[Sapremolz]

Intelligence chief acknowledges U.S. may target Americans involved in terrorism
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 4, 2010

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged Wednesday that government agencies may kill U.S. citizens abroad who are involved in terrorist activities if they are "taking action that threatens Americans."

Blair told members of the House intelligence committee that he was speaking publicly about the issue to reassure Americans that intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense "follow a set of defined policy and legal procedures that are very carefully observed" in the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens.

. . .

In response to questions from Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the panel's ranking Republican, Blair said: "We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community. If that direct action, we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

Hoekstra pressed for clarification of the policy, especially its threshold for targeting Americans for lethal action.

"The concern that I have today is that I'm not sure that . . . [it is] very well understood as to what you and the people in your organization can do when it comes to Americans who have joined the enemy," Hoekstra told Blair.

The director of national intelligence said the factors that "primarily" weigh on the decision to target an American include "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans." washingtonpost.com

The big hubbub here turns on the legality of killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the US born and raised radical cleric in Yemen tied to the Fort Hood shooter, 9.11 hijackers and now the Nigerian crotch bomber. And the crotch bomber's ongoing cooperation--he has now even been turned against the cleric--is pinning the tail on the donkey that he's the terrorist-in-fact that his prior instigating preachings and guilts by associations showed him to be.

Abdulmutallab: Cleric Told Me to Bomb Jet
Detroit Bombing Suspect Abdulmutallab Providing Intelligence about Anwar al-Awlaki, Radical Cleric Tied to 9/11 and Fort Hood

(CBS/AP) Updated 6:41 p.m. EST

The suspect in a failed Christmas Day airliner bombing attempt told federal investigators that radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki directed him to carry out the attack, CBS News has learned.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian who faces terrorism charges in the Christmas bombing, has been cooperating with the FBI for about a week, providing information about his contacts in Yemen and the al Qaeda affiliate that operates there.

Abdulmutallab has turned against the cleric who claims to be his teacher, al-Awlaki, and has helped the U.S. hunt for him in Yemen, a law enforcement official said Thursday.

Abdulmutallab's cooperation talking al-Awlaki is significant because it could provide fresh clues for authorities trying to capture or kill him in the remote mountains of Yemen. . . .

According to the source, Abdulmutallab told investigators he obtained the powerful explosives PETN and TATP in Yemen and was left on his own to decide when and how to bring down a plane, Milton reports. Abdulmutallab has apparently disclosed to investigators he picked Northwest Flight 253 because of its availability.

The source said Abdulmutallab told investigators he was guided by al-Awalki to detonate the bomb over U.S. soil, unlike the failed British bomber plot in 2006 when the bombers were instructed to detonate bombs on airliners over the ocean on the way to the U.S. so that there would be no evidence left behind.

Al-Awlaki himself said in a recent interview that he and Abdulmutallab had kept in contact. A senior U.S. intelligence official said al-Awlaki represented the biggest name on the list of people Abdulmutallab might have information against. Both spoke on condition anonymity to discuss the sensitive ongoing investigation. Abdulmutallab: Cleric Told Me to Bomb Jet - CBS News

Blair's briefing before Congress concerns the Washington Post's disclosure last week that Obama had personally authorised a Christmas Eve drone attack seeking to kill Anwar al-Awlaki.

Myself, I understand the policy behind the law against killing US citizens without authorisation from the top. But seriously, IMO, what reasonable question is there for killing the likes of Anwar al-Awlaki? When he wasn't getting arrested for picking up prostitutes in the US, he's been instigating terrorists on US soil and abroad and is genuinely an AQ member waging jihad on the US. Just take a refresher course on this POS:

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then there's US born characters such as:

Adam Yahiye Gadahn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abu Mansoor Al-Amriki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First, IMO, US citizens who decide to voluntarily join and/or conduct hostilities against the US aren't US citizens anymore. There's even case precedent to back that up. For example, in the case of a former US citizen who voluntarily served in the Axis Romanian Army and later the Waffen SS as a concentration camp guard during WWII, my local US District Court held as follows (and was affirmed by the Third Circuit) as follows in pertinent part:

