Edward Snowden To Keynote This Weekend's Free State Project Liberty Forum (reason.com)

cold fjord writes: Nick Gillespie at Reason is heading to The Free State Project's annual Liberty Forum being held this weekend in Manchester, New Hampshire. One of the highlights and a big draw this year is the keynote address by Edward Snowden via the Internet. Nick Gillespie will be interviewing Edward Snowden. Snowden is also scheduled to answer questions from participants submitted ahead of time. There are already reported to be 2,000 Free State Project members in the state, and reports from Brian Doherty indicate they are already effecting change: "Over 1,900 Free Staters already are there and we've reported here at Reason on some of what they're already accomplished, from getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty, winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists."

Comments

Edward Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

can go fuck off already.

Re:Edward Snowden

[gweihir]

I am sure he would love to do that, but as you seem unaware that the US government will not let him.

I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really hard to take Snowden seriously when he resides in a country run by a Russian version of Donald Trump who assassinates people for talking trash about the him online. Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state.

Re:I don't even

[Frosty Piss]

I wonder who is paying Snowden's bills?

Re:I don't even

[ShanghaiBill]

Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state.

Russia is not totalitarian, it is authoritarian. As long as Russians don't challenge the authorities, they are mostly free to go about their lives. They are also free to leave. People in the West may not like Putin, but he was democratically elected in a mostly fair process, and is genuinely popular with the Russian people.

Re:I don't even

[AK Marc]

It's hard to take the US seriously when he's freer in that horrible country than the USA.

Re:I don't even

[ClickOnThis]

I wonder who is paying Snowden's bills?

AFAIK, he's paying them himself. He has a job in Russia.

Re: I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

American politicians have a lot to learn from the true leader of the free world (Putin).

Re:I don't even

[Narcocide]

You know he didn't move there by choice, right? He simply got stuck there when his passport was revoked by the US government before he could catch his connecting flight. After that, Russia decided to grant him temporary asylum.

Re:I don't even

[gweihir]

You do know who forced him to do that, do you?

Re:I don't even

[cold fjord]

I wonder who is paying Snowden's bills?

A fair question. This might suggest where to check for at least a few of the receipts. "Interesting" timeline.

Re:I don't even

[cold fjord]

It's hard to take your statement seriously when you don't acknowledge the serious legal issues he faces.

It is a pity he didn't go to Congress, that would have been no-harm, no-foul, and it will take Congress to address much of his concerns. I could have backed that.

Re:I don't even

[AK Marc]

Given the poor treatment and lack of protection for legal whistleblowers, do you honestly think that would have been the best course?

Though, in hind sight, he should have sent the entire leak to Wikileaks, with the condition that they hold it until the congressional hearing, then blown the whistle officially. He'd have died in prison before any hearings, and then the package would be published by Wikileaks. But Snowden put his life over following the whims of the freedom-haters wanted.

Re:I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking serious? Several before him tried that route. It wound up being endless harassment, ridicule, and divorce for those people... In some cases death. You are delusional just like the others who subscribe to your train of robotic thought.

Re:I don't even

[cold fjord]

Why don't you name some of the people that went directly to Congress? Off the top of my head I can think of maybe one, and it is acknowledged in his case he was mistreated, but that isn't enough to make a rule, is it? It is also not so simple in that case as I recall the media was involved at points.

You're probably thinking of people that went to the media, and yes, that will end badly in many cases.

Re:I don't even

[cold fjord]

Congress can protect whom it wants.

Handing everything over to Wikileaks directly would have been an unmitigated disaster. Doing that would have aided freedom-haters even more than this debacle already has.

Do you make suggestions like this about your new homeland?

Re:I don't even

[AK Marc]

The wikileaks handover was to release it to the public when the government had him killed in custody. I guess I could have named other ways to hold/hide the documents to be released only if the whistle blowing was a failure by Congress not following the law.

And I don't have to make as many such suggestions here, as the corruption index is much lower.

