned that the government will confuse me for a terrorist are as follows…
I’m not worried I’ll be confused for a terrorist either. I’m concerned about how this precedent will be expanded over time by future administrations, and how the government’s burden of proof will be gradually eroded in other situations. That’s how government grows – incrementally and on the basis of precedent.
One more thing... just because you can't convince me that I'm wrong, doesn't mean we are talking past each other. It means I don't buy what you're selling, hence a debate.
Okay, good. Because for a while there it sounded like you couldn’t understand the distinction between allegation and proven fact.
But now the topic has turned to civil liberties, and my friend now finds himself debating me. Specifically, the topic is the al-Awlaki killing, and I find myself in the rather bizarre position of having to convince someone that the US government really shouldn’t be able to kill US citizens without due process. Admittedly, I’m not very good at working blue or hurling the random ad-hominem attacks as is customary in our league, but I do make the attempt from time to time. Here’s the debate so far – I’ll leave it to the reader to determine which of us has the better argument.
Boulder Drunken Irish (my Republican friend)
You guys in this league, and it was everyone but me, completely freaked out when under Bush, Jose Padilla was detained indefinitely after he attempted to detonate a dirty bomb on U.S. soil. I believe your arguments were that Padilla's rights to due process were violated. Forget the fact this guy had valuable intel and by allowing him to lawyer up would have jeopardized our ability to obtain that intel. Anyway…
Fast forward a few years and your guy Obama is in office. Last week Obama targeted and killed American born Al Quida terrorist Al-Awlaki. Now keeping w/ the same standards you held GW to, this would be a perfect example on a much larger scale of an Americans right to due process being violated.
So I would expect the league to decry such behavior and demand congress to impeach Obama……
No, nothing…. awful quiet in here….
Now me being consistent in my views. I was in favor of how the government handled Padilla under Bush. Today I say bravo to Obama for giving the green light to smoking that mofo Al-Awlaki.
Interesting article here by Reuters detailing a secret panel used by Obama to approve the killing of American citizens. Rush Limbaugh better look out…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
You guys should be outraged… Outraged I Tell You!!!!
Your Mom Plays Fantasy (Liberal #1)
I'm all about detaining f***heads. Torture 'em with blowtorches, pliers and heavy metal. Your narrow minded views on everything has once again backfired on yourself. Because you think of me as a liberal or whatever you call them these days, you assumed that I would be against detaining Padilla forever. WRONG mijo!
Smoke 'em all.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Your Mom Plays Fantasy…
You’re amazing.
Bush does it badddddd.......
Obama does it gooddddd......
I took on the entire league regarding this subject and not once did you jump in and take sides w/ me. Now, like a good liberal you play the revisionist history card since like a typical liberal you were on the wrong side of history.
You’re a hack, like your junk science called global warning.
Your Mom Plays Fantasy
I don't recall the conversation, but if I was there and did not join your side, it was probably due to guilt by association. Meaning, you're a turd, and if I sided with you in front of all, then I'd smell like a turd. But I really don't remember ever discussing that...you turd.
California Sons of Liberty (Me)
Since I wasn't involved in the league during those earlier debates, I can't comment on what anyone here said at the time. I agree that the professional left in general has shown itself to be completely craven on this issue.There are some exceptions, such as Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, who has been consistent on civil liberties regardless of what party controls the White House, but most of what I've heard from the likes of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, etc. has been rank hypocrisy.
For example, on Hardball last Sunday Chris Matthews's only concern was how the al-Awlaki killing would help Obama next November. And he said that those who were concerned with the Constitutional issues were "out to lunch." So in his mind, it was wrong for Bush to wiretap Americans or indefinitely detain them without due process, but it is right for Obama to kill Americans without due process. Evidently the left is fine with a President who claims to be judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one (as long as he soaks the rich and nationalizes health care).
