Glenn Greenwald, Radical, Thinks Government Should Explain Why It Killed Somebody
Some people are getting upset that the antiwar crowd is focusing on the citizenship of Anwar Awlaki, so I won’t bring that up. (The reason is that before, during the Bush years, a lot of people shrugged off the trial-less waterboardings and detentions by saying, “They’re not citizens, so the Constitution doesn’t apply.” Whether or not that was true, clearly you can’t use that excuse for Awlaki.)
Anyway here is Glenn Greenwald (yes in a post that links back here):
The reason [Obama officials] do this is because they know it will work: as the Bush years proved, the American population is well-trained to screech Kill Him!! the minute the Government points to someone and utters the word “Terrorist“ (especially when that someone is brown with a Muslim-ish name, Muslim-ish clothes, and located in one of those Bad Muslim countries). If Our Government Leaders say that someone named “Anwar al-Awlaki” — who looks like this, went to a Bad Muslim-ish place like Yemen, and speaks ill of America — is a Bad Terrorist, then that settles that. It’s time to kill him. Given those “facts,” only a “civil libertarian absolutist” would think that things like “evidence” and “trials” are needed before accepting his guilt and justifying his state-sanctioned murder.
And how’s this for perspective?
[S]ome journalists and priests of the National Security State are now calling on the Obama administration to reveal the evidence proving Awlaki’s guilt; while that is certainly better than nothing, evidence presented in a one-sided manner that isn’t subject to review is the opposite of due process; even more so, the idea of executing a citizen and thereafter showing evidence of guilt is precisely what the Queen in Alice in Wonderland demanded when she decreed: ”Sentence first – verdict afterwards!” That we’re reduced to begging the government to at least comply with the standards of Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts is a potent an indicator of the depths to which we’ve fallen.
Wow – you’ve always been pushing me to read Greenwald, but I had no idea he was so condescending. Needless to say, that is not the sort of attitude I’ve heard from the people I’ve read and talked to who don’t have a problem with taking lethal action against al Qaeda members (I’m sure there are people who think like Greenwald describes… I just don’t think I generally talk to them).
Greenwald’s not going to get through to people who think like that. And for the large population of people like me who DON’T think like that, he’s not going to get through to us by acting like we’re all a bunch of war-mongering bigots.
I have never known a case where we need to hold trials and present evidence before killing an enemy during war. If we wanted to bring criminal or civil charges against al-Awlaki we could quite reasonably have done either of those things. Due process in that case would obviously require evidence and a trial. But since he also happens to be at war with us, simply engaging in that war is not a violation of due process, doesn’t require a trial, never has required a trial, and never will under the constitution of this republic.
You don’t need read Miranda rights to enemy soldiers. Nobody is worshiping the state or being anti-Muslim for noting this.
Daniel, do you realize that it’s not a crime to say things? We don’t know that AA was “at war with us,” unless you give a very broad definition of what that status means. We know he made videos. That isn’t the grounds for his execution, because (a) the Constitution specifically protects that speech and (b) the White House isn’t pointing at the videos and saying, “That’s why.”
No, the White House is saying they have secret evidence showing that this guy really was a terrorist, and that we are now safer because he’s dead. So…how do we know that’s true? What if he weren’t? If we are OK with them doing this to AA, what could possibly stop this or a future administration from simply killing political opponents, and saying afterward they had credible intel they were terrorists?
re: “Daniel, do you realize that it’s not a crime to say things?”
Of course. Is this a serious question you’re asking me? What’s even motivating this?
Read the rest of his comment and you’ll see what is motivating it. Absolutely zero evidence has been presented that the guy committed an act of terrorism. Yet you claim he was at war with us because the government said so? Or do you have some evidence that you would like to present to us?
Daniel Kuehn,
It is a serious question that Dr. Murphy is asking you,. He asks it because you write, “I have never known a case where we need to hold trials and present evidence before killing an enemy during war”
You declare him an enemy during “war” (lolz @ war, vs nonexistent army) For a guy whom the people who murdered him claim he was encouraging others to commit crimes. Not that he committed a crime, but rather his crime was simply urging others to do so. And the penalty for this is death without a trial. Without a trial. Without proving that any of the allegations are true. So yes, its a serious question. Law no longer exists when you accept the word of those doing the killing that the victim deserved it, as indisputable proof, and then proceed from there. WTF?