. . . We can think of no conduct more repugnant to an intent to retain American citizenship or more demonstrative of an intent to relinquish American citizenship than voluntary service in the armed forces of a country at war with the United States. . . . Schiffer's conduct in serving in the Romanian Army is so obnoxious to an intent to retain United States citizenship that, in the absence of credible proof to the contrary, we can infer his intent to relinquish his United States citizenship. . . . We believe that Schiffer's voluntary service in the Waffen-SS alone also would have been sufficient to relinquish the United States citizenship he acquired at birth. . . . [O]ther than perhaps in the circumstance of a civil war, it is inconceivable to us that a person could wage war against a country in which he intends to maintain citizenship. FindACase™ | UNITED STATES v. SCHIFFER

So, if they aren't citizens anymore in law, then the assassination rule doesn't even apply. But even if it does for the sake of the argument, what Blair said to Hoekstra is common sense IMO:

. . . "Whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American has -- is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved." Blair explained. "We don't target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans." . . . 'Permission' needed to kill U.S. terrorists - Washington Times

I do agree that criteria for making the list should be publicised, and CIA hits go through proper clearances using the criteria, but it doesn't seem to be too complicated an issue. The government would get publicly excoriated and sued by relatives for mega-dollars if it didn't pick only the clearest cases, and isn't a reasonable assumption that they want to kill innocent US citizens. But guys like the ones I'm linking are proudly and openly announcing their guilty nature, and IMO, there should be no question that they get fragged and bagged at the first opportunity available.

[lopushok]

Of course it was always Obama's goal to destroy Al-Qaeda and kill as many members as possible. However expect soft on crime right-wingers to pop up and start complaining about this. Complaining about what Obama does is the only tactic they have.

[KeestRast]

Agreed. If someone joins an organization like Al-Qaida, which has made known its intent to kill Americans and use violence against their government through both words and deeds, then it would seem that they have forfeited their status as an American citizen. Especially in this particular case; it's not like they 'think' Anwar 'might' be affiliated with AQ. He is an enemy of the United States and has no desire to hide it. Any state has the right to engage its enemies, and if Yemen will allow drone strikes (or more) on its territory, then I don't see the problem here. Of course, there is always the slippery slope issue and the government's definition of "enemy." Any reasonable consideration of this particular case, though, leaves no doubt IMO.

[Suentiend]

Sounds like the good Mullah should be keeping an eye over his shoulder for an incoming hellfire missile, heh heh. If you see this man on the street, do yourself a favor and stay at least 300 meters away at all times.

[ElisasAUG]

Have all of America now reached the point where a man is a terrorist, entirely based on the fact, that your government says he is a terrorist?

At what court is he trialed?

What was the evidences against him?

Doesn`t anybody even want to see some credible facts about his guilt anymore?

The president of the United states can now, completely on his own, and kept entirely in the executive branch, without the shadow of any evidence, post a man`s face on all cable tv`s, and claim he is a foul terrorist.

And it certainly looks like most American`s imidiately falls in line and start screaming: kill him, kill him, kill him.....

And then from a nice quiet airconditioned trailer somewhere in Vegas, a small drone will be guided to a faraway place, and a hellfire missile will be launched.

And maybe, just maybe the guy, and probably a lot of his family members will be "taken out".

Or, just as likely, you got the wrong family in the crosshairs, and they will be killed.

And of course, there will be absolutely no accountability for anyone.
Not for the president who gave the order, not for the people who carried out the killings, and certainly not for the crowd who cheared them on.

Congratulation America.
You have done well, and have now reached about the same level of intellect as that of the europeans during the witch huntings in the late middle ages.

Of course she is a witch, the government says so... So we don`t need no stinkin` evidence burn her, burn her, burn her.....

Jen

[DianaDrk]

Fine Jen, we will have this nice man move to Denmark, and you can feel good about being his host.

[Coellacag]

Of course it was always Obama's goal to destroy Al-Qaeda and kill as many members as possible. However expect soft on crime right-wingers to pop up and start complaining about this. Complaining about what Obama does is the only tactic they have.

When did Jen become a right-winger?

[duceswild]

Fine Jen, we will have this nice man move to Denmark, and you can feel good about being his host.

If it were some kind of a Baptist they couldn't be wiped off the earth soon enough~!

[regfortruegoo]

Have all of America now reached the point where a man is a terrorist, entirely based on the fact, that your government says he is a terrorist?

Nope. There's more information out there on this guy than simply government press releases.

[Xcqjwarl]

Truncated

I do agree that criteria for making the list should be publicised, and CIA hits go through proper clearances using the criteria, but it doesn't seem to be too complicated an issue. The government would get publicly excoriated and sued by relatives for mega-dollars if it didn't pick only the clearest cases, and isn't a reasonable assumption that they want to kill innocent US citizens. But guys like the ones I'm linking are proudly and openly announcing their guilty nature, and IMO, there should be no question that they get fragged and bagged at the first opportunity available.

