Open main menu

Comments:US federal judge dismisses targeted killing lawsuit

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Should Anwar al-Awlaki be the subject of targeted killing by the United States government?400:43, 14 December 2010

Should Anwar al-Awlaki be the subject of targeted killing by the United States government?

Should Anwar al-Awlaki be the subject of targeted killing by the United States government? Thoughts?

-- Cirt (talk)18:13, 8 December 2010

It's not like a wanted man in the US, where marshals can corner him in a hotel room and be pretty sure he's not going to be stupid enough to take on a team of armed men.

From the linked Wikipedia page, which includes links to sources: "Espousing violence or providing financial support to al-Qaeda do not meet the threshold, officials said, but providing training to would-be terrorists or helping them get to al-Qaeda camps probably would." According to the US government, he is at the very least in close contact with (and probably surrounded by) armed groups and assisting them directly in carrying out or making preparations to carry out attacks.

Added to his own statements that he will not surrender, and further challenging the US to "look for [him]", I think his father/the ACLU/etc. care more about his being targeted than he himself does.

With the information that I have, I'd say I agree with the targeting.

Fishy c (talk)22:29, 8 December 2010
 

Hell no! Political assassinations are morally bankrupt and have no legitimate place in a Democratic society, no matter how bizzare, scary or radical a person's beliefs and public statements are. They are an indisputable violation of International law and basic human rights. This list amounts to nothing more than the sanction of extrajudicial killings of U.S. Citizens and if carried out would be an act of first-degree murder, not "counter-terrorism". If Anwar al-Awlaki or anyone else on this list is indeed assassinated, whoever authorized the doctrine of "targeted killing" ought to be arrested, brought before the International Criminal Court and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The ACLU and the CRC will appeal this vigorously, because freedom can't protect itself, and no one is above the rule of law.

67.142.172.24 (talk)00:56, 11 December 2010

"This list amounts to nothing more than the sanction of extrajudicial killings of U.S. Citizens" Anwar al-Awlaki is the only US citizen on the list, which is why he's generated interest.

This isn't about his statements or beliefs, which "do not meet the threshold" for addition to the list. It's only when they can be considered a military target, with access to weapons and an intent to use or distribute them, that they become subject to "targeted killing." For example, one of the successfully killed targets was an al-Qaeda explosives supplier. The US has been doing this under both Bush and Obama (Obama being the one to authorize Anwar to be added, despite being a US citizen) with the cooperation (publicly known or otherwise) of the countries in which the targeted killings take place.

Fishy c (talk)02:51, 11 December 2010

I thought this would be a lively, controversial discussion. :(

Fishy c (talk)00:43, 14 December 2010