I'll be the first to admit that I have been inconsistent on this. I supported Bush's post-9/11 expansion of executive power at the time. I've since come to realize that I was wrong, and that the left (at the time) was correct to raise concerns over the erosion of civil liberties in this country. Despite Obama's hope and change rhetoric, he's shown on numerous occasions (warrantless wiretapping, Gitmo, TSA, etc.) that he is fully aligned with Bush-era policies in this area. And now the "Constitutional scholar" has taken it a step further by creating an American Star Chamber.
I realize conservatives are generally quite comfortable with untrammeled executive power as long as it can be tied to national security in any way. But the principle that a single person in the government (or a small group of anonymous government advisors) can mark Americans for death anywhere in the world without so much as charging them with a crime, much less proving the charges in a court of law, should be deeply troubling (even if the way that principle was implemented in this particular instance isn't).
(BTW, I'm off to China this weekend, so I probably won't be able to discuss this for a while).
Boulder Drunken Irish
Steve…
Let me get this straight, you are advocating giving terrorists access to civilian courts, the same terrorists who are at war with the United States. You are also advocating mirandizing terrorists, the same islamo facist pigs who at war w/ this country. When in the history of this nation, other than now under Obama, have we acted so irresponsibly?
Wow, since you joined that narrow minded religion that is Libertarian, you have lost your fricken mind. Liberal… Libertarian… you both have something in common, short term memory.
Now run off to China....
(I believe it's on....)
Lager Monsters (Left-leaning independent)
This is actually a pretty interesting topic. The reason is because of what constitutes "at war." In years leading up to and including World War II, it was quite clear with whom we were at war, since Congress (and therefore, the people of the United States) was the entity who could officially declare war.
The reason was that our country went to war with nation-states, not with people or shadowy organizations. As we all know, in times of war or "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety," it is possible that habeas corpus can be suspended. But how do we know where to draw that line?
This was why everyone questioned the Padilla case. What nation did Padilla represent? Under what nation's orders was he acting? Padilla didn't fit into the ready-made nation-state box that all of our laws were written around. Whatever his motivation, whatever his affiliation with al-Qaeda, basically he was just a dude who wanted to kill lots of people. If we can detain Padilla indefinitely without representation, the thinking went, why give any suspected murderer a lawyer? Just execute them. But by introducing Islamic terror into the equation, you can get away with it.
But we are at war with terror! We are at war with al-Qaeda! OK, but then how do we define "terror"? Who is in al-Qaeda, exactly? They don't exactly hand out passports like nations do. It would be like trying to determine who is in the Mafia.
Jose Padilla was obviously a danger to U.S. citizens. But so are a lot of other people. How do we determine who is eligible for representation and a fair trial and who is not?
I don't have the answers. For the last 10 years, as a nation, we have been trying to rewrite the rulebook. We're still working on it.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Lager Monsters...
A different kind of war means a different kind of rulebook. You can't compare conventional war w/ the war on terror. Terror is sponsored by many countries in and out of the Middle East. We can not go island (country) hopping as we did in the Pacific during WWII. Instead we need to strike where the threat is clear, present and real. Sometimes we may not know of the threat until days or even hours before the event happens. Therefore, to prevent the threat from happening, our intelligence agencies need to be creative and thinking outside the box. To treat this as a simple domestic police action and to be weighted down by bureaucracy would only hasten the threat to realization. We can not go back to the pre 9-11 mentality that allowed 9-11 to happen. As the 9-11 Commission pointed out, they were at war w/ us, we were not war w/ them.
Also, from the standpoint of constitutionality, it is my understanding that a time line for due process to occur has never been defined. Likewise, a speedy trial is not defined; correct me where I’m wrong. Padilla has since been granted access to lawyers and courts. So in my opinion, constitution upheld. Also, his relationship w/ Al Quida was established, he was not some random dude trying to kill people.