Re:I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

Its really hard to take seriously people who thinks governments are scrupulous ethical in their operation, and expect dissidents to walk on water or perform other miracles.

Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state, and Snowden's chose his course of action to fight against America's devolution into a totalitarian police state. Snowden now has to "reside" in a foreign totalitarian police state in order to avoid being thown into an American gulag/gitmo.

Re:I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

I could have backed that.

Yes, you could have. But you wouldn't have. Stop pretending.

Re:I don't even

[khallow]

Why don't you name some of the people that went directly to Congress? Off the top of my head I can think of maybe one, and it is acknowledged in his case he was mistreated, but that isn't enough to make a rule, is it? It is also not so simple in that case as I recall the media was involved at points.

So it's not whistleblowing, protected by law, if they use proper channels other than reporting to Congress? There are several people who've been screwed by US intelligence who didn't go to the press. I find it interesting how you're spinning this narrative years after Snowden even though as you note, the person who properly followed the channel you deem correct was punished.

You're probably thinking of people that went to the media, and yes, that will end badly in many cases.

But at least, they'll be heard.

Re:I don't even

[jthill]

Except they haven't done it.

Re:I don't even

[cold fjord]

...when the government had him killed in custody.

That puts you into nutter territory. No way that is going to happen.

... as the corruption index is much lower.

I suppose as long as you include imaginary offenses as counting.

Re:I don't even

[AK Marc]

Yeah, killing someone in custody has never happened. How'd that Lee Harvey Oswald trial go?

As for the corruption index, that's an independent measure done by international organizations I had nothing to do with, and doesn't count imaginary offenses.

Partially on topic question

[AbRASiON]

Can I ask,

How is Edward Snowden (and Julian Assange, in a similar situation) kept alive financially? I mean where is the money coming from, rent, food, etc? Are these guys doomed long term?
It's something I don't see discussed much, people talk about their freedom, but regardless of that, what lives do they have now and will they have in 5 or 15 years time?

Can either of them buy stuff on the internet even? If Snowden tried to use his Paypal (US) account would it be shut down? monitored? funds drained? I'm curious about these finer details about these 2 guys.
Sorry, mostly off topic.

Re:Partially on topic question

[Sowelu]

I'm pretty sure that keynote speakers get paid--if not directly, then by proxy to someone who rents them a place for free. Arrangements get made.

Re:Partially on topic question

[spacepimp]

Edward Snowden has a job. I assume his funds were all seized when they cancelled his passport.

Re:Partially on topic question

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that Assange, as a guest of the Ecuadorian government is supported by them.

Re:Partially on topic question

[JBMcB]

The feds can seize funds if they can prove a suspect is using them for ongoing criminal activity. Not sure if they can do that with Snowden.

Besides that, how exactly do you "cancel" a passport? I mean, when you are being put on trial, they make you give up your passport, right? There isn't some central clearinghouse of passport information - each country has it's own system. So if the state department does revoke someone's passport somehow, how does Hungary know not to let someone in?

Re:Partially on topic question

[IamTheRealMike]

Russia has its own equivalents for services like PayPal.

Russian Donald Trump?

[Okian Warrior]

It's really hard to take Snowden seriously when he resides in a country run by a Russian version of Donald Trump who assassinates people for talking trash about the him online. Russia is the definition of a totalitarian police state.

Just to be clear, you do know that President Obama ordered the assasination of an American citizen who was outside the arena of war, yes?

And you do know that the his cited legal authority was a secret law (a memo, actually) that the public couldn't access at the time, right?

And his 16-year old son, also a US citizen, and with no connection to terrorism, was killed 2 weeks later by a separate drone strike. In a country we were not at war with, in an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others as well.

And you do know that all this happened without trial, and without the victim having a chance to defend himself against charges, right?

And you're worried about Donald Trump?

Worry about us. Worry about our children.

Re:Russian Donald Trump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the moral equivalency here? The POTUS ordering the assassination of a terrorist suspect vs. the czar of Russia ordering the assassination of a political dissient.

Get a grip.