IMO If we as a nation can can legalize "assassination" we Ipso Facto legalize the same event for the enemies we face and by the same "token" condone any killing by any means available for outselves and by the same group or groups of the opposition. Thereby saying; "There is no such thing as a War Crime".......Prove me wrong !

[MeverikcNils]

Nope. There's more information out there on this guy than simply government press releases.

Do you think, that informations only on an individual, is enough to launch an assassination program on him ?

Or would you prefer, that there has been due process`, courts, judges, lawyers, and all in all a fair trial, before you kill a man?

It is not exactly a secret, that since 9/11, America is imidiately going into a flat spin whenever the word terror is mentioned.
And without even an attempt to define the word terror, it has become a universal tool to legitimize just about anything you can possible think of.

Mention the word terrorists, and all of the above mentioned processes, plus a lot of others are imidiately circumvented, and the decission to either enter other nations with troops, or sending out remote controlled drones to kill, can be taken by one man.

I very seriously believe, that America is moving in a direction, where it has one foot placed on a slippery slope, and the other on a banana peel.

Jen

[aaaaaaaabbbby]

Do you think, that informations only on an individual, is enough to launch an assassination program on him ?

Or would you prefer, that there has been due process`, courts, judges, lawyers, and all in all a fair trial, before you kill a man?

It is not exactly a secret, that since 9/11, America is imidiately going into a flat spin whenever the word terror is mentioned.
And without even an attempt to define the word terror, it has become a universal tool to legitimize just about anything you can possible think of.

Mention the word terrorists, and all of the above mentioned processes, plus a lot of others are imidiately circumvented, and the decission to either enter other nations with troops, or sending out remote controlled drones to kill, can be taken by one man.

I very seriously believe, that America is moving in a direction, where it has one foot placed on a slippery slope, and the other on a banana peel.

Jen

I avoid the word "terror" or "terrorist." They're subjective and emotional; what the US is involved in, though, is certainly an armed conflict. It is an insurgency, asymmetrical warfare that exists in several areas of the world and, in some of those cases, is interlinked. This type of conflict does not fit neatly into any preconceived notion of warfare, nor do its combatants. It is not simply a power grab by the US military and executive branch. My point is that all your rhetoric about America's knee-jerk reaction to the word 'terror' is not entirely true, and that the controversies surrounding things like Guantanamo or drone strikes have legitimate points not captured by the usual 'tyrannical US power vs peace and justice' dichotomy.

What would you suggest the United States do about Anwar? Should they kidnap him and give him a trial?

[WaicurtaitfuT]

Of course we can.

[errolurberozy]

Truncated


IMO If we as a nation can can legalize "assassination" we Ipso Facto legalize the same event for the enemies we face and by the same "token" condone any killing by any means available for ourselves and by the same group or groups of the opposition. Thereby saying; "There is no such thing as a War Crime".......Prove me wrong !

War crimes most certainly exist. The US does have certain obligations. For example, IMO, it would be a war crime to kill captured AQ agents without a trial or to torture them. There are international treaties and US domestic laws making such kinds of conduct a crime.

Both nations and individuals, however, have a right to defend themselves from those wishing to attack them. That's true whether the assailants are war enemies or criminals. There's no reasonably debatable argument going on in any international legal circles about the nature of AQ. It's an illegal terrorist organisation in every country of which I'm aware, and even the UN has consistently labelled them such and has routinely authorised decrees, sanctions, use of force authorisations, etc, aimed at expunging AQ. So, IMO, 'assassination' is not really a good term for killing AQ members. They are members of a known threat and illegal terrorist organisation and each member of the conspiracy is therefore a known threat as a member thereof. They make the illegal choice to join it and pursue the illegal ends of attempting to kill and visit destruction upon the US and many other nations and people, and therefore it's the right of AQ's targets to defend themselves against them, including killing them before they kill their targets. If AQ members wish not to be killed, they can quit being members or surrender to authorities. But so long as they remain in the public and seek to avoid capture in order to attack the US and anyone else in their plans, they make themselves legitimate targets for being killed in self-defence.

[NiliSpuppypax]

War crimes most certainly exist. The US does have certain obligations. For example, IMO, it would be a war crime to kill captured AQ agents without a trial or to torture them. There are international treaties and US domestic laws making such kinds of conduct a crime.