As for Anwar al-Awlaki, he gave up his constitutional rights when he moved to Yemen where he became a spiritual motivator for Al Quida and planned three terrorist attacks in the United States. It would have been irresponsible of Obama not to take out this threat, just as it was irresponsible for Clinton not taking out Osama when he had the chance back in 1996. We all know how that one ended…
California Sons of Liberty
You are advocating giving terrorists access to civilian courts, the same terrorists who are at war with the United States. You are also advocating mirandizing terrorists, the islamo facist [sic] pigs who at [sic] war w/ this country. When in the history of this nation, other than now under Obama, have we acted so irresponsibly?
Wow. One post and you’re already off topic. I offered no opinion on any of the items mentioned above. Your topic, if you recall, was about Obama’s extra-judicial killing of an American in direct violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Unlike you, I don’t actually trust Obama (or any government official for that matter) to manage my health insurance. I don’t trust Obama to manage government spending. I don’t trust Obama to make decisions about tax policy. I don’t trust Obama to “save or create jobs.” Hell, I wouldn’t trust Obama if he told me the sky was blue. So why would I trust him with the power of summary executions of American citizens? We all take it for granted that al-Awlaki was the evil guy he’s been made out to be (and for the record, I don’t doubt that he was). But the only things we think we know about al-Awlaki come to us from the guy who killed him. That’s hardly a legal standard that either small-government conservatives or civil libertarians are comfortable with – if they understand anything about the Constitution and why it was put into place, that is. Big-government types like you, on the other hand, can rest easy.
Sorry to jump back a bit – Lager Monsters, good points. Well said.
Lager Monsters
Boulder Drunken Irish, you and I feel much the same way. Your point of, "You can't compare conventional war w/ the war on terror" is absolutely spot-on and I agree 1,000%. My only issue is that when confronted with this new danger, it sometimes feels as though we are making up rules as we go along, which doesn't sit well with me, but at the same time, I understand that clear and present dangers to U.S. security have made it necessary to do so. Just don't ask me to be comfortable with it.
The "weight of bureaucracy," as you put it, is in many ways what makes the United States great. One person or one party (like the Communist Party in China) cannot go in and create drastic change overnight. The bureaucracy of Congress is intended to prevent this from happening. That was great in 1800 when threats were coming at you in a sailboat traveling across the Atlantic Ocean and you had the luxury of time. But we didn't go and completely rewrite the Constitution during the Cold War, which in my opinion, presented a threat of much greater widespread destruction than terrorism, and we should not do so now. But I get it -- a bureaucracy isn't much help in the face of terrorism.
Regarding Padilla, I was not trying to make the case that he was random. He definitely had ties to al-Qaeda and deserves what's coming to him, no question. My point was that in many ways, al-Qaeda itself is a pretty random organization in and of itself. Where is its headquarters? Does it have any rules or laws? Is there a regimented procedure for a person to become a member? I'm not a terrorism expert, but I'm guessing the answer to these all of these questions is no. That's the whole point of al-Qaeda -- it is a shadowly, loosely constructed organization with no center (not unlike the Mafia), which is what makes it so difficult to destroy.
Also, from the standpoint of constitutionality, it is my understanding that a time line for due process to occur has never been defined. Likewise, a speedy trial is not defined; correct me where I’m wrong. Padilla has since been granted access to lawyers and courts. So in my opinion, constitution upheld.
It is true that "due process" and "speedy trial" are not defined by the U.S. Constitution, but if you were arrested for a non-terrorist crime and held for three years without being formally charged of a crime, I don't think anyone would find that "speedy" or following "due process."
While a time-table for those phrases was never formally set by the Constitution, all you need to do is look at how those rules have been defined in the millions of cases that have been brought to court previously. Padilla was not treated the same way as others who have been arrested, nor was there a plan of what we were going to do with the guy at the time of his arrest. Yes, he got access to lawyers and courts, but only after the Supreme Court stepped in and said you have to charge him or let him go. This was the whole reason for the outcry. Obviously, Padilla also was not a run-of-the-mill criminal, which was what made the detention necessary.