DK wrote:
Of course. Is this a serious question you’re asking me? What’s even motivating this?
Daniel, I’m not trying to be a jerk, but it’s clear throughout this debate that you don’t even understand what my (and GG’s, etc.) position is. That doesn’t mean we’re right and you’re wrong, but it means you aren’t even thinking through what the possible objections are.
GG and others are saying: The only thing we actually know that AA did, was make videos denouncing the US. As bad and as reprehensible as those videos may have been, they are protected under the First Amendment. You can’t even be arrested for them, let alone blown up.
So when you keep assuring as that AA is worse than a guy who just made videos, that he is “at war with us” etc., you are parroting what you have been told by the government. You personally don’t know that, because the government hasn’t deemed it necessary to share that info with us.
I understand your position – my point is it’s predicated on a non-sequitor. It would be like saying “we really had no right to collect military intelligence on, and target high ranking Nazis because the first Amendment lets Nazis march in Skokie”. In actuality, first amendment protections have nothing whatsoever to do with why we are targeting al Qaeda, just as they are completely irrelevant to the point of why we went to war with the Nazis.
I understand your argument – I think it’s a bad one. You are acting like this is a criminal or legal question, and you’re emphasizing one case that you know about because it made the news cycle despite the fact that we’ve been targeting al Qaeda and suspected al Qaeda for a decade.
Like I’ve said below – if you position is “I don’t want to take that risk of error and therefore I’m a pacifist”, then so be it. That’s a consistent position to take (I think it’s the wrong position to take, given the associated ethical problems). But you can’t talk about Skokie Illinois, 1977 as if it’s relevant to the ethical and legal questions surrounding Berlin, 1945.
The Nazi’s were formally at war with us. The terrorist aren’t necessarily at war with us. People have been complaining about assassinations off the battlefield for some time, as well as torture and indefinite detention of those people. The standard response was they weren’t citizens, and hence the constitution didn’t apply. Anwar Alawaki was a US citizen, and no evidence was presented that he was at war with the USA. That requires a formal deceleration or being in the battlefield. All other acts of citizens (including terrorist acts) are supposed to give the accused due process. You assume he was at war, something that is not even close to proved.
re: “If we are OK with them doing this to AA, what could possibly stop this or a future administration from simply killing political opponents, and saying afterward they had credible intel they were terrorists?”
You keep saying this as if “killing political opponents” could be justified by what’s happened here. This incident gives no more precedent for killing political opponents than any other attack carried out with the help of military intelligence in history.
But Daniel what if the President says they have secret evidence that showed the political opponent had committed an act of terrorism and was going to do it again?
What evidence do you have that the rest of us don’t that he was at war with us? I haven’t seen one shred of evidence that he committed an act of terrorism against anyone. So unless you can provide evidence then you are accepting that the government can claim you are a terrorist and assassinate you without presenting any case against you.
Dr. Murphy beat me to the punch.
Why is not surprising when a Big Government Keynesian supports killing people? Oh yeah… “war as stimulus”… “burn the crops and slaughter the livestock to drive up prices during a famine”… “Nevertheless the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”
The real surprising thing is I even continue comment in fora where people write shit like this.
I would just love it if you would comment on what evidence you have that this guy committed an act of terrorism.
I have not personally compiled a dossier on him.
I don’t think American soldiers in Afghanistan right now have evidence against the people they are shooting either – certainly none as complete as the various operations that the FBI has apparently tied al Awlaki to (again – they don’t share the details with me, so don’t ask me). If anything, al Awlaki’s case has been given much more due diligence than most al Qaeda members who have been killed.
If you want to be like Bob and say that risk is too great and you’re just going to be a pacifist, then that’s logically consistent – be my guest. I will hold my tongue on the many ethical concerns I have about that route.
But if you choose that logically consistent route – if you just don’t like the fact that this is how war is prosecuted – at least do me the favor of not insinuating that I or Obama are capitalizing on racism (as Greenwald does) or that we’re totalitarian, or any of the other crap I’ve heard far too much in the last couple days.