Both nations and individuals, however, have a right to defend themselves from those wishing to attack them. That's true whether the assailants are war enemies or criminals. There's no reasonably debatable argument going on in any international legal circles about the nature of AQ. It's an illegal terrorist organisation in every country of which I'm aware, and even the UN has consistently labelled them such and has routinely authorised decrees, sanctions, use of force authorisations, etc, aimed at expunging AQ. So, IMO, 'assassination' is not really a good term for killing AQ members. They are members of a known threat and illegal terrorist organisation and each member of the conspiracy is therefore a known threat as a member thereof. They make the illegal choice to join it and pursue the illegal ends of attempting to kill and visit destruction upon the US and many other nations and people, and therefore it's the right of AQ's targets to defend themselves against them, including killing them before they kill their targets. If AQ members wish not to be killed, they can quit being members or surrender to authorities. But so long as they remain in the public and seek to avoid capture in order to attack the US and anyone else in their plans, they make themselves legitimate targets for being killed in self-defence.

I agree that killing a designated enemy "under the laws of a given nation" for reasons "within that nation" of self defence can be legally and morally justified. However; I disagree with the notion that we can extend that law to include "our" right to legally and morally assassinate any one any place at any time without CONGRESS ITSELF declaring ourselves at war with the country from whence an attack or justifiable danger originated warranting such action. The right to declare war (or act of) simply cannot be passed
from one to another or it would have IMO been so written in our constitution.

We seem to be in the middle of the development of a world wide "insurrection" (the weak against the stromg) (impoverished against the wealthy) (the ownership of crucial natural resources) (the value of and need for man's labor in a perhaps static sytem requiring adjustment.

Education may sometimes work against one. Why do you think the English pevented educting (at all cost)the Irish ?

[meteeratymn]

I agree that killing a designated enemy "under the laws of a given nation" for reasons "within that nation" of self defence can be legally and morally justified. However; I disagree with the notion that we can extend that law to include "our" right to legally and morally assassinate any one any place at any time without CONGRESS ITSELF declaring ourselves at war with the country from whence an attack or justifiable danger originated warranting such action. The right to declare war (or act of) simply cannot be passed
from one to another or it would have IMO been so written in our constitution.

We seem to be in the middle of the development of a world wide "insurrection" (the weak against the stromg) (impoverished against the wealthy) (the ownership of crucial natural resources) (the value of and need for man's labor in a perhaps static sytem requiring adjustment.

Education may sometimes work against one. Why do you think the English pevented educting (at all cost)the Irish ?

Against what country should we declare war in order to be able to kill members of AQ?

[Anteneprorid]

I agree that killing a designated enemy "under the laws of a given nation" for reasons "within that nation" of self defence can be legally and morally justified. However; I disagree with the notion that we can extend that law to include "our" right to legally and morally assassinate any one any place at any time without CONGRESS ITSELF declaring ourselves at war with the country from whence an attack or justifiable danger originated warranting such action. The right to declare war (or act of) simply cannot be passed from one to another or it would have IMO been so written in our constitution.

A declaration of war is not a prerequisite to killing assailants in self-defence. Even international treaties for international law purposes recognise such a right. Even general US laws allow such killings as do the laws of most other societies except where the government itself is the one doing the assailing, a point I'll address below to your last one. Obviously, to be a self-defence killing, it must actually be in self-defence on the merits.

It's also my opinion--and this is where reasonable minds differ--that AQ is not a war combatant group, but a criminal conspiracy no different in categorisation than Tim McVeigh, drug gangs, etc.

AQ is not akin to a nation in a declared state of war, or a bona fide group in rebellion in a recognised civil war, or a group of bona fide partisans or rebels seeking to oust a tyrannical invader or occupier. They are also likewise not 'unlawful combatants' given the nature of AQ as stated, nor are their action akin to what 'unlawful combatants' have been viewed in the past. 'Unlawful combatants' were categorised as spies and saboteurs violating rules of engagement in bona fide wars and insurgencies. Men caught in non-uniformed spy status like Nathan Hale of the American rebels and Major John Andre of the British during the American Revolutionary War were 'unlawful combatants.' The German non-uniformed saboteurs who were Abwehr (German military intelligence) agents and were landed by U-boat in the US during WWII to conduct sabotage operations were 'unlawful combatants.'