But this gets back to my original point -- how do we determine who is eligible for due process, lawyer representation and a fair and speedy trial, and who is not? Should there be a separate set of laws for terrorist suspects? If you believe the answer is yes, OK -- let's talk about what those laws would be. If the answer is no, you really can't support the way either the Padilla or al-Awlaki cases were handled.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Lager Monsters…
No disagreement on all your points. However, I will never cry for some terrorist who gets a MOAB up his ass, regardless of constitutional rights. However, I do agree w/ your concern over a potential slippery slope. As for being in jail for three days, I’m married w/ 3 kids, I could use the vacation.
Steve…
First, I am not off topic. You stated the following…
But the principle that a single person in the government (or a small group of anonymous government advisors) can mark Americans for death anywhere in the world without so much as charging them with a crime, much less proving the charges in a court of law.
There are two key phrases in your quote, “charging them with a crime” and “proving the charges in a court of law.”
-Charging them with a crime:
If you’re charging terrorists w/ a crime and placing them under arrest, you would read them their Miranda Rights. So you are advocating mirandizing terrorists, correct?
-Proving the charges in a court of law:
Sounds like you are giving terrorists access to civilian courts. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Second, you wrote, “Big-government types like you, on the other hand, can rest easy.”
I'm not the one advocating big government here, it is you. Lighting up some terrorist w/ a hellfire missile deployed from an unmanned drone is what I call efficient government. You advocating Miranda Rights and access to civilian courts for terrorists is big government. Not the mention the fact in most cases you’ll need to mobilize the military to arrest these terrorists, again more big government.
My approach is simple and efficient and can be summed up in one acronym, WWJBD.
California Sons of Liberty
If you’re charging terrorists w/ a crime and placing them under arrest, you would read them their Miranda Rights. So you are advocating mirandizing terrorists, correct?
It depends. If an alleged terrorist is arrested on US soil, then yes, Miranda applies. If an alleged terrorist is captured by military forces on a foreign battlefield, then the military would have jurisdiction.
Proving the charges in a court of law: Sounds like you are giving terrorists access to civilian courts. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Same as above. The specific venue may vary, but the due process requirement remains.
I'm not the one advocating big government here, it is you. Lighting up some terrorist w/ a hellfire missile deployed from an unmanned drone is what I call efficient government. You advocating Miranda Rights and access to civilian courts for terrorists is big government. Not the mention the fact in most cases you’ll need to mobilize the military to arrest these terrorists, again more big government. My approach is simple and efficient and can be summed up in one acronym, WWJBD.
Incorrect. The term “big government” refers to more than just the size of the federal budget or the number of public sector workers. It also incorporates the degree of control government has over the lives of its citizens. Due process is the cornerstone of western jurisprudence, and is probably the single most important restraint on government power. By casting that constraint aside just because Bush or Obama point a finger at someone and shout “Terrorist!” you’re actually granting the government the power of life and death over its citizens – and government doesn’t get any bigger than that. Your approach is simple-minded and can be summed up in one phrase, “Totalitarian dictatorship.” This is not a slippery slope. This is a precipice.
Boulder Drunken Irish
By casting that constraint aside just because Bush or Obama point a finger at someone and shout “Terrorist!” you’re actually granting the government the power of life and death over its citizens – and government doesn’t get any bigger than that.
Steve…
Can you give me an example where this has happened or are you just suffering from libertarian paranoid schizophrenia? Padilla got due process since he has had his day in court. Anwar al-Awlaki was on the battle field and as you stated above, the military has jurisdiction.
WWJBD
California Sons of Liberty
An example of what? Of the US government singling out a citizen for summary execution? You started this thread with the example. Padilla eventually got due process only because of pressure from civil liberties groups – from people making the same arguments I’m making now. Al-Awlaki got none. He was not on the battlefield, he was in Yemen. Had he been killed while engaged in hostilities against the US military on a battlefield in Afghanistan then there would have been no controversy. The expectation on the battlefield is that the military will break sh** and kill people - not that they will check the nationality of every insurgent who's shooting at them before returning fire.