Oh and I’m not insinuating that you are racist. I just believe you trust the government to be honest and moral when laying out death sentences and that if the government says someone is a terrorist that is good enough for you.
I will insinuate that you are racist.
I know you’re not – but it’s in Greenwald and a lot of other critiques.
re: “I just believe you trust the government to be honest and moral when laying out death sentences”
You’ll be very glad to know then that I’ve never been of the opinion that we can trust government to be honest or moral.
So I said that pacifism is a logically consistent (albeit ethically problematic) way out of this.
I should clarify that I don’t think you can be logically consistent in opposing this al Awlaki situation without being a pacifist.
Are you a pacifist? If you’re not, then why are you making these demands about al Awlaki but not about anyone else in al Qaeda? I can only see two differences driving the attention: his citizenship and the news coverage.
Actually, I’d be interested in Glenn Greenwald’s response to that.
No I’m not a pacifist. Yes, I’m making this case about that for all so called Al Qaeda members. I don’t believe it is enough to just call someone a terrorist and then murder them without due process. I find it to be despicable and cowardly that we detain people with no chance to be released or ever have their day in court too.
I do find it amusing that you are bringing up logical consistency. For your position to be logically consistent that would mean that anyone The government declares a terrorist, whether they provide evidence or not, can be killed on the spot. If the government said Lew Rockwell was responsible for acts of terrorism and they had dossiers with the FBI that prove it but it is secret so we can’t show the evidence, then you wouldn’t be logically consistent if you opposed the government murdering him.
I don’t see how you can wage any war if you want this sort of evidence and trial for every single combatant we kill. It doesn’t make sense Dan.
re: “I find it to be despicable and cowardly that we detain people with no chance to be released or ever have their day in court too.”
This I agree on. As I’ve noted at several points – I don’t know all the legal niceties around combatants. But simple points about habeas corpus should not be controversial – particularly after Boumediene.
re: “If the government said Lew Rockwell was responsible for acts of terrorism and they had dossiers with the FBI that prove it but it is secret so we can’t show the evidence, then you wouldn’t be logically consistent if you opposed the government murdering him..”
This is absurd. If the military targets a non-combatant deliberately that’s flagrantly illegal. They ought to be tried. I don’t know why people keep making this argument.
“This is absurd. If the military targets a non-combatant deliberately that’s flagrantly illegal. They ought to be tried. I don’t know why people keep making this argument.”
This is the problem. We don’t know that AA is a combatant. The government tells us he is but we have not been presented with any proof. We haven’t seen even one single shred of evidence that he has done anything wrong. So you aren’t being consistent. The only difference between my example and the AA situation is that you classify AA as a combatant when there is no evidence that he is and you don’t classify Lew Rockwell a combatant when there is no evidence that he is.
I’m just calling you out. I am not a pacifist. Part of not being a pacifist is telling you that your ideology is at the very, very least borderline tyrannical.
Are you not yet old enough to have had that moment where you stopped to consider why you would presume it is okay for a government to murder its citizens without so much as a trial?
I didn’t find the article particularly condescending, at least not by comparison with the performance of the White House press secretary. Now, GG certainly makes fun of the administration’s arguments and Obama’s supporters but when one makes oneself an obvious and inviting target by, for example, claiming the right to execute without meeting some public evidentiary test (however minimal), one has to expect that sort of thing. I do appreciate however that the Left totally hates to be made fun of.
On the citizen vs non-citizen front, quite apart from what the Constitution says, I would have thought that, at some level, the US government owed a higher duty of some kind to citizens than non-citizens simply because a) the government is the agent of the citizens, b) otherwise, what’s the point of citizenship, and c) expat Americans must continue to pay tax because of all the wonderful advantages of US citizenship. Also, is there not an argument that the Bill of Rights applies only to the government when it is acting in those situations in which it has legitimate monopoly of force, i.e., in its own territory or territory it controls in war, recognizing of course that there may be other laws or conventions that prevent it from acting badly outside of its territory?
