American government assassinates one of it's own citizens

[somone uk]

al-Awlaki was practically recruiting for al-queda
recruiting soldiers to shoot at american soldiers is no different to if he was shooting them himself
recruitment is an act of war and he committed an act of war against america by recruiting for al-queda, if you commit an act of war against a country then it would not be surprising if the man got shot

 

[Agahi]

I'd be fine with the situation if the exact limits as to when this can happen where made official, instead of being so ambiguous.

As it stands now, can any US citizen get the same treatment? Who makes the call? Are they held accountable if the person killed is later found to be innocent? Will the government even try to found out if he was innocent since he is already dead? Can the mans family sue for wrongful death? Can I be killed now because I disagree, and disagreeing is agreeing with the terrorists? Does that make me a traitor and thus marked for death?

We don't know because the whole process of how he was found worthy of killing is not known. All we know is that some people in the government decided that it is ok to circumvent the constitution if someone is a terrorist, but ANYONE can be put on the terrorist watch list.

If an amendment was made to say that the supreme court or some slightly lower court can decide to put someone on the list (and no one else can) and then the president alone can order the deaths, then I would agree with the situation completely. But ATM an innumerable amount of people can declare someone a terrorist.

 

[imlosinit]

Worried you are marching towards fascism?

America offers freedom as long as you fit into the system.

Once you are deemed a problem, you should expect expulsion in some way, shape or form. Awlaki, an American, knew this. And I'm sure this only gave him more reason to follow his "god" rather than the man made doctrines of his compatriots.

 

[Bryan]

Huh?? Salman Rushdie is a very very smart man, which is why Bill Maher likes to have him on his show. I think he (Rushdie) is as aware of US constitutional law as anybody else (including Newt Gingrich, who praised President Obama recently for having al-Awlaki killed).

The link I posted earlier is from a constitutional lawyer who says is just about the most egregious example of a president violating the constitution as you can get.

My sister (the former US Ambassador) happened to call me today (late Sunday afternoon) to talk to me about something else, and I took the opportunity to ask her about her own opinion on the al-Awlaki affair. She told me that she hadn't seen or heard of any particular great concern or uproar over the incident, and I'm talking about the professional people who live in and around that area (she lives in Washington DC). She said people were pretty much in general support of what happened, just as she was, herself.

She talked about it to a considerably greater extent than I was expecting, and now I wish I had a recording of everything she said! Among numerous other things, she said that some official organization (the Justice Department, maybe, or some other organization that I'm forgetting at the moment) told President Obama privately (how she knew about that, is what I'd like to know) that it's okay to authorize the killing of somebody who is an imminent threat to national security; and whether the person is or isn't a US citizen (or his wherabouts) is completely immaterial. So what that "constitutional lawyer" you mentioned says has been completely refuted, according to my sister.

The president of the US gets to kill anyone he wants merely on the basis of an allegation, without having to show any evidence or proof. How is that not a dire situation?

The USA government just called this guy a terrorist and the public accepted it as the truth. Can you say for sure that you know this guy was a terrorist?

Oh absolutely! She was very emphatic about the case of this guy Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that this guy was REALLY bad!! She said he had blood on his hands!!

By the way, I'll mention here that after I told her what you said yourself in this thread, she actually agreed with you to a certain extent, but for a different reason: she said that certain other countries (a notable example would probably be Iran, from what I've read) also have the technology to have these sophistacted "drone" attack planes, and it worries her that if some of them continue to develop them and use them the same way we do, what's to stop them from doing the same thing? She seems to think that the important issue here isn't what we do with this technology, but what others may do with it.

 

[HughJass]

al-Awlaki was practically recruiting for al-queda
recruiting soldiers to shoot at american soldiers is no different to if he was shooting them himself
recruitment is an act of war and he committed an act of war against america by recruiting for al-queda, if you commit an act of war against a country then it would not be surprising if the man got shot

That's just opinion and speculation. There is no legal case against this guy.


There are plenty of folk in western countries- commentators, politicians etc who call for war against entire states and groups around the world. Should it be fair game to assassinate them now? It's hard to argue why not if we're going to apply this principle universally.....