Re:Russian Donald Trump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you not read what you wrote? "POTUS" ordered the "assassination of a terrorist suspect", keywords being terrorist and suspect, without a fair trail, thus no different than "czar" of Russia assassinating: replace "terrorist" and "suspect" with "political" and "dissient [sic]".

Re:Russian Donald Trump?

[JBMcB]

The POTUS ordering the assassination of a terrorist suspect vs. the czar of Russia ordering the assassination of a political dissient.

Cool, we'll assume the government had loads of info that Al-Awlaki was actively engaged in terrorism. We'll have to take their word on it, 'cause the only publicly available information showed he agreed with what the terrorists were doing, but not actively supporting them.

So, why was his son killed again? An American citizen was blown up by the CIA. Nobody has been held accountable.

All that being said, the Russian government is quite a bit worse than the US. Read up on Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was thrown in jail and his assets seized for, basically, buying shares of Russian mining companies that were being privatized. It was perfectly legal, until they passed a law saying it wasn't, then he was arrested. Even the judge thought it was a bogus trial.

Re:Russian Donald Trump?

[cold fjord]

Just to be clear, you do know that President Obama ordered the assasination of an American citizen who was outside the arena of war, yes?
And you do know that the his cited legal authority was a secret law (a memo, actually) that the public couldn't access at the time, right?
And his 16-year old son, also a US citizen and with no connection to terrorism, was killed 2 weeks later by a separate drone strike. In a country we were not at war with, in an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others as well.
And you do know that all this happened without trial, and without the victim having a chance to defend himself against charges, right?

Lets peel this apart.

Anwal al Awlaki wasn't "outside the arena of war," he was in an al Qaida controlled area of Yemen. He wasn't "assassinated," he was killed. He was a senior member of al Qaida who was active in recruiting, operations, and propaganda. His involvement was directly tied to a number of attacks, including the massacre at Fort Hood. There is little mystery about his killing or its legal basis, he was killed in armed conflict against the United States as a member of the enemy forces. Armed action by the US Armed Forces against al Qaida and its allies and affiliates has been authorized by Congress through the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11. There was no need for a trial to do this as it was a military strike against the enemy under the Law of Armed Conflict, not a law enforcement action involving criminal justice. Americans that join with the enemy to fight with them are treated like the rest of the enemy forces and are subject to being captured or killed just like them. If he wanted to face criminal justice he could have surrendered at the US embassy, which he didn't do, and showed no intention of doing.

As I recall his son regrettably made a similar bad choice having sworn his allegiance to al Qaida not long before this death. He was killed in the company of another senior al Qaida official. The son was old enough to carry a weapon, or a suicide vest. What kind of a father would bring his son in al Qaida's lair if he wanted him to live?

There should be no weeping for father who was a murderous terrorist bastard, and little for the son.

Terrorist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, , in U.S. death threat video - 8 Nov. 2010

As a practical matter al-Awlaki received the same legal process as many of his follow Americans that took up arms against the United States in the service of and enemy power: You can see it here

If you want to fear for our children, fear than we mislead them about the reality of facts like these, and fear that we go astray and lose our clarity. That won't end well.

Re:Russian Donald Trump?

[cold fjord]

As I recall his son had recently pledged allegiance to al Qaida's leadership and was killed in the company of another al Qaida member.

Re:Russian Donald Trump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck dude... you said it all there. If I wasn't ac, I would sign up for an account to mod you up to 6

Re:Russian Donald Trump?

[Gavagai80]

So, why was his son killed again? An American citizen was blown up by the CIA. Nobody has been held accountable.

Because he was near the target. He wasn't the target himself. The CIA has stated this (at least according to the wikipedia article) -- they simply place so little value on human life that killing random bystanders accidentally in drone strikes is a matter of daily routine.

Control of the Media

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have the media by the throat, there is no free or fair election.

