Re: al-Awlaki ... you know who else was a U.S. citizen? Robert E. Lee

[LuckyTheDog]

Had anyone in the U.S. military had a clear shot at Lee at any time during the Civil War, killing him would have been justifiable.

Lee was not acting on behalf of any state recognized by the U.S. He was born in the U.S. and was a citizen. Yet, he was a legitimate military target while he was engaged in hostilities against our government.

[xchrom]

1. ...

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. Problem with OP argument: Lee had the chance to get his mansion back facing the US Capitol

At what is now Arlington Cemetery. He declined to do so because his nemesis, Montgomery Meigs, had buried tons of Union troops on his front lawn to keep him from being able to live there again after the war.

[Pirate Smile]

2. There are consequences for committing treason. That shouldn't be a surprise.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. The constitution does not remove the obligation of the state to follow

due process for acts of treason before imposing a sentence. In fact the constitution makes it more difficult to convict a person for treason than for other crimes. Nowhere is there a statement that the executive branch can simply declare an individual guilty of treason and then proceed to kill that person.

The comparison to Lee is not entirely off, however Alawi was not killed in battle. Lee, by the way, surrendered and was allowed to live out his life and die of old age.

The issue here is the assassination program - if you are all fine and dandy with the assertion of the executive branch that it can declare anyone's life void without a shred of due process, good for you. I find myself rather uncomfortable with that assertion. Try that person in court - in absentia if need be - and with a conviction in hand do what has to be done.

[LuckyTheDog]

9. I don't care if Lee was eating his breakfast...

... had the U.S. military had a shot at him, they would have taken it. That's because leaders of groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. are legitimate MILITARY targets -- at all times.

Yep, Lee was able to live out his life AFTER HE SURRENDERED. But up till that point, he was a legit target.

Killing the commanders of groups out to wage war against you is not an "assassination program." It's a military tactic that has long been recognized as legal and justifiable.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Again the issue is the assertion by the executive branch that it can,

without due process, order the execution of anyone anywhere. That is to me just a wee bit troubling.

I think a policy of assassination is wrong-headed. Indict the individuals of interest and then capture the shitheads and bring them into the justice system. If they resist capture, and get killed in the process, oh well.
bin Laden could have been and should have been captured and tried in a court of law. Same with Alawi.

But that is not what is happening. Instead we have tossed the rule of law out the window and decided that we can implement policy by drones. We can get away with this for now without it being applied to us because we are the dominant military power on the planet. That dominance will be short lived and then we will have to live in this world we have created, where nation states can assassinate individuals as they see fit, as co-equals with other great nations. This is a really stupid and short sighted way to conduct our affairs.

[LuckyTheDog]

41. It is not at all troubling...

... to think that nothing at all has changed about the idea of enemy commanders being military targets. Again: Nothing new. Nothing controversial about it.

[SwampG8r]

53. what nations army were these men in?

what nations army were these men the commanders of?

[Bake]

86. I suspect Lee would have been more valuable as a prisoner.

So it's premature to say that if the Union had a shot at Lee, they would have taken it. Regardless, it's all speculative, since he lived to a ripe old age.

Bake

[GSLevel9]

90. actually he passed as a young-ish man at 63 years old. nt

[ieoeja]

92. Lee was more valuable to the US right where he was: leading Confederate forces!

He lost most battles he got into. He fought McClellan seven times and was defeated six of those.

Yes, McC retreated after five of his six victories (the only time he didn't was the only time he was defending Union soil instead of invading Confederate). But one of his staff officers made the mistake of confiding in an anti-War congressman that they were avoiding fighting as much as they could to force the politicians to come up with a political solution. While opposed to the war, the congressman was more upset to hear the generals were disobeying orders from the political leaders. And thus McC fell for the 2nd time.

For that matter, his interim successor probably would have defeated Lee, except that McC's strongest supporter led one third of the Potomoc forces at the time and abandoned the battlefield without firing a shot, presumably to sabotage McC's replacement.

[TheWraith]

58. Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way every time a fugitive is killed by law enforcement?