 

[HughJass]

Worried you are marching towards fascism?

America offers freedom as long as you fit into the system.

Once you are deemed a problem, you should expect expulsion in some way, shape or form. Awlaki, an American, knew this. And I'm sure this only gave him more reason to follow his "god" rather than the man made doctrines of his compatriots.

who gets to decide whether you are a problem though?


countries have constitutions and bills of rights etc for a reason. Now we have governments arbitrarily deciding who is a terrorist and who isn't, who gets to live and who doesn't, without showing anyone any evidence to support their accusations.


That's authoritarianism.

 

[HughJass]

My sister (the former US Ambassador) happened to call me today (late Sunday afternoon) to talk to me about something else, and I took the opportunity to ask her about her own opinion on the al-Awlaki affair. She told me that she hadn't seen or heard of any particular great concern or uproar over the incident, and I'm talking about the professional people who live in and around that area (she lives in Washington DC). She said people were pretty much in general support of what happened, just as she was, herself.

She talked about it to a considerably greater extent than I was expecting, and now I wish I had a recording of everything she said! Among numerous other things, she said that some official organization (the Justice Department, maybe, or some other organization that I'm forgetting at the moment) told President Obama privately (how she knew about that, is what I'd like to know) that it's okay to authorize the killing of somebody who is an imminent threat to national security; and whether the person is or isn't a US citizen (or his wherabouts) is completely immaterial. So what that "constitutional lawyer" you mentioned says has been completely refuted, according to my sister.

it honestly doesn't surprise me that she is supportive of it- the establishment class agree on basically everything the establishment does.

Oh absolutely! She was very emphatic about the case of this guy Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that this guy was REALLY bad!! She said he had blood on his hands!!

did she show any evidence? because there doesn't seem to be one shred of it coming from anywhere. No criminal case, nothing....

I just watched a white house press briefing where the spokesperson was pressed by a journalist to show some evidence to support this claim that he was the next bin laden. It's pretty telling.

There is considerable disagreement amongst experts whether this guy was really anything other a made-up bogeyman who's role was greatly exaggerated.

By the way, I'll mention here that after I told her what you said yourself in this thread, she actually agreed with you to a certain extent, but for a different reason: she said that certain other countries (a notable example would probably be Iran, from what I've read) also have the technology to have these sophistacted "drone" attack planes, and it worries her that if some of them continue to develop them and use them the same way we do, what's to stop them from doing the same thing? She seems to think that the important issue here isn't what we do with this technology, but what others may do with it.

Did she say anything about all the civilians that have been killed with these drone strikes (it's thousands). It's a pretty counterproductive policy:

There is a good article on this I just read:

Why use drones at all, since they have a decidedly mixed record, killing many more civilians than terrorists and turning local populations against the United States? The answer is probably in the numbers and in the perception of the domestic audience in the United States. Killing Pakistanis or Afghans or Yemenis or Somalis or Iraqis is hardly reported in the media and becomes over time little more than a statistic. Dead Americans on the ground in places like Afghanistan and Iraq can instead become a problem for politicians. Drones enable the so-called war on terror to continue forever in a low-intensity fashion and be expanded without the casualties that can lead to lost elections for the desperate and ethically challenged men we Americans have unfortunately elected to the highest office over the past 20 years. Death by drone is a peculiarly American way of waging war: bloodless for the initiators, high-tech, and akin to a video game. And as the White House is clearly considering expanding operations to conduct large-scale bombing operations using drones, it is a safe bet that robot killing will before too long become the weapon of choice “to keep Americans safe.â€￾
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/201 ... n-the-usa/

 

[Bryan]

Oh absolutely! She was very emphatic about the case of this guy Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that this guy was REALLY bad!! She said he had blood on his hands!!

did she show any evidence? because there doesn't seem to be one shred of it coming from anywhere. No criminal case, nothing....

I just watched a white house press briefing where the spokesperson was pressed by a journalist to show some evidence to support this claim that he was the next bin laden. It's pretty telling.

There is considerable disagreement amongst experts whether this guy was really anything other a made-up bogeyman who's role was greatly exaggerated.