Those men and others like them were tried in military tribunals and executed for being 'illegal combatants.' However, the standing, rationale and purposes of such men in a bona fide war/insurgency situation were fundamentally different than AQ. They were not terrorists, common criminals or otherwise dishonourable. Nathan Hale and John Andre were involved in activities requested by and on behalf of their respective side in a bona fide rebellion of the residents of the American colonies against their sovereign. The German saboteurs were performing acts requested by and on behalf of their nation against another during a state of declared war between them. Their missions were legitimate military objectives in nature; they just weren't in uniform as required, which made them illegal combatants. As for AQ, however, IMO they are no different than Tim McVeigh, the KKK when they oppressed, intimidated and attacked minorities, etc. Such people are not war combatants but simply notorious criminals.

We seem to be in the middle of the development of a world wide "insurrection" (the weak against the stromg) (impoverished against the wealthy) (the ownership of crucial natural resources) (the value of and need for man's labor in a perhaps static sytem requiring adjustment.

The US has certainly done its fair share of wrongdoings against others too. But, each case stands on its own merits and shouldn't IMO be conflated with legitimate actions of self-defence. The US can be in the wrong in one circumstance and be in the right in another.

Here, this thread focuses on actions taken against AQ. What's applicable for addressing AQ is not transferable to other actions and motivations that are not substantially similar. The best course IMO is to not choose to forgo self-defence in legitimate situations for fear that the precedent will become a twisted citation by wrongdoers. That's suicidally self-destructive. There will always be sinister people who look to misapply a righteous cause to justify a bad one, but the distinguishing facts will speak for themselves for which they bear accountability.

Education may sometimes work against one. Why do you think the English prevented educating (at all cost) the Irish ?

They did it for the same reasons the whites outlawed black slaves from learning how to read and write, learn geography, learn the local and regional road systems, etc, in the American South before the American Civil War and punished them with whipping, selling their kinfolk off and whatever else worked to intimidate them into remaining as ignorant as possible. By keeping them as ignorant as possible about such things, in conjunction with instilling the worst fears in them for non-compliance with the non-education policies, it made the slaves far less likely to escape or rebel and/or have the means and mindsets to successfully do so. Once an Irishman educated himself enough on the natural rights of man against his oppressor, this was all too common the result, e.g.,:

Speech from the Dock (Emmet) - Wikisource

And I cite that for the point I said I would elaborate above: the right of self-defence against a wrongdoer is a natural right of humans IMO. Sometimes laws themselves can be the vehicle of wrongdoer. For example, the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws and all sorts of laws and decrees that constituted atrocities against people, violations of treaties, committing wars of aggression, etc. In the end, the main protagonists of those things wound up at the end of a hangman's rope once they lost the war for being deemed not 'illegal combatants' but actual criminals.

The entire issue of who is right and wrong can be a complex one and certainly involves subjectivity as well as objectivity. After all, AQ often claims they do what they do as a rightful response against what others do in their opinion. But wrongdoers as well as the righteously aggrieved have their excuses to claim a 'just cause' for what they do all the time. What needs to be examined is the entire set of circumstances: laws, causes, actions, etc. In the case of AQ, I don't find what they stand for and do as a whole to be anyway realistically debatable as being wrong in the scope, manner and means of what they seek to accomplish and do. It's also no secret and and openly stated goal what they wish to do to Americans and by what means. IMO, the US can fairly target AQ members under the category of self-defence.

[squeerisott]

Against what country should we declare war in order to be able to kill members of AQ?

Against any country we can justify the decision that they are aiding and abetting or condoning violence aginst our country. "The Congress of the United States with a majority vote" being the vehicle.

[letittbe]

O'Sullivan Bere;1629148]A declaration of war is not a prerequisite to killing assailants in self-defence. Even international treaties for international law purposes recognise such a right. Even general US laws allow such killings as do the laws of most other societies except where the government itself is the one doing the assailing, a point I'll address below to your last one. Obviously, to be a self-defence killing, it must actually be in self-defence on the merits. In suspense...

It's also my opinion--and this is where reasonable minds differ--that AQ is not a war combatant group, but a criminal conspiracy no different in categorisation than Tim McVeigh, drug gangs, etc. IMO AQ and the Taliban are a developing "war combatant" group of those for good or evil in their minds and are opposing the status Quo and current balance of historically grown power.