Well said. That’s been my take on it as well. I am conflicted, though. Because, let’s face it. The government isn’t wrong all the time. AA was most likely a murderous jihadist POS and his death doesn’t really bother me at all. BUT the lack of due process for an American citizen is very troubling. As Bob anfd others have said, it would be nice if the government could share their proof of his wrongdoings.
I’ve gotta say – I’m surprised someone who came to the defense of DiLorenzo on the Lincoln thing against bad-mouthing like this is willing to indulge Greenwald for doing the exact same thing that critics of DiLorenzo did.
What is the difference between what Greenwald is doing here and what Milbank did to DiLorenzo?
So does China have the right to use drone attacks on Chinese citizens in the US if they declare him a terrorist? Or is our government the only one that has this kind of power?
To Daniel Kuehn and other statists/authoritarians/Keynesians,
Here’s a hypothetical example:
Some guy in Nigeria, Amadi, starts making youtube videos urging Americans to stop paying their taxes and saying their taxes pay for wars that kill non-white people in lands that resist the empires rule and financial forced IMF loans. The youtube videos get millions of hits.
President Obama enlists some rags to agitate for action. The NYT and the Washington Post comply and write that this guy is causing Americans to lose jobs and that he is prolonging the recession.
President Obama then declares Amadi a terrorist, based on secret evidence, and orders his execution. He decides to “drone” him and invites his buddy George W. Bush to push the ceremonial “drone” button with him that will fire the missile killing Amadi.
Now do you think that President Obama would be justified in this hypothetical example?
Don’t preface a question you expect me to respond to with “statist/authoritarian”. I’m not even reading past your first sentence.
I apologize I specifically addressed it you even though you do take the statist/authoritarian position on the matter.
Wow. Never thought that DK and R. Limbough would agree on such a topic.
Whoever is declared a Terrorist (“proved” by secret evidence) can justifiably be killed wherever he is. I really would love to see the reactions if this had happened under Bush (Not that I think that Limbough would react differently).
Makes one really really uneasy if you know how easy you can become e.g. a “domestic terrorist” these days. And Daniel would shrug it off like its nothing?
“ “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a
unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in
announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities
do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a
clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” ”
And for the cold calculator who might think that even if the murder of Awlaki was morally questionable it was still the right thing to do:
He leaves behind a wife and 3 children. So you know what you gonna have to do in a few years…
I’ve never, ever suggested that simply the president’s say-so makes this right. This is a position I’ve been expected to justify, but it’s never one I’ve held.
re: “And Daniel would shrug it off like its nothing?”
I don’t shrug off war like it’s nothing – don’t make presumptions about things you clearly have no insight into.
“I’ve never, ever suggested that simply the president’s say-so makes this right. This is a position I’ve been expected to justify, but it’s never one I’ve held.”
It is not about the President alone. How does someone become a declared Terrorist? How is the actual process?
“I don’t shrug off war like it’s nothing – don’t make presumptions about things you clearly have no insight into.”
I didn’t say you shrug off war! I am saying you are shrugging off the way the government determines who is a Terrorist!
You seem to be conflating two things. We don’t – as far as I know – just have a kill order on terrorists. We have a unique relationship with al Qaeda and their affiliates – namely the Congress has authorized the use of military force against them. You ask about how one can “become a declared terrorist” but then you also seem to be asking about the kill order. The kill order is inextricably tied to the grounds for issuing the order – whether we’re at war with the terrorist organization of interest is essential information. If you don’t want people to be confused about whether you’re talking about actions during war or just about identifying terrorists you need to separate out exactly what you’re talking about.
Either way – I don’t “shrug off” anything about this, and I don’t think I’ve given anyone any reason to make that accusation.
It is about both of course. They are closely related, don’t you think? Precisely the approval of congress that military force can be used against al Qaida makes it so delicate. It is one thing to kill someone who fights you in combat, and another to do targeted killings. This approval does not give a free license to either declare anyone a terrorist or kill any person without due process who is not attacking you on a battle field currently, but sitting somewhere sipping tea. The question is who you mean by “them”. If you don’t define that and have now publicly disclosed process, it is nothing more than an arbitrary license to kill.