She talked some about what made him a really bad guy, but I don't remember many of the details. I'll have to email her questions about that, so I can get the straight scoop from her and report what she says directly, without having to remember everything she says from a phone conversation.

By the way, I'll mention here that after I told her what you said yourself in this thread, she actually agreed with you to a certain extent, but for a different reason: she said that certain other countries (a notable example would probably be Iran, from what I've read) also have the technology to have these sophistacted "drone" attack planes, and it worries her that if some of them continue to develop them and use them the same way we do, what's to stop them from doing the same thing? She seems to think that the important issue here isn't what we do with this technology, but what others may do with it.

Did she say anything about all the civilians that have been killed with these drone strikes (it's thousands). It's a pretty counterproductive policy:

There is a good article on this I just read: {snip}

She did mention claims being made by the authorities that unintinded victims of the drone strikes are far less than what some people think, because of the tremendous caution and care with which these attacks are carried out. She admits, though, that she herself has a certain amount of healthy skepticism about the real accuracy of those claims of relatively low collateral damage.

 

[Bryan]

Oh absolutely! She was very emphatic about the case of this guy Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that this guy was REALLY bad!! She said he had blood on his hands!!

did she show any evidence? because there doesn't seem to be one shred of it coming from anywhere. No criminal case, nothing....

I just watched a white house press briefing where the spokesperson was pressed by a journalist to show some evidence to support this claim that he was the next bin laden. It's pretty telling.

There is considerable disagreement amongst experts whether this guy was really anything other a made-up bogeyman who's role was greatly exaggerated.

Okay, I just got an email reply from my sister on your comments above. I didn't tell her anything about this being an gourmetstylewellness.com post, I just told her this was something from a friend of mine (I quoted your exact words above), and asked for her response to you. One of the things she says is a bit personal, and I hope she doesn't mind my posting it for the rest of you. Here are her exact words:

I think it's highly inappropriate (and naive) for people who are not in the U.S. Govt. and who do not have access to classified information to assert that someone is innocent. No one gets on the target list without verrrry strong evidence that he is a bad guy. The evidence is supplied by IC (Intelligence Community) people on the ground (in this case Yemen), then vetted at CIA and DOD hdqs, then reviewed by the Justice Dept., then by the Natl. Security Council staff (the counter-terrorism staff in particular) and finally approved by the President. This is an extremely long, complex and careful vetting process. It is carried out by seasoned, intelligent, thoughtful, professional officers. I was in a mtg the other day with John Brennan, ex-CIA and now the President's counter-terrorism adviser. He is very impressive. The US Govt. has better things to do than to create a "made-up bogeyman." Surely no one expects the White House spokesman to share highly confidential intelligence with the press???!!!

Your friend strikes me as someone who would be criticizing Obama if he were NOT targeting the bad guys for being weak on national security.

 

[imlosinit]

I think it's highly inappropriate (and naive) for people who are not in the U.S. Govt. and who do not have access to classified information to assert that someone is innocent.

You can justify anything with that rationale. "Oh yeah, well you're wrong because....ummm... you dont have access to classified information". Works both ways.

 

[Bryan]

Okay. Whatever.

 

[The Gardener]

It's a disgrace. Americans should be worried about the trajectory and actions of our "government" nowadays. To all my non-American friends here, be wary. The financial corruption, the militarism, the gradual decline into fascism... there are many Americans as myself who worry about what all is going on. This country is a "wounded dog" that is sliding into a very bad place.

I'm sure that making such a posting might put me on some sort of "watch list", or "no fly list", or "look out for this guy" list... but people, especially my fellow Americans, need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture in regards to the craziness that is being foisted upon us.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article30726.html
About the author of this piece:
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal . He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington ; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy , and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.

Is The War On Terror A Hoax?
By: Paul_Craig_Roberts

In the past decade, Washington has killed, maimed, dislocated, and made widows and orphans millions of Muslims in six countries, all in the name of the “war on terror.†Washington’s attacks on the countries constitute naked aggression and impact primarily civilian populations and infrastructure and, thereby, constitute war crimes under law. Nazis were executed precisely for what Washington is doing today.