Off the battlefield, or whenever the government takes prisoners, the government has a burden of proof that may not be dispensed with simply because you wet your pants every time you hear the word “terrorist.” That someone is a terrorist is precisely the thing that the government must establish in a court of law (civilian or military, depending on the circumstances) by a preponderance of the evidence. The government cannot simply allege a US citizen is a terrorist and then bomb his house. (Well, I guess it can now). This is not designed to protect terrorists, by the way. This is designed to protect you and me from arbitrary government power.
But despite our difference of opinion on this, I really do get where you’re coming from. Now that you’re on the Obama bandwagon, you don’t want to let a crisis go to waste. That’s understandable, and I suppose you can be encouraged by the fact that Obama has now killed more people – Americans and foreigners alike – than any other Nobel Peace Prize winner.
We just want different things. I want to live in a constitutional republic where my fellow citizens and I are innocent until proven guilty. You want to live in a banana republic where everyone is considered guilty until carpet-bombed. If it helps, you’re more likely to get what you want than I am.
Lager Monsters
Damn! Advantage, Stephen Smith!
Boulder Drunken Irish, did you know there is a group of people who are U.S. citizens who were responsible for killing over 10,000 Americans (nearly 3X the number who died in the World Trade Center) in 2009? All of the deaths were completely preventable. It would be very easy to profile the individuals who comprise this group. Much like a terrorist, there is no discernible pattern to when or why they kill. They strike randomly and without warning and are a very real threat to every American's personal security.
Do you believe that, whenever possible, we should arrest this group of people and deny them due process, a speedy trial and legal representation?
Boulder Drunken Irish
Steve…
Yemen is most certainly a battlefield in the war on terror. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were planned from Yemen (and by Al Awlaki). Al Quida’s Arabian Peninsular division (AQAP) operates freely out of Yemen. Are you telling me that terrorists can now operate out of countries deemed by the libertarian party as safe heavens or non battlefields? What, are you guys now the ACLU for terrorists?
Al-Awlaki defected to Yemen and declared war on the U.S. He planed not one, not two, but three attacks on U.S. soil since 2009. Al Awlaki’s actions made him an enemy of the state. 0bama was acting entirely within his rights as the commander and chief to defend this nation from a foreign threat.
You wrote, “This is designed to protect you and me from arbitrary government power.”
Spare me the speech. Al Awlaki planned the failed Christmas day bombing of an airplane over Detroit (underwear bomber) and the attempted SUV bombing in Time Square. It was just dumb luck that those attacks weren’t successful. Next time we won't be so lucky. I may be on that plane or walking down that sidewalk. To take this threat out makes me safe, not your delicate sensibilities.
Lager Monsters…
Wow, you’re comparing the swine flu to 9-11. OK……
The swine flu strain called A-H1N1, which did the bulk of the damage in 2009, originates in pigs. Swine flu is also preventable. However, since you want to play this game, I’ll bite. To prevent swine flu we should round up all them pigs for slaughter. No big deal to me. “Pigs are filthy animals and I don’t eat pigs.”
You have anything productive to bring to this conversation?
Advantage me against all you biotches!!!!
WWJBD
California Sons of Liberty
Yemen is most certainly a battlefield in the war on terror.
No it isn’t. To accept “the entire planet is a battlefield” claim is to stretch the term beyond all meaning. There was no declaration of war against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force didn’t cover al-Awlaki (or Samir Khan, btw) because no one has claimed they had any connection to that attack.
Terrorist attacks on the U.S. were planned from Yemen (and by Al Awlaki).
That’s what your Dear Leader has claimed, and you continue to accept allegations as proven fact. As long as you do, we’re going to continue to talk past each other. It’s probably true in this case, of course, but no evidence was presented, no due process granted before he whacked al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on that list? Don’t know. What are the criteria for getting on that list? Don’t know. Where is the evidence? Don’t know.
Are you telling me that terrorists can now operate out of countries deemed by the libertarian party as safe heavens or non battlefields?
No one has said that suspected terrorists shouldn’t be pursued, stopped, punished. The only point of caution is that we not throw the Constitution out the window in the process.