There was a case I believe in southern California a few days ago: the police shot and killed a man who had been on the run, who was suspect in a double murder. No due process, he was killed while resisting arrest. Is that a "government execution"? John Dillinger was gunned down by the FBI rather than captured--they didn't even try, as he was judged too dangerous to apprehend, since the last couple of attempts cost lives.

A dangerous fugitive on the run is likely to get killed if they don't surrender. That's the reality right here in the US, where we have police on every corner and in every town. How is that not a relevant standard across the world where you can't simply have the State Troopers show up?

People seem intent on drawing no distinction between a dangerous fugitive being killed while on the run, and taking someone out of a cell and putting a bullet in the back of their heads. If Al Awlaki had concern about his due process, perhaps he should have turned himself in for trial.

[LuckyTheDog]

100. There is a HUGE difference...

... between a crimimal and a combatant. To suggest that al Qaeda is no worse than (or in the same categoty as) a gang that robs banks is just downright silly.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pintobean]

6. Unrec for whining and calling DUers cowards.

and I agree with the OP

[LuckyTheDog]

8. It's a pet peeve

I have noticed that some threads get a wave of un-recs from people who disagree with the thread, but who refuse to engage in an argument. It's a form of bullying intended to intimidate those who don't conform to various kinds of mindless orthodoxy. Forums like DU should be about the exchange of ideas, not intimidation.

One article of faith among many here is that Obama is a secret right winger who should be voted against even if that puts Rick Perry in the White House. How does one defend such ridiculous views? It's hard to say because the anonymous un-rec brigade never even tries.

Guess what folks: I support Obama. I will work to get him reelected. I sure as shit will show up at the polls to vote for him. If that makes me a Nazi, then so be it.

[pintobean]

10. click of the mouse bullying

:rofl:

[LuckyTheDog]

11. Yep

Disagree if you like. But yes, it is clear that there is an attempt by some (organized? It's hard to say) to chase away Obama supporters from this board.

[pintobean]

13. Admins repeatedly say that 's so little, if at all

that it has little or no effect. I'll take their word for it, since they can see who uses the feature and how it's used. You can't.

[Iggo]

27. You're a Nazi.

:rofl:

[classof56]

4. You bring up something I hadn't thought of before.

When the south seceded did that negate their U.S. citizenship?

I know this has nothin' to do with nothin', but thought I'd ask.

[enlightenment]

12. Robert E. Lee lost his citizenship.

It was restored to him in 1975, posthumously, by Congressional Resolution.

The OP begins and ends with a false premise.

[bluestate10]

14. If I were President after Lee's side was defeated, I would have hung

every officer and politician on involved with their side. The nation would be a better place today if hangings had been done then.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. So you would have executed tens of thousands of prisoners or war?

And that would have made this a better world?

[Hippo_Tron]

57. I would've just kept the troops there as long as it took to deal with the Klan

The mistakes we made with the south and reconstruction were the exact same mistakes that the Allies made with Germany after World War I. We punished and shamed them for a couple of years and then packed up and left. If we'd kept the Union troops there long enough to deal with the Klan, there would've been African American controlled governments in most southern states for at least a century. That would've solved a lot of the problems.

[classof56]

28. Thank you for your response and the clarification.

Prompts me to do a search, wondering why I don't know this piece of history, regarding his post-war fate, like if he was tried for treason, did jail time, etc.

Cheers!

[Yupster]

49. President Davis was the morwe interesting case

He was indicted for treason and imprisoned.

He demanded his right to an open and speedy trial.

He had a high powered group of northern lawyers to defend him. His defense was a simple one. Secession was Constitutional and therefore the USA illegally invaded and conquered his country. Would the United States kindly release him, remove their troops from the CSA so he could get on the job of rebuilding his unhappy land.

The government kept postponing his trial over and over. They finally released him on bail again paid for by wealthy northerners like Horace Greeley. They never did put him on trial though he spent the rest of his life demanding his day in court.

It's why I find it wrong to call him a traitor.

If you're indicted for a heinous crime and are anxious to defend yourself, it's hardly fair for the government to refuse to try you and then people call you guilty anyway.