Re:Control of the Media

[IamTheRealMike]

He doesn't. Every time I've looked into this claim I wasn't able to find support for it. There are and have been media outlets in Russia that criticise Putin without suffering any obvious state interference. Yes, most don't, but it's impossible to disentangle cause and effect there: the Russian outlets that attack Putin have often come across as generally over the top, and managed to alienate their own readers/viewers without any help from the Kremlin. Generally, constantly attacking figures that are popular isn't good for your circulation in any country, and there's nothing unique about Russia in that regard.

As a comparison, up until the Greece/migration crisis Merkel was genuinely popular in Germany and overt criticism of her in the German media was somewhat rare. Of course it's become a lot more common now. If the Russian economy continues to tank due to low oil prices and sanctions then I'd expect to see Russian politics heat up a bit.

Professionalism

[Sarten-X]

We start out fairly professional...

"Over 1,900 Free Staters already are there and we've reported here at Reason on some of what they're already accomplished, from getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty...

Wait, is that a typo? Is it French for "to go to excess"? I'm not sure religious liberty counts a being particularly "unconventional" in this country

...winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically...

Well, that's rather subjective.

paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists."

Ah, yes, well... I'm sure when their pants dry, they'll be quite happy to accept your views as the well-reasoned path toward an ideal civilization.

Re:Professionalism

[Maxo-Texas]

You misread it... it's not the freestaters who are peeing in their pants. It's the existing statists who are losing power .

The statists want no change from status quo. They are in power now.

the free staters can have a high impact in low population states. As few as 281,000 free staters could gain control of 2 senators and a representative. Then at the very least their senators could gum up the works, or even enhance their power as the 2 deciding swing votes in many cases.

It's a flaw in our system that a state with 586,000 citizens gets to control two senators while a state with 38,000,000 citizens also only gets to control two citizens. Low population states should be combined to some minimum size several high population states should probably be split into several smaller states.

Re: Professionalism

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the House is for - the Representatives are proportional to the population while the Senators are proportional to the States. The idea is the Senate represents the State interests while the House represents the people. It used to be that senators were selected by state legislatures instead of popular vote. If you live in the US please learn how and why your government is structured before sounding like a clueless dolt.

Re:Professionalism

[fnj]

It's a flaw in our system that a state with 586,000 citizens gets to control two senators while a state with 38,000,000 citizens also only gets to control two citizens.

Sigh. [rolls eyes] No, it's not a flaw. Do you have any concept of dictatorship of the majority? Our "system" was carefully crafted with balances. The House of Representatives is for, er, REPRESENTATION. The Senate is not just by name, but conceptually, based on the Roman Senate. "Senatus" means "council of elders". To be sure, the U.S. Senate, like many parts of our system, has become greatly corrupted recently. A lot of it is traceable to 1913's stupid 17th Amendment. Prior to that, Senators were appointed by their State's legislature.

Yet the Senate still retains certain distinctions when compared to the House. Only the Senate has the institution of the filibuster against railroading. Largely as a result, a supermajority is a necessity in the Senate, rather than just 50% plus 1 vote.

Every law has to pass BOTH the House and the Senate. The House ensures (theoretically) that it has popular support. The Senate ensures to a certain extent that the powerful do not run roughshod over others.

Re:Professionalism

[Immerman]

In fairness the 17th amendment was enacted because the senate had already become ridiculously corrupted. One would think that state legislatures would be wise to corruption and keep their senators in line, but apparently they were more interested in rewarding their favorites with a cushy position with lots of high-profit corruption potential.

Re:Professionalism

[ultranova]

Ah, yes, well... I'm sure when their pants dry, they'll be quite happy to accept your views as the well-reasoned path toward an ideal civilization.

That would be the worst thing that could happen to this project. Maintaining ideological purity is hard work, and one of the few ways to make people reject the temptations of compromise, moderation or adjusting one's views as new information arrives is having an enemy. That's why they invented the whole concept of "statist", ironic as it might be to apply to someone who opposes Free State Project.

Basically, it's recycled old Soviet propaganda with "capitalists" replaced with "statists".

