Streams

At Home and Abroad

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Bill Quigley, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, on a new lawsuit challenging for the authority to be able to sue the government over the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens abroad.

 

Guests:

Bill Quigley
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [10]

Kyle from Baltimore

The point of this segment is not limited to Anwar. It's about the danger in a single branch of our government unilaterally deciding to terminate individuals as it sees fit. Whether or not they are "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" is not really relevant. The issue is that such action circumvents our entire system, especially in the case of an American citizen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating "protecting a terrorist," I just think it's a really really dangerous road to head down. We have mechanisms in place to establish guilt and carry out punishment. Unilateral action to decide to kill someone who is essentially a political dissident, albeit a violent one, smacks of tyranny. I agree with the poster above who said to treat these people as "combatants" in some phantom army legitimizes them to a degree which they probably would like. I disagree with the poster who said that Mr. Quigley didn't cite any legal justification for his position. He did. It's called the Constitution.

Aug. 05 2010 09:44 AM
gary from queens

US troops encountered Nazis throughout europe in WWII----in over a dozen nations and jurisdictions. They were shot on sight because we were at war with german nazis. Period.

US troops encountered Japanese throughout Asia and south pacific in WWII----in several nations and jurisdictions. They were shot on sight because we were at war with imperial japan. Period.

troops and planes bombed the enemy whereever they were spotted. What laws have been established since then that makes drone attacks illegal? What is the legal basis for your guest's contentions. he didn't cite any.

Aug. 04 2010 11:03 AM
Marc from Brooklyn

This guy is a fool. The target in question is not a mere criminal. He has declared war against the United States. He has participated in Acts of War against the United States. By his own declaration, he is a combatant. Therefore he should be treated as all enemy combatants: he should be killed. It's really quite simply. This lawyer, this torturer of basic logic, is arguing against combatant casualties in war. That's too rich -- especially from a suit whose closest foray to combat is an air conditioned US courtroom. In terms of physical blood, al Alawki (sp?) is, by his own declaration, an enemy of the US -- but by his poisoning of basic logic, by his extensive utilization of "doublethink," this lawyer is a far more insidious foe.

Aug. 04 2010 11:03 AM
Jack

So according to the first caller. People who talk about secession should be taken out too.

Aug. 04 2010 11:02 AM
John from office

The guest should volunteer to capture the wanted man, he seems to think it is soooo easy. Very brave with other's lives.

Aug. 04 2010 11:01 AM

Contrary to what David Brancaccio says, the "war on terror" has never been defined. That's part of the point. Two US administrations have deliberately vague as part of an Orwellian campaign to justify war anywhere for any reason.

Absurd. In 100 years, when the US has utterly fallen from the privileged position of power it now enjoys, perhaps people will finally recognize how self-destructive the US is today.

It is the RIGHT of people anywhere, especially Americans, to criticize and denounce the US.

IF someone calls for attacks on the US, then prosecute under whatever law may apply.

OR apologists for US war crimes going to "okay" when another country has Glenn Beck or John Boehner or Dick Cheney assassinated?

Aug. 04 2010 10:58 AM
HMMM

Terrorism is such a subjective term. Treat these "terrorists" as criminals. To give them some other designation is to legitimize their criminal acts.

Aug. 04 2010 10:56 AM

Under the very law the US has cited to condemn some as "illegal combatants," the CIA or other civilian remote pilots of drones _are_ illegal combatants.

Not only is assassinating an American a constitutional violation (and an impeachable offense for Obama), a civilian-piloted drone attack to carry out that assassination is a _war crime_.

Richard Falk, professor emeritus at Princeton, and others have made this case.

Aug. 04 2010 10:53 AM
John from office.

The government should send a drone attack on the ACLU, another enemy of America.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

Aug. 04 2010 10:52 AM
john from office

The ACLU will never understand why they are hated by sections of this country.

They should tell the father to tell his son to stop threatening the US. He deserves to be killed, he is an enemy of this nation. The father is looking to the wring relief.

Aug. 04 2010 10:49 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.