Al-Awlaki defected to Yemen and declared war on the U.S. He planed not one, not two, but three attacks on U.S. soil since 2009.
That’s the allegation. Guilty until proven innocent (or summarily executed, whichever comes first).
Al Awlaki planned the failed Christmas day bombing of an airplane over Detroit (underwear bomber) and the attempted SUV bombing in Time Square.
So you’re willing to throw out centuries of western jurisprudence and the US Constitution over a guy who couldn’t even blow up his own crotch?
It was just dumb luck that those attacks weren’t successful. Next time we won't be so lucky. I may be on that plane or walking down that sidewalk. To take this threat out makes me safe, not your delicate sensibilities.
That’s basically the point of defending the Fifth and Sixth Amendments from these kinds of violations. Today the target is al-Awlaki, about whom no one cares. The next time we might not be so lucky. Because if we accept the premise you’re offering (the entire world is the battlefield, the executive branch can at its sole discretion kill anyone – including Americans - on that battlefield on nothing more than an allegation) then the lives of US citizens become subject to the whims of the federal government. You may trust Obama with that kind of power, but I don’t.
Your Mom Plays Fantasy
Do you guys ever spend time with your families? ****? This conversation is solving nothing. Talk some sh** about football!!!! Please, this is a football league. Lighten up.
Boulder Drunken Irish
Steve…
To accept your premise that we might… Might… be next, would require an Orwellian leap that I just don’t buy. I am not concerned because we still have the checks and balances in this country, as Lager Monsters stated above, that in my opinion will keep our elected officials in check. On that note, we still have elections. If you don’t like the fact that Obama used the powers provided to him under the constitution and greased some terrorist who happens to be an American living abroad, then vote him out.
Other reasons why I’m not concerned that the government will confuse me for a terrorist are as follows…
-I ain’t moving to Yemen to work for Al Quida (AQAP)
-I wasn’t the spiritual advisor to two of the 9-11 highjackers
-I don’t broadcast on-line to western Muslims encouraging Jihad against the U.S.
-I don’t have connections w/ or serve as the spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood Shooter, Underwear Bomber, and Time Square Bomber
-I haven’t been “accused” of training the Underwear Bomber
I think that’s it… oh wait, one more….
-I haven’t called for the murder of a U.S. Cartoonist simply because she drew a picture of Mohammed
Yeah, I think I’m pretty safe. I may drink and swear a lot, occasionally drive really fast, but other than that I have been a good guy. Therefore, I’m not afraid that Uncle O is coming to get me. We’ll, I am afraid he may be coming to get my money but other than that, I feel safe, especially w/ Al Awlaki six feet under…. or is he fish food like Osama?
One more thing... just because you can't convince me that I'm wrong, doesn't mean we are talking past each other. It means I don't buy what you're selling, hence a debate.
California Sons of Liberty
…we still have the checks and balances in this country…that in my opinion will keep our elected officials in check. ...If you don’t like the fact that Obama used the powers provided to him under the constitution and greased some terrorist who happens to be an American living abroad, then vote him out.
But you’re supporting the elimination of the single most fundamental check on our elected officials. Voting Obama out will do nothing to change the precedent that has been set, and that is what is most important. Plenty of people voted against Bush because of his stance on civil liberties, and what has it gotten them? A guy who took those abuses and expanded them. I don’t object to Obama using his powers under the Constitution. I object to him violating his oath to uphold the Constitution (not that he’s alone in that regard), as he obviously has in this case.
Other reasons why I’m not concerned that the government will confuse me for a terrorist are as follows…
I’m not worried I’ll be confused for a terrorist either. I’m concerned about how this precedent will be expanded over time by future administrations, and how the government’s burden of proof will be gradually eroded in other situations. That’s how government grows – incrementally and on the basis of precedent.
One more thing... just because you can't convince me that I'm wrong, doesn't mean we are talking past each other. It means I don't buy what you're selling, hence a debate.
Okay, good. Because for a while there it sounded like you couldn’t understand the distinction between allegation and proven fact.