So why wasn't he ever tried? Because the Constitution was silent on secession. It was sifficult to get the Constitution adopted. If states thought their decisions would be permanent, there's no way it would have ever passed. The Tenth Amendment was actually taken seriously back then.

Anyway, what if the Supreme Court ruled secession legal?

Then what? Better to never try the leadersw for treason. Just leave them indicted forever without trial.

[SwampG8r]

54. and why did they not want to go to court?

same reason you dont want to go to court now if you have no position
because you would lose on the merits

[GSLevel9]

91. dont let facts get in the way of a blustery OP... nt

[AngkorWot]

26. There were confederates that came from northern states that never seceded.

Everything from drummer boys to major generals.

The relevant point is that they took up arms against the U.S.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. noshit, Sherlock. "war is hell" signed ~ Sherman.

[RetroLounge]

15. Lee lost his citizenship

So your OP is full of shit.

Nice try.

RL

[LuckyTheDog]

46. And? So?

Lee also wore a grey uniform and nobody in al Qaeda does that.

Want to name other totally irrelevant distinctions?

[SixthSense]

16. Lee also led armies

What did this Alwiki guy do other than run his mouth?

[LuckyTheDog]

43. He was in the leadership...

... of an organization in direct military conflict with the United States. Thus, he was a legit target. Period.

You rally can't say that al Qaeda has been "all talk."

[SixthSense]

59. we don't actually have any evidence of that

the point of charging people with crimes and having a trial is so that the evidence can be shown... extrajudicial killings based on hidden evidence are what you would expect from the Stasi not from what is supposed to be the bastion of human freedom on earth.

[LuckyTheDog]

60. WTF?

We have as much evidence of that as we have evidence that Robert E. Lee was mixed up with the Confederacy. Or, are we supposed to believe that Al-Awlaki was just a poser and not really in al Qaeda's leadership?

Look, ALL deaths from war are "extra-judicial killings." But in no case has anyone ever suggested that people shooting at our army or plotting attacks should be subject to trial before our soldiers pull the trigger. That's one big reason why war is hell. I am not defending war here. But killing the "enemy" is what happens in war. Want to change the rules? Me, too. But let's at least be honest about the fact that you are advocating a new doctrine here.

[SixthSense]

62. That's not true at all

You're just making it up as you go along now.

If we had evidence then we should have put it forth and had charges and a trial. That's the way a legal system works. He is a US citizen, after all - under our system of law, people cannot be simply put on a death list by an executive order. That's the way dictatorships work, not democracies.

I bet you do a 180 on this once the next Republican President gets into office, with one of them wielding this power you'll wake up - too late unfortunately - to just how wrong it is.

[LuckyTheDog]

85. All I am saying is...

... that this is not a new thing. The killing of enemy leaders and command/control operations has been part of war from Day 1.

[SixthSense]

89. There is something quite new here

and that is the intentional and premeditated killing of a US citizen by the US government without either charges nor trial.

That is what is new, and enshrining in tradition that they can do that strips you and I of the basic right to due process. All they have to do is portray someone as bad enough in the press and then they will be free to kill them with no further legal process necessary.

Imagine the next George Bush with that power!

[LuckyTheDog]

97. Nope.

We have the killing of one of the leaders of a group in armed conflict with the U.S.

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. Actually, the Administration has been saying for years that AQ has been pinned down ineffectual

Who am I to disagree?

Then again, the message here basically is, don't join al Quaeda if you don't want to get assassinated. It's spy vs. spy stuff, since the terrorists are all about killing civilians. I'm more concerned that we had the opportunity to capture and interrogate Bin Laden and failed to do so.

[obxhead]

17. unrec for false analogy.

Lee was a leader of armies directly ordering troops on the battlefield.

al-Awlaki was a blowhard on the internet.

[AngkorWot]

18. Awlaki was a leader or terrorists directly ordering strikes against the US

Talk about blowhards on the internet.

[obxhead]

19. Really? You have evidence of that?

So tell me why he wasn't just tried in absentia?