Moreover the wars and military attacks have cost American taxpayers in out-of-pocket and already-incurred future costs at least $4,000 billion dollars--one third of the accumulated public debt--resulting in a US deficit crisis that threatens the social safety net, the value of the US dollar and its reserve currency role, while enriching beyond all previous history the military/security complex and its apologists.

Perhaps the highest cost of Washington’s “war on terror†has been paid by the US Constitution and civil liberties. Any US citizen that Washington accuses is deprived of all legal and constitutional rights. The Bush-Cheney-Obama regimes have overturned humanity’s greatest achievement--the accountability of government to law.

If we look around for the terror that the police state and a decade of war has allegedly protected us from, the terror is hard to find. Except for 9/11 itself, assuming we accept the government’s improbable conspiracy theory explanation, there have been no terror attacks on the US. Indeed, as RT pointed out on August 23, 2011, an investigative program at the University of California discovered that the domestic “terror plots†hyped in the media were plotted by FBI agents. http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-terror-report-plot-365-899/

FBI undercover agents now number 15,000, ten times their number during the protests against the Vietnam war when protesters were suspected of communist sympathies. As there apparently are no real terror plots for this huge workforce to uncover, the FBI justifies its budget, terror alerts, and invasive searches of American citizens by thinking up “terror plots†and finding some deranged individuals to ensnare. For example, the Washington DC Metro bombing plot, the New York city subway plot, the plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago were all FBI brainchilds organized and managed by FBI agents.

RT reports that only three plots might have been independent of the FBI, but as none of the three worked they obviously were not the work of such a professional terror organization as Al Qaeda is purported to be. The Times Square car bomb didn’t blow up, and apparently could not have.

The latest FBI sting ensnared a Boston man, Rezwan Ferdaus, who is accused of planning to attack the Pentagon and US Capitol with model airplanes packed with C-4 explosives. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz assured Americans that they were never in danger, because the FBI’s undercover agents were in control of the plot. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... 50593792/1

Ferdaus’ FBI-organized plot to blow up the Pentagon and US Capitol with model airplanes has produced charges that he provided “material support to a terrorist organization†and plotted to destroy federal buildings--the most serious charge which carries 20 imprisoned years for each targeted building.

What is the terrorist organization that Ferdaus is serving? Surely not al Qaeda, which allegedly outwitted all 16 US intelligence services, all intelligence services of America’s NATO and Israeli allies, NORAD, the National Security Council, Air Traffic Control, Dick Cheney, and US airport security four times in one hour on the same morning. Such a highly capable terror organization would not be involved in such nonsense as a plot to blow up the Pentagon with a model airplane.

As an American who was in public service for a number of years and who has always stood up for the Constitution, a patriot’s duty, I must hope that the question has already popped into readers’ minds why we are expected to believe that a tiny model airplane is capable of blowing up the Pentagon when a 757 airliner loaded with jet fuel was incapable of doing the job, merely making a hole not big enough for an airliner.

When I observe the gullibility of my fellow citizens at the absurd “terror plots†that the US government manufactures, it causes me to realize that fear is the most powerful weapon any government has for advancing an undeclared agenda. If Ferdaus is brought to trial, no doubt a jury will convict him of a plot to blow up the Pentagon and US Capitol with model airplanes. Most likely he will be tortured or coerced into a plea bargain.

Apparently, Americans, or most of them, are so ruled by fear that they suffer no remorse from “their†government’s murder and dislocation of millions of innocent people. In the American mind, one billion “towel-heads†have been reduced to terrorists who deserve to be exterminated. The US is on its way to a holocaust that makes the terrors Jews faced from National Socialism into a mere precursor.

Think about this: Are not you amazed that after a decade (2.5 times the length of WW II) of killing Muslims and destroying families and their prospects in six countries there are no real terrorist events in the US?

Think for a minute how easy terrorism would be in the US if there were any terrorists. Would an Al Qaeda terrorist from the organization that allegedly pulled off 9/11--the most humiliating defeat ever suffered by a Western power, much less “the world’s only superpowerâ€--still in the face of all the screening be trying to hijack an airliner or to blow one up?