AQ is not akin to a nation in a declared state of war, or a bona fide group in rebellion in a recognised civil war, or a group of bona fide partisans or rebels seeking to oust a tyrannical invader or occupier. They are also likewise not 'unlawful combatants' given the nature of AQ as stated, nor are their action akin to what 'unlawful combatants' have been viewed in the past. 'Unlawful combatants' were categorised as spies and saboteurs violating rules of engagement in bona fide wars and insurgencies. Men caught in non-uniformed spy status like Nathan Hale of the American rebels and Major John Andre of the British during the American Revolutionary War were 'unlawful combatants.' The German non-uniformed saboteurs who were Abwehr (German military intelligence) agents and were landed by U-boat in the US during WWII to conduct sabotage operations were 'unlawful combatants. As we ourselves have argued "We are engaged in a different kind of war" Does this not also mean the opposition is involved in a different kind of war ?



Those men and others like them were tried in military tribunals and executed for being 'illegal combatants.' However, the standing, rationale and purposes of such men in a bona fide war/insurgency situation were fundamentally different than AQ. They were not terrorists, common criminals or otherwise dishonourable. Nathan Hale and John Andre were involved in activities requested by and on behalf of their respective side in a bona fide rebellion of the residents of the American colonies against their sovereign. The German saboteurs were performing acts requested by and on behalf of their nation against another during a state of declared war between them. Their missions were legitimate military objectives in nature; they just weren't in uniform as required, which made them illegal combatants. As for AQ, however, IMO they are no different than Tim McVeigh, the KKK when they oppressed, intimidated and attacked minorities, etc. Such people are not war combatants but simply notorious criminals.
We are operating with a set of parameters that has limited deliberation of many factors from consideration in the current conflict because of economic/ political constraints.

The US has certainly done its fair share of wrongdoings against others too. But, each case stands on its own merits and shouldn't IMO be conflated with legitimate actions of self-defence. The US can be in the wrong in one circumstance and be in the right in another.

Here, this thread focuses on actions taken against AQ. What's applicable for addressing AQ is not transferable to other actions and motivations that are not substantially similar. The best course IMO is to not choose to forgo self-defence in legitimate situations for fear that the precedent will become a twisted citation by wrongdoers. That's suicidally self-destructive. There will always be sinister people who look to misapply a righteous cause to justify a bad one, but the distinguishing facts will speak for themselves for which they bear accountability. Each time we breach a generally accepted principle we lose a little bit of the only real value we have to cling to.

They did it for the same reasons the whites outlawed black slaves from learning how to read and write, learn geography, learn the local and regional road systems, etc, in the American South before the American Civil War and punished them with whipping, selling their kinfolk off and whatever else worked to intimidate them into remaining as ignorant as possible. By keeping them as ignorant as possible about such things, in conjunction with instilling the worst fears in them for non-compliance with the non-education policies, it made the slaves far less likely to escape or rebel and/or have the means and mindsets to successfully do so. Once an Irishman educated himself enough on the natural rights of man against his oppressor, this was all too common the result, e.g.,:

Speech from the Dock (Emmet) - Wikisource

And I cite that for the point I said I would elaborate above: the right of self-defence against a wrongdoer is a natural right of humans IMO. Sometimes laws themselves can be the vehicle of wrongdoer. For example, the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws and all sorts of laws and decrees that constituted atrocities against people, violations of treaties, committing wars of aggression, etc. In the end, the main protagonists of those things wound up at the end of a hangman's rope once they lost the war for being deemed not 'illegal combatants' but actual criminals.

The entire issue of who is right and wrong can be a complex one and certainly involves subjectivity as well as objectivity. After all, AQ often claims they do what they do as a rightful response against what others do in their opinion. But wrongdoers as well as the righteously aggrieved have their excuses to claim a 'just cause' for what they do all the time. What needs to be examined is the entire set of circumstances: laws, causes, actions, etc. In the case of AQ, I don't find what they stand for and do as a whole to be anyway realistically debatable as being wrong in the scope, manner and means of what they seek to accomplish and do. It's also no secret and and openly stated goal what they wish to do to Americans and by what means. IMO, the US can fairly target AQ members under the category of self-defence. Exactly! Incidently I have no qualms about the need for a vigorous defense or offense and maintaining the stongest military in the world but the cause for its use must be just in my mind and be conducted in accordance with the Constitution I was raised under.

[VistaULTIMATEdownloadaPro]

Re: O'Sullivan Bere:

At one point in my reply I used the word "exactly" and it was meant to agree with the statement that laws can be made that are convoluted (Devious so as to legitimize that which might otherwise be rejected upon closer examination)

IMO Assassination as a preemptive action especially by our government contradicts our system of justice and constitution unless war is declared by the authority given our congress thus preserving the safeguards built into the document in respect to rule by majority.