[badtoworse]

22. This isn't a law enforcement exercise, stop pretending it is. - nt

[Warren Stupidity]

33. That is the problem: it really should be a law enforcement exercise.

Instead we decided to treat 'the problem' as a war, sort of. Of course we didn't declare war on anyone or any nation, nor are we actually fighting a war against al qaeda.

We are fighting a war against an insurgency in Afghanistan after conquering that nation, and we continue to occupy Iraq after initiating a war of aggression against that nation, and we are involved in a civil war in Libya, but we don't seem to be fighting an actual military war against al qaeda. How can we? It is just a small criminal gang that mostly engages in propaganda efforts, and a loose self organized network of autonomous groups all over the planet that initiate attacks every now and then.

It is really hard to have a real war against something that amorphous. So instead we send out drones and blow shit up in the hopes that we might catch a person of interest in the explosion, and sometimes we get lucky, and sometimes we murder innocents. It is less of a war than a really bizarre police action where we use flying robo-cops to sniff out bad guys and then blow the shit out of them - or whomever happens to be home when the bombs land more precisely. It is so not a military action that the whole program is now run from the CIA - which I note is a civilian, not military, branch of the executive.

[badtoworse]

34. "a small criminal gang" that has killed thousands in various terrorist acts

That "small criminal gang" would kill millions if it could acquire WMD's Law enforcement should deal with that? That's laughable.

We'll just have to disagree about how they should be dealt with. I'm OK with what Obama is doing.

[AngkorWot]

23. Why wasn't Lee?

As for Alwaki, he was tried and convicted in absentia in Yemen.

[Yupster]

52. Lee wasn't tried for the same reason as Jefferson Davis

Lee was indicted for treason but never tried. Lee was tired with serious heart disease. He just wanted a quiet life.

Davis demanded a trial and never was given one.

[LuckyTheDog]

44. Ummmm...

Please Google "Sept. 11, 2001" if you really think al Qaeda isn't dangerous.

[badtoworse]

20. al-Awlaki was a leader in a group waging war against the US

He was a legitimate military target. I don't see the effort to defeat Al Qaeda as a law enforcement effort, so the due process argument is bullshit.

[oneshooter]

21. Did he renounce his citizenship? I don't know. n/t

[badtoworse]

25. If we was acting in concert with enemies, then yes, he renounced his citizenship.

[DirkGently]

77. Why not? Don't we claim that terrorism isn't legitimate military action, but crime?

Interest side effect to this effort to change the definition of "war" to include loosely associated individuals all over the world, who advocate against the U.S.

If that's the case, every terrorist is suddenly a legitimate military actor? Subject to treaties, POW guidelines, and rules of engagement?

Of course, what's really being argued is that there's a special new category of people we can simply hunt down and kill without any restrictions or safeguards whatsoever.

But if the "war" analogy were to win out, you'd actually be elevating terrorists to a new level of prestige.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. So was Abraham Lincoln.

[bvar22]

29. Lincoln did NOT order the assassination of Robert E Lee.

In fact, his treatment of all the "traitors" in the South was very different.

[whistler162]

37. Actually he ordered the killing of over 94,000 citizens....

[LuckyTheDog]

48. Had Lee ben in the sights of any private on the battlfield...

... tha private would have known what he was expected to do. Lee would have been a dead man within seconds. And it would have been legal and justifiable -- even if, at the time, Lee was eating his breakfast miles away from the front lines.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SwampG8r]

55. you are a huge bigot arent you?

[TheKentuckian]

35. You realized that the Confederacy act as a state despite us not recognizing them as such

it had territory, a capital, a flag, it had armies, currency, officials, uniforms.

It could be defeated in definable terms, its land could be captured, its forces broken, it leadership brought to surrender.

We remain in all practical application, at war with a tactic, a tactic that has existed for all recorded history and are not only tilting at windmills but are violating what we are supposed to be protecting while in all but the most carefully defined ways actually engaging in what we are at "war" with in the first place, mostly separated by a very one sided justification of "we didn't mean to, we're at war. Shit happens".