Re: Professionalism

[Maxo-Texas]

Dude, well aware-- the only difference is that you haven't started thinking about what it means that roughly 3 million adult voting citizens out of 250 million adult voting citizens (roughly 1%!) control 10% of the Senate. You know.. the Senate that decides who the supreme court is going to be.

The government was structured the way it was because the founding fathers had no clue that we would allow states like california with roughly 10% of all citizens in it while other states would be mostly unpopulated land.

You need to open your eyes and at least engage your brain for a few seconds instead of walking along in a haze.

Then for bonus points-- realize there is nothing (outside of free staters) that we can do about it. The only way to fix it would be an amendment (not happening), a constitutional convention (dangerously close to happening but would high risk that it would be a runaway convention), or splitting up states in some new way into smaller, more reasonable population blocks.

the main reason nothing is happening is that no one thinks about how the meaning of the senate has changed (they are essentially glorified representatives these days with a few additional powers).

What is a state at the base except a group of citizens inside a defined piece of land? Why does one group of citizens get to be so grossly over represented in the operation of our government? Why do almost 100 million citizens in California, New York, and Texas have so little say?

Re: Professionalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple enthusiasts use the term 'Haters' for a similar purpose. That's why Apple has to keep prices high. They can only maintain hold of a self-professed elite minority.

Stay Home

[Anonymous Coward]

As a NH resident I wish they would all stay home. NH is a nice place, and these idiots are trying to change it to their Libertarian Utopia. Take a look at stopfreekeene.com for how us locals feel about them.

Re:Stay Home

[ShanghaiBill]

As a NH resident I wish they would all stay home.

They are home. They have as much right to live in NH as you do.

NH is a nice place, and these idiots are trying to change it to their Libertarian Utopia.

Can you be more specific? What are they doing that you object to? They want to repeal laws against pot, which Colorado, Washington, and Alaska have already done with good results. They want to stop persecution of commercial sex workers, which will improve the welfare and safety of the workers and their customers. They want smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive government. Why do you think that is a bad thing?

Take a look at stopfreekeene.com for how us locals feel about them.

Other than calling them "assholes", that website doesn't say anything specific.

Re: Stay Home

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you worry. Most Libertarians are indeed staying home.

Re: Stay Home

[nelsonrn]

Sure. We don't want *every* libertarian to move to NH. The point is not to create a utopia. The point is to show that voluntary solutions to problems are better than coercive solutions to problems. Once we've done that, we'll need the libertarians everywhere else to lead the change to more freedom for everyone.

More specific

[Okian Warrior]

Can you be more specific? What are they doing that you object to? They want to repeal laws against pot, which Colorado, Washington, and Alaska have already done with good results. They want to stop persecution of commercial sex workers, which will improve the welfare and safety of the workers and their customers. They want smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive government. Why do you think that is a bad thing?

I can be more specific.

Over at FreeKeene.com, a group of liberty minded people felt that the increase of parking meters in the local area was a waste of time and effort. They wanted to keep Keene a friendly, walk-around area.

So they started putting coins into expired meters, and putting notices on cars saying that a) they had done so and b) encouraging the driver to do the same to another vehicle, next time.

Parking ticket fines plummeted.

Parking revenue plummeted.

This got the town management into an uproar, several "Robin Hooders" (as they were called) were arrested for obstructing... something... the parking police felt "threatened" and demanded a 50-foot buffer zone, and the town management dug its heels into the ground and took the issue all the way to the supreme court...

...losing at every turn.

The city wasted tens of thousands of dollars pursuing something that was patently obvious to everyone:

1) Parking meters are a waste of time,
2) You can't force things on people if they really don't want it, and
3) You shouldn't be taxing something "just because you can"

This is why some NH residents don't like the Free Staters. Revenue... something or other, I'm not quite sure.

Re:More specific

[dbreeze]

The love of $ is the root of all evil. I see it proven every day...