It is quite easy: No due process = no rule of law!
“have now publicly disclosed process”
should read:
“have no publicly disclosed process”
of course..
Why are you saying it’s “arbitrary”? I don’t understand that. Obviously a brazen commander in chief could behave arbitrarily, and such a commander in chief is likely to grasp at anything remotely resembling a precedent. But that’s very different from saying that the policy itself is an arbitrary license to kill. You, Bob, and others keep acting like you’ve explained the basis of this “arbitrary license to kill point”, when you haven’t. What is the logic there?
re: “It is quite easy: No due process = no rule of law!”
I agree completely!
Do you really believe the killing of Awlaki was done according to the rule of law?
Do you really believe the prisoners in Guantanamo are kept there according to the rule of law?
Do you really believe the waterboarding stuff was/is done according to the rule of law?
If yes where is the due process? How is it done?
re: “Do you really believe the killing of Awlaki was done according to the rule of law?”
As far as I can tell, yes.
re: “Do you really believe the prisoners in Guantanamo are kept there according to the rule of law?”
I’m not up to date on this. Certainly they weren’t kept according to the rule of law before. I’m not sure whether the court rulings are being implemented or not right now. As long as the rule of law is being followed, I have no problem with running a military prison on a Cuban beach (ie – as logn as the rule of law is followed I don’t feel any need to “close Guantanamo”).
re: “Do you really believe the waterboarding stuff was/is done according to the rule of law?”
Absolutely not. What could have possibly lead you to even ask that?
According to the dictionary, the 4th definition of aribtrary is: “Not limited by law; despotic”
So you agree that our institutions that you trust are capable of dispensing with the rule of law if they think it is necessary (Guantanamor, Waterboarding..). If this isn’t per definition arbitrary, I don’t know what is.
Daniel,
Suppose next week Obama says “Daniel Kuehn is a member of al Qaeda and is now on the order to capture or kill.” You go into hiding since you don’t want to die (reasonable enough). Your parents freak out and ask the government what steps they can take to get you off the list. The government tells them there are no such steps.
How is that not an arbitrary license to kill people? You seem to be relying on a premise, “Well sure, the government could kill anybody it wanted, but only if they were willing to lie. And I’m not prepared to believe that just yet.”
Well, it would be arbitrary killing (if they were successful). They wouldn’t have any license to do it.
I don’t know why you’re so impressed with this line of argument, Bob.
Enemy soldiers get targeted for death in any war. It makes zero sense to say “X soldier was shot in this war and they didn’t even produce any evidence he was a real enemy, therefore the president is giving himself a license to kill anyone”. Making an argument like this in the first place is one thing. The fact that you are making it over and over again baffles me.
Look, my grandad was one of the first JAG officers on the ground at My Lai and he was involved in the entire prosecution effort. That was all “government information” he collected on the massacre. All the evidence brought in that case was collected by government prosecutors. Human beings are not perfect. If human beings associated with a military effort commit crimes, they need to be brought to justice for it and we need to maintain an infrastructure for bringing them to justice. We have such an infrastructure, Bob, and you know we have one. If Obama is guilty, impeach him, prosecute him, court martial him. Yes the government holds the evidence. They held the evidence in My Lai too. They held the evidence in Abu Gharib. Stop acting like this means an open season on American citizens. If Obama declares me a member of al Qaeda and targets me for death that would be illegal. I hope he would get tried and punished for that. I expect he would be. But there is nothing about the targeting of an enemy soldier that legitimates that anymore than any targeting of any enemy soldier in history has ever legitimated that.
*siiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*
This is why it’s so hard to have a reasonable conversation with Daniel_Kuehn; such conversations are predicated on some minimum level of intellectual honesty between both parties.
That tends to get undermined when someone starts venturing into such ingenuious reasoning as, “Yeah, they can put *that* American on a death list because they say he’s an al-Qaeda terrorist, but it would be totally wrong to do it to *me*, OBVIOUSLY.”