Surely not when there are so many totally soft targets. If America were really infected with a “terrorist threat,†a terrorist would merely get in the massive lines awaiting to clear airport “security†and set off his bomb. It would kill far more people than could be achieved by blowing up an airliner, and it would make it completely clear that “airport security†meant no one was safe.

It would be child’s play for terrorists to blow up electric sub-stations as no one is there, nothing but a chain link fence. It would be easy for terrorists to blow up shopping centers. It would be easy for terrorists to dump boxes of roofing nails on congested streets and freeways during rush hours, tying up main transportation arteries for days. Before, dear reader, you accuse me of giving terrorists ideas, do you really think that these ideas would not already have occurred to terrorists capable of pulling off 9/11?

But nothing happens. So the FBI arrests a guy for planning to blow up America with a model airplane. It is really depressing how many Americans will believe this.

Consider also that American neoconservatives, who have orchestrated the “war on terror,†have no protection whatsoever and that the Secret Service protection of Bush and Cheney is minimal. If America really faced a terrorist threat, especially one so professional to have brought off 9/11, every neoconservative along with Bush and Cheney could be assassinated within one hour on one morning or one evening.

The fact that neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, William Kristol, Libby, Addington, et. al., live unprotected and free of fear is proof that America faces no terrorist threat.

Think now about the airliner shoe-bomb plot, the shampoo-bottled water plot, and the underwear-bomb plot. Experts, other than the w****s hired by the US government, say that these plots are nonsensical. The “shoe bomb†and “underwear bomb†were colored fireworks powders incapable of blowing up a tin can. The liquid bomb, allegedly mixed up in an airliner toilet room, has been dismissed by experts as fantasy.

What is the purpose of these fake plots? And remember, all reports confirm that the “underwear bomber†was walked onto the airliner by an official, despite the fact that the “underwear bomber†had no passport. No investigation was ever conducted by the FBI, CIA, or anyone into why a passenger without a passport was allowed on an international flight.

The purpose of these make-believe plots is to raise the fear level and to create the opportunity for former Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff to make a fortune selling porno-scanners to the TSA.

The result of these hyped “terrorist plots†is that every American citizen, even those with high government positions and security clearances, cannot board a commercial airline flight without taking off his shoes, his jacket, his belt, submitting to a porno-scanner, or being sexually groped. Nothing could make it plainer that “airport security†cannot tell a Muslim terrorist from a gung-ho American patriot, a US Senator, a US Marine general, or a CIA operative.

If a passenger requires for health or other reasons quantities of liquids and cremes beyond the limits imposed on toothpaste, shampoo, food, or medications, the passenger must obtain prior approval from TSA, which seldom works. One of America’s finest moments is the case, documented on UTube, of a dying woman in a wheelchair, who requires special food, having her food thrown away by the gestapo TSA despite the written approval from the Transportation Safety Administration, her daughter arrested for protesting, and the dying woman in the wheelchair left alone in the airport.

This is Amerika today. These assaults on innocent citizens are justified by the mindless right-wing as “protecting us against terrorism,†a “threat†that all evidence shows is nonexistent.

No American is secure today. I am a former staff associate of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee. I required high security clearances as I had access to information pertaining to all US weapons programs. As chief economist of the House Budget Committee I had information pertaining to the US military and security budgets. As Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I was provided every morning with the CIA’s briefing of the President as well as with endless security information.

When I left the Treasury, President Reagan appointed me to a super-secret committee to investigate the CIA’s assessment of Soviet capability. Afterwords I was a consult to the Pentagon. I had every kind of security clearance.

Despite my record of highest security clearances and US government confidence in me including confirmation by the US Senate in a presidential appointment, the airline police cannot tell me from a terrorist.

If I were into model airplanes or attending anti-war demonstrations, little doubt I, too, would be arrested.

After my public service in the last quarter of the 20th century, I experienced during the first decade of the 21st century all of America’s achievements, despite their blemishes, being erased. In their place was erected a monstrous desire for hegemony and highly concentrated wealth. Most of my friends and my fellow citizens in general are incapable of recognizing America’s transformation into a warmonger police state that has the worst income distribution of any developed country.