[provis99]

36. so what country was al-Awlaki fighting for?

oh that's right, he wasn't fighting for a country, BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAR!!

[LuckyTheDog]

50. Ummmm.... Get a clue

al Qaeda is out to hurt us.

[DirkGently]

38. This analogy fails in every possible way. This was not a battle. There is not a "war." We don't

even know, exactly, what this person actually did or did not do. In fact, in a press conference yesterday, the administration refused to even discuss the possibility of presenting any evidence to the American people, ever.

The game is this: When someone -- citizen or foreigner -- is killed under this Predator assassination program, the premise is that it is a secret intelligence operation, under the auspices of the CIA. Therefore, no one in government is "permitted" to even really discuss it in public. A fact which is taken into account only on occasions like these, in which the assassination is questioned.

The result is that "somehow" it is confirmed to the press that the United States has killed someone claimed to be a terrorist. But the details, including any evidence supporting the supposed need for the killing, are strictly classified. All we're permitted to know is that people were killed with missile strikes, and the U.S. government claims it was necessary.

This is a complete undoing of a number of basic principles of a free and decent country. The pseudo-legal, pseudo-logical premise amounts to nothing more or less than the wholly false and dishonest conceit that we are in an endless, worldwide "war," in which the President is authorized to have people killed in secret, for secret reasons, because it is claimed to be a matter of national defense.

This conceit was created by the Bush administration, which believed in unlimited Executive power. It is presumably one reason people voted for Barack Obama instead of John McCain.

The problem is large and obvious. If no one has to tell the public who is being killed and why, anyone can be killed for any reason.

Anyone can be killed, for any reason.

That's what people are supporting here. It's not the Civil War. It's not a killer running down the street away from a cop. It's the government, killing whomever it wants, for whatever reason it sees fit, any time, any where.

Support that, if you want. But don't kid yourself you're supporting something other than that.

[Fool Count]

39. Exactly, the rational behind that action, as well as its legality,

is no different from what KGB did or what FSB did when they poisoned Litvinenko with
polonium or what special services in South America did in 1970s when they "disappeared"
thousands of dissidents. They all were going after "dangerous terrorists and criminals"
put on secret lists by secret decisions of secret "patriots" to "protect" their countries.
At least in South America many of those "patriots" are now spending the rests of their lives
in jail for murder and torture. Their American fellow murderers and torturers still think
that their impunity will be forever guaranteed by the state. Pinochet thought that too.

[LuckyTheDog]

45. The comparison is dead-on

Commanders of groups in military conflict with the U.S. are ALWAYS legitimate mlitary targets. They don't have to be carrying a gun into battle at the time. This isn't new. It isn't illegal. It isn't controversial. It isn't at all related to any new doctrine about executive power. It's a basic truism about war.

[DirkGently]

72. It is illegal. It is not war. But it is not new. It is what we call "terrorism" when others do it.

The "war on terror" is a lie. It was a lie when Bush uttered it, it's a lie today, and it will always be a lie. You cannot make "war" on an idea or a tactic. People who claim there is an endless, borderless, unlimited "war on terror" do so to rationalize a claim to unlimited authority that simply does not exist.

People seem to be pretending this was a declared assassination, like Bin Laden. It was not. It was a secret action that the U.S. does not even officially advmit to and will not discuss or offer evidence to justify. The administration is not offering proof of any specific act of terrorism on the part of the U.S. citizen killed, and has no plans to do so, as Carney made clear recently.

Under this rationale, anyone, anywhere, can be killed, whether they are a threat to anyone or not, with no notice, no charges, no evidence.

That is not war. It is illegal, unsanctionable killing. The only difference between an act like this and what we call "terrorism" is who killed whom.

[LuckyTheDog]

87. You CAN make war on an organization

And al Qaeda is an organization. It is engaged in hostilities against the United States. Its leaders are legitimate targets. That's not just an opinion. Those are the facts.

[Angry Dragon]

88. HAve you seen the facts or are you just going on the information

that you have been given by your government and the media??