*smacking forehead*
BTW in case people don’t get the reference, AA’s parents have been trying for about a year (I think?) to get him off the capture-or-kill list, I believe with the help of the ACLU. There was nothing they could do. That’s partly what makes this such a Kafka-esque situation. It’s not like a Marine in Afghanistan had a guy driving a truck bomb at him and had to think fast. The government has said for a long time that it was trying to kill this guy, and there are no legal procedures to challenge their decision.
Bob,
US Presidents have the authority to give the ol’ pollice verso as they see fit. It’s not arbitrary, its the law. /sarcasm.
DK wrote:
This is absurd. If the military targets a non-combatant deliberately that’s flagrantly illegal. They ought to be tried. I don’t know why people keep making this argument.
Daniel, suppose the military just does this. Suppose they declare someone on the list of Al Qaeda operatives who actually hasn’t ever done anything except attend rallies by anti-American clerics and post comments on websites that he hates the US.
Then he gets blown up by a drone.
Now what steps could be taken to try the US officials for this action, that you agree is illegal? Any legal challenge will be met with, “We have secret information that we can’t share with you, because it would compromise the safety of our informants over in Yemen” or whatever.
So that’s why we keep making this argument. The fact that you don’t even understand why we are making it, surprises me. You can say, “Sure I get what you’re saying, but it’s outweighed by the possibility that the guy IS a terrorist, and we need to stop him.” But you’re acting like there is no tradeoff (yet) implicit in your position.
Try them. I’ve said this multiple times and yet you pretend like I haven’t answered this. In the case of the president, of course we can also impeach him.
If you’re concerned that we’re not going to release military intelligence in a public hearing, I’m not sure what to say. Sorry.
re: “The fact that you don’t even understand why we are making it, surprises me.”
And the fact that you think I don’t understand disappoints me.
Cool, I must have missed your post advocating Obama’s impeachment for having a US Citizen killed without trial due to his anti-American speech. That’s probably because you don’t actually advocate that, and are just arguing in circles because a painfully inconsistent position, though, so fair ‘nough.
Silas wrote:
Cool, I must have missed your post advocating Obama’s impeachment for having a US Citizen killed without trial due to his anti-American speech.
Although Silas’ sarcasm is beyond what I would have written, Daniel I have to agree with his sentiments here. Daniel you seem to be saying, “Don’t worry guys, I’m watching this carefully, and believe you me, I’ll raise holy hell when there’s skullduggery afoot.”
And we’re saying: They just killed somebody and claimed that they don’t even have to justify it to us. So the problem is now. Yes, Congress could impeach him, and they should. So I am not going to vote for any incumbent for this reason (among others).
Try it this way Daniel: Suppose you heard somebody say, “There’s no ‘police state’ in North Korea. I don’t know what the heck people are talking about. If the Dear Leader did something improper, the victim’s family would just call the local police and report the crime. That would stop Kim Jong Il in his tracks.” We can agree that that would be absurd, right?
So by the same token–though of course it’s much less extreme–you telling me that we can try Obama if he kills an innocent person, strikes me as absurd. Bush and Cheney invaded a country based on fabricated evidence. What happened to them?
Where you come down on this has a lot to do with your identity-relationship with the government. If you fundamentally trust the government, and you think the government represents your interests, then I can see why there was nothing morally problematic with “taking out the bad guy”, regardless of his citizenship. It is the moral equivalent of the leader of the household shooting a home intruder (even a fellow citizen) dead to protect his family.
If you are fundamentally suspicious of government, and don’t think the government represents your interests, then what just happened is the end of the rule of law. Government doesn’t even to justify to anyone it’s actions anymore. If it can kill anyone (even its own citizens), there is nothing it can’t do. It is the moral equivalent of an outside armed intruder entering your house and executing a member of your family without explanation.
This is explains why during the Bush II era, the “torture memos” were roundly criticized by the anti-war left because they simply did not identify with the Bush II government. Similarly the pro-war national defense crowd became perfectly comfortable with torture because their guy was in charge. But now, if you like Obama and think he is your guy, then anything done in the name of national security is A-OK.
Daniel,
this is talking past each other. Bob says: “Any legal challenge will be met with, “We have secret information that we can’t share with you, because it would compromise the safety of our informants over in Yemen” or whatever.”
