This is a good tweet.

Why so incredulous?

There is no slope. The executive branch creating lists of American citizens to find and kill outside of the judicial process is already the bottom. Arguing that the body count is still small misses the point.

It isn't being treated as exceptional; it's being formalized into policy.

Not to mention that your list mostly contains things that had been considered protected speech and association rights...

not in times of war. which is the dangerous trend for the US in the last decade, balancing the necessary means to be victorious with civilian expectations.

How would you feel if they had put Alwaki on trial in absentia and sentenced him to death for treason?

So let's say a group of American citizens moves to another country, declares war on the U.S. and starts sending suicide bombers to the U.S. Are we allowed to go get them or do we have to wait for them to turn themselves in for due process?

I have no idea what information the president has available, and what considerations have to go into his decision in trying to protect the US from another 9/11. But I do know it's a lot more complicated than "Americans should always have due process, end of story". That's an easy simplistic cop-out imo.

far, far, far better

I'm gonna stick with "Americans should always have due process, end of story".

So if the Aryan Brotherhood all moved offshore and waged war on the US from international waters - due process for all - no fair attacking them? Gotta capture them alive and send to trial?

Does it mean anything that the Yemeni govt already gave their version of due process and issued a capture dead-or-alive order? Does it mean anything that he went on the run instead of turning himself in?

Why is the life of someone born in America so much more sacred to you than a Saudi? What if OBL had been born in the US?

How come no one ever tries to answer my questions like this but just keeps blandly repeating the due process line while obviously not giving any thought to how the situation could get a little more complicated than that under acts of war, treason and/or terrorism?

Why are we doing the drone thread again at Christmas?

Pot farms wreaking havoc on Northern California environment

Ugh. As usual ****ed up politics picks the worst option. Going back to pre-medical marijuana would probably be better than what we have now. Time to regulate and legalize this ****.

Read this article yesterday suz as someone who lives in Northern California it distresses me greatly. The trinity mountains and surrounding wilderness provides a lot of the water for the north part of the state as well as being a beautiful rustic area to see it thrashed like it has been disgusts me

Umm...Yes. How is this so ****ing hard for you to understand?

Couldn't we try somebody in abstentia? Or have some kind of process by which a Presidential Death Decree can be challenged? This death decree was challenged in court but the government determined that the system fell into a strange range where they can't acknowledge the program exists in a court of law but it's okay for the President to brag about it on twitter.

No.

No. Hell, we never even charged him with anything. Turn himself in for what? Unless you're talking about the Yemeni government, which is highly brutal, repressive, and corrupt.

The constitution applies to all American citizens. It's supposed to be pretty sacred.

This is much better, but it should be noted that it's explicitly illegal and probably unconstitutional.

Um... why are you allergic to even considering my questions?

Ok would you be willing to designate these people as POWs,given Geneva Convention POW rights? If not why not, you're claiming they'rep waging war against USA.

So was the Civil War unconstitutional?

Obviously there's always an option to turn yourself in Alice when you have a dead or alive bounty on your head from a sovereign govt. He could have gotten out of Yemen.

As far as the possibility of trying for treason in absentia, like Bobman said there's a lot murky water there. I guess the bottom line for me is you lose your constitutional protections when you join Al Queada and rise up the ranks, publicly declare war on the United States, and show you're willing to back that up with associations to recently inspired terrorists and statements claiming responsibility afterwards. I'm glad he's dead.

I realize you feel the exact opposite, and it' pretty obvious neither side is going to change the other's mind on this.

This is a fair historical point, but, e.g., Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, FDR interning citizens based on race -- these aren't supposed to be the models for future conduct.

Was there even an indictment? But trial in absentia has been held to be unconstitutional many times.

OK, but taking that at face value--why not? There's a reason why we have public trials, grand juries etc.

Due process is a restriction on how it is acceptable to "go get them". Declares war is also needlessly ambiguous here; your point makes more sense in sticking to non-state actors.

But I believe there are limits to what actions the US should take in war, too.

The Yemeni government actions are not meaningful here. And it's not clear what "turn himself in" means. Walk down to the local CIA station for his summary execution?