[LuckyTheDog]

94. I've been to Ground Zero.

Just sayin'. When I was there, the parts if the window shades from the Twin Towers were still hanging in the trees. So, yes, I think I have independent verification that al Qaeda is dangerous.

[Angry Dragon]

99. Yes I know that the towers are down

but have you seen the proof that it was brought down by Al-Qaeda??
I believe it was shown that most of the men were Saudis, why not invade Saudi Arabia??
Bin Laden was CIA, was he still working for the CIA??
Was Bib Laden a CIA plant??
Do you believe everything your government tells you or the media??

If this country kills innocent civilians does that country have a right to attack this country for that
or that persons family??
So many unanswered questions .........

[LuckyTheDog]

108. Save that for somebody more paranoid (nt)

[Puregonzo1188]

40. Do you really believe anyone would have killed Lee though?

Even if they could?

[LuckyTheDog]

42. Of course they would have (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

47. Someone killed Lincoln. That, we know.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

69. uh. hell yeah.

[SwampG8r]

51. that was a real declared war

with war being waged by two sides
this is a made up war that isnt even against a country
its against an idea

[LuckyTheDog]

63. OK, great

So, organizations that kill Americans should be left alone unless and until they start representing a country and Congress declares war on said country? Really?

[SwampG8r]

65. organizations that kill americans?

like the mafia? any drones on sicily?
how about mexican cartels? we dropping bombs on them?they are killing americans now ...as in today
not 10 years ago

[LuckyTheDog]

68. When the the mafia kills 3,000 people ...

... and sets up a worldwide network of terrorists with the intention of destroying the U.S., please wake me up.

Till then, please stop boring me with your willful ignorance about international law and the laws of war.

[SwampG8r]

70. war?

isnt that a thing 2 countries have?
just what country are we at war with?

[LuckyTheDog]

79. Here's a dollar

Buy a clue. Honestly, I can't even believe we're arguing about whether or not al Qaeda is dangerous. Of course it is.

[DirkGently]

73. Do you really think the Mafia hasn't killed 3,000 people & has no worldwide network?

Really?

[LuckyTheDog]

80. A terrrorist network? Out to kill innocent Americans at random?

No.

You really cannot compare the two organizations.

[SwampG8r]

103. wake up

the mafia has killed way more than 3000 and nothing would suit it more than to dig itself into the US
ask elliot ness

[DirkGently]

74. We arrest criminals. We prove their guilt. We leave blowing people up to terrorists.

[LuckyTheDog]

101. al Awlaki was a combatant

It's not like he was knocking over liquor stores or carjacking Escalades. He was part of an organization that is literally waging war on the United States.

[SwampG8r]

56. i thought we had heard all the conservative bullshit about 9/11

and wouldnt hear of it again as of jan 2009
when you have no good reason for what felonious crappery you want to do just wrap it up in 9/11 and call everyone who disagrees either a coward or a traitor
this should be a real conversation fosterer





edited to fix date

[LuckyTheDog]

61. This is not "consevative bullshit"

People who wring their hands over Al-Awlaki's death do so based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the legal and ethical issues involved.

[SwampG8r]

64. did i spellit wrong?it is conservative bullshit

just because a dem does it does not make it right

[LuckyTheDog]

66. It's nothing new

just because a dem does it does not make war any different.

[SwampG8r]

and just because a dem did it

does not make wiping your ass with the constitution any different

[LuckyTheDog]

81. And ONCE AGAIN

Killing the leaders of groups involved in hostilities against the United States is IN NO WAY unconstitutional. Never had been. It's not a new thing. It's a principle as old as warfare itself.

You can say it ain't so till you are blue in the face. But history and the facts are on my side. This REALLY is not a new thing.

[SwampG8r]

104. nor does it make it morally correct

[librechik]

67. it just bugs me that Obama has the guts to do this, but won't prosecute Cheney

et al. Our country is twisted.

[joeybee12]

71. Very poor comparison...he was shooting at us...healthy unrec for this fail...nt

[Honeycombe8]

105. No, he wasn't shooting at "us." His men were shooting at "you."

Grant was shooting at "us."

