US Born Yemen mullah Anwar Awlaki now shovelling coal

[sandinista! 1,816]

Inappropriate comment and post quoting same have been removed.

Um, tip of the iceberg?

[Captain Oates 911]

quite right - lets get back on topic

It all boils down to whether arrest and due process was appropriate and we could have saved a lot of pixels if we had stuck to that

Does anyone think that an arrest could have been made WITHOUT undue risk to the lives of the American Military ?

Ask any US Military family and they would say "No"

If the answer is "No" then there is an end to it

Anyone want to describe how a riskless arrest could have been made? (this should be good)

Perhaps he could have been lured to Aden with the promise of some nice new spectacles and then had a bag put over his head in the opticians office ?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Um, tip of the iceberg?

Reported comment - I haven't reviewed the rest of this multi-paged thread

[xebec 195]

quite right - lets get back on topic

It all boils down to whether arrest and due process was appropriate and we could have saved a lot of pixels if we had stuck to that

Does anyone think that an arrest could have been made WITHOUT undue risk to the lives of the American Military ?

Ask any US Military family and they would say "No"

If the answer is "No" then there is an end to it

Anyone want to describe how a riskless arrest could have been made? (this should be good)

Perhaps he could have been lured to Aden with the promise of some nice new spectacles and then had a bag put over his head in the opticians office ?

Let me sort out this condensed and on-topic summary of your argument:

1) The primary question is "whether arrest and due process was appropriate."

2) "Appropriate" should be determined not by constitutional principles, but by degree of risk to the "arresting" soldiers, who are presumably serving a warrant(?) for said U.S. citizen.

3) The acceptability of the risk to these soldiers will be finally, and without appeal, determined by the family of these soldiers.

4) Furthermore, if there is any risk, whatsoever, then the opinion of the above families will be null and void, and the "arrest and due process" will be finally and truly determined "inappropriate."

Does that fairly reflect your stance Alan? If so, maybe with your approval of the above re-wording, we could submit this as a possible constitutional amendment? That way, we can all be part of "team USA."

The only problem here is that it would probably result in a situation where every U.S. citizen accused of a crime, by any official, with or without due process, and deemed to be a possible danger to arresting officers, would be subject to summary execution. Surely a small price to pay for the peace of mind of the families of police and soldiers. We might face scattered oppostion to this, but since you represent mainstream America, and any opposition would simply be un-American outsiders and apologists for wicked people, we should be able to get this done!

[Captain Oates 911]

Let me sort out this condensed and on-topic summary of your argument:

1) The primary question is "whether arrest and due process was appropriate."

2) "Appropriate" should be determined not by constitutional principles, but by degree of risk to the "arresting" soldiers, who are presumably serving a warrant(?) for said U.S. citizen.

3) The acceptability of the risk to these soldiers will be finally, and without appeal, determined by the family of these soldiers.

4) Furthermore, if there is any risk, whatsoever, then the opinion of the above families will be null and void, and the "arrest and due process" will be finally and truly determined "inappropriate."

Does that fairly reflect your stance Alan? If so, maybe with your approval of the above re-wording, we could submit this as a possible constitutional amendment? That way, we can all be part of "team USA."

The only problem here is that it would probably result in a situation where every U.S. citizen accused of a crime, by any official, with or without due process, and deemed to be a possible danger to arresting officers, would be subject to summary execution. Surely a small price to pay for the peace of mind of the families of police and soldiers. We might face scattered oppostion to this, but since you represent mainstream America, and any opposition would simply be un-American outsiders and apologists for wicked people, we should be able to get this done!

Oh dear we are back in the loop.

I didn't say the arrestability risk would be determined by the Military families - you just went ahead and made that up ! Don't make up stuff please.

Every black man shot down by the Police in the USA is done so because arresting them without that force is not practicable from a safety point of view. Of course their families always claim 'execution' and sometimes they are right

However, you are now called (by me) to explain just how you would have arrested this guy with no risk to American life

You didn't attempt to do that

Please do so now

If you don't, and start ducking and diving, then the conclusion will have to be that this 'safe arrest' of yours exists only 'in theory' - back at constitutional college where they don't wear body armor or face IED's

Come on and tell us your plan to arrest him safely... I can't wait to hear it... send in Michael Jackson's doctor ?

