It has begun

Our government has finally completed the first outright assassination of a US Citizen without any due process.

I’m not suggesting that al-Awlaki was not a bad guy who deserved to die, but he was a US Citizen, born here in the States, with all the protections & privileges that come with that distinction.  He may not have deserved due process, but we were obligated to do our best to give it to him.  It’s possible that had we tried, the end result would have been the same.  Had the SpecOps team sent after him been given orders to take him alive if at all possible for extradition back to the US, and he resisted with lethal force, the end result would be the same, but we could at least tell ourselves that, “Hey, we tried to give him a fair trial, he chose another path to justice.”

Nope, our government, under their own authority, bypassed all the checks & balances that are supposed to act counter to the abuse of power, and killed a US citizen outright, because they can, and because good, American citizens can’t, or refuse to see the danger inherent in the exercise of that power.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to It has begun

  1. Chris K says:

    Oh what do you know it’s not like you’re a Constitutional law professor or anything!

  2. RN says:

    On your passport it states several ways to lose your US citizenship. One of them is to volunteer for service in a foreign military, which seems pretty clear he did, even if it’s not a formally-recognized-state operated uniform service. I know a bill was submitted in congress a while back to formally revoke his citizenship (and if we can’t for him, who else could be!), though I do not know the final status of that.

    I’m not a lawyer, but effectively declaring war on our nation, and carrying out acts of war against both its uniformed services and its civilians would seem to render the whole citizenship thing moot, IMO.

  3. Phil says:

    Well, at least we know the feds never gave him money to buy weapons. If they had, none of us would have heard about the people he killed and attempted to kill.

    As it is, I couldn’t escape the news (except for momentary updates on the trial of Michael Jackson’s former doctor).

  4. Robb Allen says:

    Yeah, I gotta go with the “He renounced his citizenship” point of view.

    I’m not sure how you serve a warrant in this situation either.

  5. LibertyNews says:

    But did he actually renounce it? Do you really want to depend on .gov to make those decisions for us? I’d much rather err on the side of due process.

  6. Gerry N. says:

    Traitor. Actively engaged in hostilities to the U.S.A. Lost his citizenship due to that activity, becoming a legal target. Good riddance, shoulda snuffed the sonofabitch a long time ago.

  7. It’s no problem. A subset of Congress can just deem a bill to provide for the the loss of his citizenship, retroactive to before the missile strike. Then some intern for 0bama can carry the bill over to the auto-pen he uses to sign Christmas cards, and have the thing robo-signed in three seconds flat, no executive order or “signing statement” needed!

  8. Mad Rocket Scientist says:

    OK, he’s a traitor and gives aid & comfort to our enemy. Pretty sure there is a process that permits the State Department to ask a judge to review evidence and strip the guy of his citizenship (or something that involves persons outside of the Executive branch). Maybe the State Department can pull your citizenship on a whim (although I would not be comfortable with them having that power, I don’t trust State to be able to shit on a boot if I shoved it up their ass).

    Otherwise, he could have been publicly tried in-absentia, found guilty of treason, and condemned to death. At the very least, there would have been the appearance of due process, and the evidence against him made public. And if he wanted to appeal, he could have.

    But no, the executive branch wants to be able to just say, “Trust us, he was a bad guy. Of course we can prove it, but we can’t show you the evidence (top secret, doncha know).” How long before our government gets comfortable with that and just starts making “bad” people go away on a whim?

  9. Chris K says:

    Exactly, that MRS. That is what I find most disturbing. I don’t trust obama to make that decision.

    And I can’t believe the posters here who do. On this blog of all places.

  10. Mollbot says:

    I don’t trust any single person to make that decision – no matter to what political party they profess allegiance. That’s why we have 3 branches of government. Pity the current administration (and most of the others for the last couple decades) seems to think that doesn’t matter.

  11. Rivrdog says:

    We seem to have a “Purity of our Essence” thing going here (Dr. Strangelove). Everyone here is correct.

    Yes, he could be said to have not had his “due process” (although I define a Hellfire missile strike on a SUV as definitely a “due process”), and yes, he could have been said to have de facto, and maybe de jure given up those due process rights.

    End result is that he’s toast, and more importantly, so is his Web Master.

    Yes, it was a good day. Only bad thing was who got to crow about it.

  12. >At the very least, there would have been the appearance of due process..

    Ah yes, a kangaroo court. That would make me sleep better!

    Kidding aside, my point is that this is a particularly small canary that died in the coal mine of DC. We can stack ’em like cord wood next to the all the other dead birds.

    Jose Padilla is a citizen and was held for years as a material witness. Later, he was convicted of a wholly different crime. If they’re willing to spend the effort and taxpayer dollars to do it, it seems that they can pick up anyone they want and hold them for however long they wish. It now looks like they decided the sentence they did give him was “too lenient”.

    Held almost two years before seeing a lawyer? No fair or speedy trial? Still think we have a justice system?

  13. Chris says:

    standard mischief, no i do not.

  14. Kristopher says:

    He joined an organization that has declared war on the US, and became a military asset of AQ, and therefor a legitimate target.

    If he wanted to not get shot or blown up, there is a standard option available to all combatants to avoid this: Surrender. He can always walk up to the nearest representative of the US government, lay down his arms, and allow himself to be captured.

    If he had been executed in a POW camp without a proper treason trial, then you may have an issue. He was engaged in acts of war against the us, so yes, he can be shot or blown up if he fails to surrender.

Comments are closed.