It is extraordinary that so many Americans, citizens of the world’s only superpower, actually believe that they are threatened by Muslim peoples who have no unity, no navy, no air force, no nuclear weapons, no missiles capable of reaching across the oceans.

Indeed, large percentages of these “threat populations,†especially among the young, are enamored of the sexual freedom that exists in America. Even the Iranian dupes of the CIA-orchestrated “Green Revolution†have forgotten Washington’s overthrow of their elected government in the 1950s. Despite America’s decade-long abusive military actions against Muslim peoples, many Muslims still look to America for their salvation.

Their “leaders†are simply bought off with large sums of money.

With the “terrorist threat†and Al Qaeda deflated with President Obama’s alleged assassination of its leader, Osama bin Laden, who was left unprotected and unarmed by his “world-wide terrorist organization,†Washington has come up with a new bogyman--the Haqqanis.

According to John Glaser and anonymous CIA officials, US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen “exaggerated†the case against the Haqqani insurgent group when he claimed, setting up a US invasion of Pakistan, that the Hagganis were an operating arm of the Pakistan government’s secret service, the ISI. Adm. Mullen is now running from his “exaggeration,†an euphemism for a lie. His aid Captain John Kirby said that Mullen’s “accusations were designed to influence the Pakistanis to crack down on the Haqqani Network.†In other words, the Pakistanis should kill more of their own people to save the Americans the trouble.

If you don’t know what the Haqqani Network is, don’t be surprised. You never heard of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. The US government creates whatever new bogymen and incidents are necessary to further the neoconservative agenda of world hegemony and higher profits for the armaments industry.

For ten years, the “superpower†American population has sat there, being terrified by the government’s lies. While Americans sit in fear of non-existent “terrorists†sucking their thumbs, millions of people in six countries have had their lives destroyed. As far as any evidence exists, the vast majority of Americans are unperturbed by the wanton murder of others in countries that they are incapable of locating on maps.

Truly, Amerika is a light unto the world, an example for all.

Paul Craig Roberts [ email him ] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal . He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington ; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy , and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice . Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[HughJass]

Glenn Greenwald has written a lot about the FBI foiling those plots it created. Like your article says it's obviously just being done to create fear, justify the diversion of tax dollars to the national security budget, expand government powers and give the impression that the country's law enforcement is capable of protecting the public.

As far as I can tell it never got picked up by the mainstream media either. The difference between what is reported in the MSM and by the more informative independent online magazines, blogs and news sites is like night and day. No way could you get any kind of realistic idea of what is actually going on by reading the papers and watching the TV news.

It's all getting pretty dark and scary. It doesn't look like there is going to be any end to our countries intervening in the middle east. The longer it goes on the more demented everyone is getting.



somebody come up with a replacement for oil before we all die

 

[imlosinit]

I'm sure that making such a posting might put me on some sort of "watch list", or "no fly list", or "look out for this guy" list...

The FDA has logged your IP address and passed it on to the FBI, who are going through your internet browsing patterns and credit card bills, looking for where you eat on Thursday nights. They will then send a mole to the restaurant who will pose as a trained chef with a french accent, await your order, add sodium pentathol to your food, then sit in wait in your car. When you sit in the drivers seat, you will feel the cold steel of a pistol come out of the darkness onto your neck and a man with a raspy voice asking you if you're a communist and who you work for. Other than that you're safe.

 

[Hammy070]

Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:

"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"

I used to work as an intelligence analyst, we couldn't charge 'known' criminals until they are caught in the act and/or evidence is brought forth for a conviction. No matter how obvious it is that someone is up to no good, no matter if there is consensus that so and so is a criminal - no one is punished until evidence is presented in court.

For me that principle of justice shows it's value when adhered to in times when abandoning it is compelling.

That's my Rorshack take on it.

My Ozymandias take on it - when working in my previous job, I found it sometimes absurd that some people were freely operating given the sheer shitload of intelligence pointing to their criminality. I was 99% sure that if so and so were detained, crime will be reduced. Despite not having hard evidence.

I think I would settle for inbetween - placing him under house arrest in the USA. Wait it out.

PS: Rorshack and Ozymandias are characters from Watchmen - awesome movie.