[octothorpe]

75. Not sure analogy is totally comparable, but I don't see the problem with killing of this guy..

Not all situations are the same and the world changes. I'm always wary of trying to fit every situation into the same boxes as we did the past. If I'm not willing to do that with social issues, then I'm not going to do it for other issues.

Anyway, I know that I would expect a similar fate if were to join a terrorist group and plan terrorist acts against the US from another country. Basically, I wouldn't be shocked if I discovered that the US government (or any government) was planning to drop a bomb on me. I wonder if al-Awlaki had a similar view about it.

[fishwax]

76. actually, the rules of war for the Civil War forbade assassinations

The Lieber Code of 1863 set down the laws of war for the Union army. It was commissioned and approved by Lincoln, written by Francis Lieber, and issued as General Order no. 100.

Here is what it had to say about assassination: "148. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism."

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/liebercode.htm

[DirkGently]

78. Excellent point. Wars have rules of engagement. What's argued here is that there are no rules.

Again, this was Bush's invention. A new category of endless war, where the President has unlimited power to detain, torture, and kill, even U.S. citizens, on the theory that "war" is a constant status that never ends, and applies to individual people merely suspected of being involved.

[LuckyTheDog]

84. So, in WWII, when the allies tried to kil Hitler...

... that was invented by Bush? Before he was born? Is this one of those Dr. Who things?

[LuckyTheDog]

82. And yet, 600,000 people were killed

Go figure. :crazy:

Look, if that was the policy after 1863, it was a tactical decision made for reasons specific to the Union war strategy. It was not because the principle of killing enemy leadership was in any way unconstitutional.

But, OK, you don't like the civil war? Do you know that the allied tried several times to kill Hitler during WWII? Would that have been an "illegal killing"?

I just don't get why the lives of those at the top of organizations are so much more precious to you than those of the grunts doing the fighting. Is it a class thing?

[fishwax]

98. Killed in battle and targeted for assassination are different things

"Look, if that was the policy after 1863, it was a tactical decision made for reasons specific to the Union war strategy. It was not because the principle of killing enemy leadership was in any way unconstitutional."

Actually, the rules before that were probably even more limited. One of the reasons that Lincoln wanted to develop new laws of war is that he found the rules that McLellan wanted to follow to be too cautious for modern warfare.

The killing of anyone on the battlefield (leadership or otherwise) wouldn't have been unconstitutional, of course. I believe that generals (on both sides) were actually killed at a higher rate than the soldiers who served under them in the Civil War--not because there was a strategic effort to eliminate leadership but because it was not unusual at the time for generals to lead from the front. Even so, many of the generals that were killed in the war died as a result of friendly fire. (Stonewall Jackson, who had a reputation for being out on and in front of the front lines, is an example.) So killing Lee on the field of battle wouldn't have been unconstitutional. But a standing order to shoot him on sight (for example, at a breakfast table miles away from the battlefield) would have violated the Lieber Code.

"But, OK, you don't like the civil war? Do you know that the allied tried several times to kill Hitler during WWII? Would that have been an "illegal killing"?"

Of course, Hitler wasn't a US citizen, so the argument you're making about Lee is a very different one.

"I just don't get why the lives of those at the top of organizations are so much more precious to you than those of the grunts doing the fighting. Is it a class thing?"

I've suggested no such thing. Why the gratuitous insult?

[alphafemale]

83. They buried the war dead. Well many of them anyway, basically in his yard.

Arlington was his estate.

It was a terrible time. Can you imagine thousands of dead young men on the ground after a single days battle?

What a horror.

[demmiblue]

93. This is a bizarre comparison. n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

95. Not if you think it through for 5 seconds (nt)

[demmiblue]

96. That is probably my problem... I thought about it for 2.5 seconds. n/t

[lynne]

102. All well and good except R. E. Lee had given up his U.S. citizenship -

- and was a citizen of the Confederate States of America. Oh, yes, we can debate the validity of the CSA until the cows come home but he wasn't a United States of American citizen during the Civil War by his own choosing and admission.

Anyway, I'm good with the al-Awlaki thing as it stands.