It has nothing to to with the sacredness of life, it has to do with the rule of law. And the government did seek an indictment against Osama bin Laden. He actually received more due process by that measure.

I am praying for a Christmas miracle?

I am about as peaceful as they come, there is always time and energy to use diplomatic means to solve a crisis. BUT, once those means reach an impasse, war is a fight with few rules. The Geneva Conventions and others are there to be able to end the conflicts with as little animosity as possible, but the actual fighting stage is bloody, because it's supposed to be. That horror is what makes the diplomatic stages viable.

You want to afford a target with all the dignity of a martyr, go feed & clothe the downtrodden. There are reason to NOT attack the civilian leadership, for it's they that must be at the table to end the conflict. If that party is the prime strategic and tactical operative then they must be neutralized.

I don't expect US politics to understand this though, look at the sequestration. The potential disaster has been allowed to become reality.

fyp

Dude, one of the main points of a trial is the government is forced to present actual evidence, under oath, in a relatively neutral setting. The government manages to kill the wrong people with a full trial and buttload of appeals, how can you be cool with death penalty by Presidential Decree? Also, if the government is capable of pinpointing his location to nuke his ass with a drone, then they are capable of sending in a special ops team to attempt to bring him into custody. Not to mention Obama targeting the kid...

Statements claiming responsibility?

First amendment protections on political speech and association are often unpopular, but are vital to democracy. Even stuff you don't like; that's the point.

And there are lots of criminal due process rights you might not like either; I am not really sure how specific this conversation is to this scenario.

Fine

But assassination by drone, clear as a bell?

I can barely wrap my mind around a world where trial by absentia is really murky and untenable but secret, unchecked assassinations of citizens by order of the executive is copacetic.

The bottom line for me is you only lose your constitutional protections when actually convicted of crimes.

If that's really how you feel, why stop in Southwest Asia? Why wouldn't you say the same "you lose your constitutional protections when you _____" thing about murderers and rapists and burglars?

Once you grant the authority for the executive to exact punitive measures for alleged crimes, where do you draw the line?

Having different sets of laws for different people depending upon the level of personal disgust one harbors for them and the things they believe is, I think, not a road society should head down, and in nobody's best interests.

That's what they're counting on. They wouldn't assassinate someone who was universally beloved but had done the same things. This is the reason organizations like the ACLU defend hate groups; the constitutional protections in place for EVERYONE are eroded when they're ignored in cases involving especially heinous people.

Was the Civil War unconstitutional? Simple question. American citizens alwsys get due process, must be taken alive and given a trial. It's simple. No exceptions right?

I'm on my phone right now doing Xmas with the family. I do appreciate at least getting into details now. I will try to address them when I get to a real computer.

Yeah, in the face of all the logical inconsistencies being pointed out to suzzer over and over again, he keeps falling back on childish emotional appeals.

"Look, I don't know about all this legal machinery stuff and core constitutional protections, I mean they're nice and all, but bottom line is if you do some terroristy stuff, more or less, and allegedly, and with no verification or oversight of said allegations outside a small, closed-off portion of the executive branch, then I'm fine with those guys dying, end of thought process."

Yeah, but suzzer, the reason we have checks and balances and inalienable rights and due process is to prevent the total control over life-and-death punishment by small unaccountable factions or individuals in the government. It's at the very heart of the modern Democratic nation-state.

"Sure, sure, you guys, but consider these nuggets of wisdom from my line of thinking: 'If you're not guilty, you have nothing to hide.' So like why do the cops even need warrants and stuff? Boggles the mind. All warrants do is give the bad guys time to flush their contraband down the toilet. And free speech is great, but if Pentagon lawyers think what you're saying is dangerously inspirational, of course they should be able to kill you for it. Or at least toss you into a hole forever. Also, what about WWII and the American Civil War? I mean, sure, those were vastly more dangerous conflicts with massively higher stakes, and even there we had some kind of ROE / Laws of War and the Treatment of Prisoners to check our behavior, but forget about it! Terrorists terrorists TERRORISTS."

And that, folks, is just a teaser excerpt from Suzzer, Ladies and Gentlemen, my forthcoming and inexplicably naked one-man show. Watch out, Off-Off-Broadway!