Imagine you see a headline: “Stan Kwiatkowski, tied to terrorist group, killed; White House triumphs”. Somebody, like my family, asks for evidence. They refuse: “it would compromise the safety of our informants in Poland”
The blogosphere freaks out: people, wake up, the guy didn’t do anything bad except writing a bunch of comments saying the US Gov is evil and it should cease to exist.
What do you do?
Based on the above I have a feeling you comment: people, don’t be silly. They had a dossier on him, and we’re in a state of war with organisation that [b]the dossier says[/b] he was leading and was a security threat. Thus, Obama had the right to send the drones.
See why we have a problem with that?
Remember the young woman that Falsa Doom called to her death to shown Conan what true power is?
That young woman was Daniel Kuehn.
Remember all the peaceful farmers who get their families slaughtered and their crops, livestock, and strongest sons stolen by THULSA (good ears, RG) Doom’s horde in Conan?
You are those farmers.
Daniel has it right on this one.
By the way, Dr. Murphy, sitting here for the last 10 minutes I thought of a couple of ways for AA’s clearly brilliant parents to prove his innocence and get him taken off of the capture/kill list. I bet you can, too.
Cody, enlighten us in case I’m ever on such a list. I want to email your ideas to my parents before I go dark in the rolling mountains of Tennessee.
Well for one,
They could have talked their son into handing himself in to clear up the government’s terrible mistake.
Cody, and then he would have been tortured to give up information on his alleged co-conspirators. And how are things going for all of the people who are being held at Gitmo etc.? Lots of them are in government custody, and there hasn’t been any official procedure to determine if they are being held with reason.
Your smug remarks are really interesting. You know that you personally would never be in a situation like this, so you’re not thinking it through realistically. This is why GG made the “brown people with Muslim names” remark. It’s not so much that white Americans are sitting around saying, “I hate brown people,” it’s rather that this isn’t a real threat to them.
In contrast, somebody who is Muslim and wears traditional garb, and (say) has to travel to Yemen to visit his family, and who in the past visited radical rallies out of curiosity but now stopped because he doesn’t condone violence…that person would be crapping his pants, and rightly so.
re: “Your smug remarks are really interesting. “
You have people calling me a statist, having a “borderline tyrannical” ideology, a racist, and intellectually dishonest, and you as host are choosing to call out Cody of all people for being smug????
DK wrote: You have people calling me a statist, having a “borderline tyrannical” ideology, a racist, and intellectually dishonest, and you as host are choosing to call out Cody of all people for being smug????
It would appear so.
It would appear so.
I wear it as a badge of honor.
Too Smug for Free Advice.
That could be my blog name…
If you’re referring to me calling you a statist, I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way but because of the position you take.
Doctor Murphy,
How can one complain that the law is not being followed in killing AA when (you are, clearly) assuming that his only other option would have entailed the law not being followed?
I mean, I suppose we can be upset that one (possibly) unlawful option was chosen over another, but including that it was unlawful in the argument against it seems a bit myopic.
On the other hand, is it utterly beyond the vast spectrum of possibility that, given he was fully innocent (as in your example above,) he would have been unable to convince the authorities of that innocence (at least in part through cooperation)?
Which is more likely to prove his innocence? Returning to the US of his own accord and cooperating with the authorities, or going to ground in one of the world’s most radical Islamic countries?
More importantly, where is he more likely to survive? As a terror suspect in US custody, or as a terror suspect in a country where the US regularly assassinates terror suspects?
I assure you, these were my primary criteria. I was not at the time reflecting on my non-Muslim name, nor on my pasty hue; but if you are saying I have no right to speak on a Muslim fellow’s actions and considerations because I am not one, then I should think we are both of us rhetorically unqualified in the same regard.
Are you really analogizing Al Qaeda to an all-powerful horde of evil bloodthirsty conquerors, and people in the United States to a group of helpless group of peaceful innocents?
You are taking a leap too far with the analogy. It has been well established that Al Qaeda and its adherents have killed Americans and are trying to kill more Americans. Your theoretical organization “Poles against Statism”, has no such history. It does not directly follow that a U.S. President could commit the act with which you created for comparison.