[xebec 195]

I didn't say the arrestability risk would be determined by the Military families - you just went ahead and made that up ! Don't make up stuff please

Your words Alan....

Does anyone think that an arrest could have been made WITHOUT undue risk to the lives of the American Military ?

Ask any US Military family and they would say "No"

If the answer is "No" then there is an end to it

And,

However, you are now called (by me) to explain just how you would have arrested this guy with no risk to American life

Why would I attempt to explain to you, a standard for determining if "arrest and due process was appropriate" created by you? I have never before encountered this argument.... "any risk to arresting officers (soldiers) nullifies the accused's constitutional right to due process." Attempting to explain your logic to you seems rather upside-down, don't you think?

[sandinista! 1,816]

But Michael Jackson's dr kills people too.

Clearly, this would be a job for this dynamic husband and wife duo.

[Captain Oates 911]

Your words Alan....

And,

Why would I attempt to explain to you, a standard for determining if "arrest and due process was appropriate" created by you? I have never before encountered this argument.... "any risk to arresting officers (soldiers) nullifies the accused's constitutional right to due process." Attempting to explain your logic to you seems rather upside-down, don't you think?

oh god here we go loop de loop

It was the same as a police action - police cannot arrest an armed criminal because of the risk and shoots

idiot dead

all lawful and constitutional and due process includes "no process" when it is forced by the killer perp.

Why cant you see that ? Happens every week.

Does eccentric glasses and a scruffy beard make him better than a bog standard US criminal ?

yeah we know what the diff is hah !

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

In a related note, Governor Jerry Brown authorized the California Highway Patrol to equip their aircraft with Electromagnetic Pulse Cannons to help arrest speeders on portions of Interstate 5 and other remote California highways patrolled by aircraft. In addition, the EMP weapons could be used to assist other law enforcement agencies in the state. When the Governor learned that such devices do not yet exist, he was overheard to say, "You mean Arnie got me again?"

[xebec 195]

If you don't, and start ducking and diving, then the conclusion will have to be that this 'safe arrest' of yours exists only 'in theory'

What safe arrest [theory] of mine? I have twice posted my response to Gary for you, stating that I believe that foreign-based American citizens found guilty of treason in a court, and sentenced to death by that court, are subject to execution by available means by the executive branch. No arrest necessary. This is the third posting.... why waste "pixels" asking me the same question repeatedly?

back at constitutional college where they don't wear body armor or face IED's

I have also posted that I did my time in the infantry....I still have body armor (Level IV SAPI on top of IIIA soft.....I'll show you mine, if you show me yours... )

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Charles is not the only non-Muslim "naysayer". If you paid attention and read the posts, you'd know that.

If I am not mistaken you did indeed agree this particular killing was not a Constitutional violation.

I can see where it is uncomfortable, killing an American without a trial, but this was a rare case, with very specific justification.

[xebec 195]

oh god here we go loop de loop

It was the same as a police action - police cannot arrest an armed criminal because of the risk and shoots

idiot dead

all lawful and constitutional and due process includes "no process" when it is forced by the killer perp.

Why cant you see that ? Happens every week.

Does eccentric glasses and a scruffy beard make him better than a bog standard US criminal ?

yeah we know what the diff is hah !

Yet again....I have posted a detailed response to this. See post number #174, page 12.

[xebec 195]

I can see where it is uncomfortable, killing an American without a trial, but this was a rare case, with very specific justification

And so is every first violation of the constitution. It's always the case that the repetitions become easier, built as they are, on precedent.

"Necessity is ever the drumbeat of the tyrant."

[Dan and Judy 614]

Yes, he was tried in absentia by a Yemeni court (partly based on sharia.)

This is the first time ever that a U.S. citizen has been approved for targeted assassination.

Apparently not a big Martin Sheen fan.

[xebec 195]

But Michael Jackson's dr kills people too.

Clearly, this would be a job for this dynamic husband and wife duo.

Funny post...

You can bet Dog would get it done. And Beth could probably have talked him out on the phone.