However, I don’t think Daniel is appreciating that this is a clear escalation in presidential power. Yes, we are at war, but not with Yemen or in Yemen. We have no troops there (supposedly). This killing implies that war has no geographic limitations. This broadens the discretion of the President to use lethal force to the entire planet.
However, I don’t think Daniel is appreciating that this is a clear escalation in presidential power.
And this is ironic, since Daniel links very approvingly from his blog today to a Christopher Hitchens piece, in which CH says that we are in uncharted territory here (but that so far, so good).
What is the irony? We are in uncharted territory. The War on Terror has basically been an exercise in navigating uncharted territory. Part of the reason you all are so confused about this is that it is very different and so you want to squeeze it in the “criminal” box, but don’t make any effort to explain to skeptics why you’re doing that. But yes – it’s all quite new.
It is not nearly uncharted, wars have been waged on ideologies in the past and I am sure that they will again in the future.
Granted, the ideology ( I prefer the term “system of beliefs”) in question is extremely anti-American, religious in nature and has claim to a roster of at least 19 individuals who killed 3000 Americans in a single day, so please don’t misconstrue what I am saying in my above post.
You could probably the same or worse about Communism and Socialism. Should being a proponent of an ideology by itself be a crime? I don’t claim to know the definitive answer but it seems that many on the Left are answering “yes”.
DK wrote:
But yes – it’s all quite new.
OK, so above when you were saying this is standard operating procedure, were you wrong? You’re at least admitting that what is happening now, is a new policy response to achieve our geo-political objectives (to use nice sanitary language)?
I read the HItchens piece. Regardless of whether one believes the execution of AA was justified, Hitchens made what I thought was a very weak case and, in fact, a disturbing case; one which, if anything, only adds to libertarian concerns.
The points underlying or implicit in Hitchens argument are that:
a) propaganda of a certain not very well specified type is a crime (Hitchens implies that it is propaganda that may cause us to distrust one another – I can think of a few other sources of that);
b) propaganda of that type must be stopped by any means available, including the death of the propagandizer;
c) where the propagandizer “taunts” the US from beyond the US government’s jurisdiction, the only way to stop the propaganda is to engage in extra-territorial, extra-judicial execution. There is no mention even of possible alternatives such as court sanctioned orders, trials in absentia, attempts at extradition, or even kidnapping for purposes of standing trial (and that’s assuming one accepts that the argument that propaganda is itself a crime and one that must stopped by any means possible which obviously is debatable).
As I recall, there was no attempt to argue that AA was guilty of something other than propagandizing or “taunting” or whispering “in our ears”.
I found the article somewhat insidious and dishonest frankly, because none of the underlying points were made explicit, they are just taken as given.
Fascist blog.
You forgot to prefix it with “Islamo-“.
Was RG really analogizing Daniel with a woman in a sex/death cult led by President Obama analogized as a sorcerer?
Terrorists will not be killing us all and stealing our livestock.
Also, president Obama will not command Daniel to leap from a cliff.
Clearer?
Stuff you don’t hear on O’Reilly…
LATEST GUANTANANO HABEAS TALLY: PRISONERS 38, GOVERNMENT 22 from Andy Worthington.
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/guantanamo-habeas-results-the-definitive-list/
We can’t trust our own government?
Worthington (and Bob Murphy) are often interviewed by Scott Horton on Antiwar Radio.
+1 to everything Daniel Kuehn has written here.
I agree that I would like to see the law keep up with these (and other) sets of circumstances, but I’ll take doing the right thing over “the law” for now.
So whenever the rule of law is an obstacle in “these (and other) sets of circumstances”, just ignore it?
OMG… Do even understand the purpose of the concept of rule of law? Please be so kind and explain it to me.
Scott H. wrote:
I agree that I would like to see the law keep up with these (and other) sets of circumstances, but I’ll take doing the right thing over “the law” for now.
If you feel that way now, then is that true all the time? I mean, it’s not like next year, you would prefer to do the wrong thing in deference to “the law,” right? So why do we have laws at all? Why not just say, “I want government officials to always strive to do the right thing, and if I think they don’t, I’ll vote accordingly in the next election?”