Re:More specific

[dryeo]

The city wasted tens of thousands of dollars pursuing something that was patently obvious to everyone:

1) Parking meters are a waste of time,
2) You can't force things on people if they really don't want it, and
3) You shouldn't be taxing something "just because you can"

It"s not obvious to me. The city has to pay for the streets and sidewalks, the businesses can't currently do it as they'd have to raise their prices, lose customers and go out of business. How to raise revenue is a problem for towns, at least around here. They don't have too many choices, mostly property tax and they have to keep the voters happy and compete with the neighbouring towns.
Whether parking meters are a good way to raise revenue seems like something that needs to be discussed. Perhaps they are and perhaps they're not. Revenue needs to be raised for the town to operate and services can only be cut so far.
The reaction of the town was totally unwarranted as it doesn't matter who pays the meters and paying forward is actually community like.

Re:More specific

[drinkypoo]

It"s not obvious to me. The city has to pay for the streets and sidewalks, the businesses can't currently do it as they'd have to raise their prices, lose customers and go out of business.

If people have to pay for parking, they get annoyed. If they get a parking ticket in your town, and they have somewhere else to go, they will go there. I absolutely decide where to go based partly on the parking regime. If I'm making a shopping decision, and I can drive to two towns to do it and one of them makes parking a PITA, I will skip that one. The math is far more complicated than accounted for in your narrow world view.

The reaction of the town was totally unwarranted as it doesn't matter who pays the meters and paying forward is actually community like.

Wrong. The town's reaction was completely warranted, if they are the kind of place that would put in parking meters to begin with. That's because putting in parking meters doesn't produce revenue unless you do awful things like preventing other people from feeding meters. Remember when Mister Twister the clown was on international news for feeding parking meters? He told me (I know him personally, whee) that he woke up one day and turned on the news to find himself speaking Chinese on a broadcast... over some goddamned parking meters.

Re:More specific

[Anonymous Coward]

"3) You shouldn't be taxing something "just because you can""

The budget still has to balance. It's math. If the revenue doesn't come from parking meters or tickets when the parking rules are violated, then it has to come from somewhere else not "because you can" tax things, but because you must generate revenue somehow. If parking rules are abolished, then you'll have people parking their cars in a public spot 24/7 for nothing and you won't have any available spots for the rest of the people. Basically people will abuse the commons to the extent they are permitted, which is why, unfortunately, you have to place some limits on it and in some cases charge a fee for its use and maintenance.

Maybe there's other ways to do these things. And of course you can work on making government more efficient so that you don't need the revenue. That's all worth talking about. But thinking things will work out naturally if government steps out of the way is basically asking for rule by big money and nothing else. That's not fair to most people, although I'm sure the rich would find it fine.

Re:More specific

[lazarith]

So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money?

Re:More specific

[dryeo]

Good points. As I said, it is something that needs discussion, not that they should exist. And perhaps if the town i live in had parking meters I'd feel more strongly against them. The last time I dealt with meters, it was something like a nickel for half an hour, 40+ years ago.
Still don't understand why parking meters wouldn't produce revenue if different people were feeding the meters then the parkee. Either way money is being put in.
Anyways thanks for answering rather then marking me overrated as someone else seems to have done.

Re:More specific

[drinkypoo]

Still don't understand why parking meters wouldn't produce revenue if different people were feeding the meters then the parkee. Either way money is being put in.

Because the real way they produce revenue is by creating parking violations. If people feed the meters then the city is "deprived" of this revenue.

Re:More specific

[dryeo]

Keep forgetting how it works in the States. Here all revenue from parking tickets, speeding and other violations under the motor vehicle act goes into the Provincial coffers so cities aren't motivated to ticket to collect revenue.

Re:More specific

[nelsonrn]

dbreeze didn't say that because it's not true. The biblical quote is: 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV - "For the love of money is the root of all evil".
The only people who say "Money is the root of all evil" are people who can't read, and people who are pushing the idea is there is something wrong with money.

Nope.

[Okian Warrior]

Lets peel this apart.

Anwal al Awlaki [...]

Nope.

It's not about Awlaki, it's about not having a trial.

It's perfectly acceptable for the executive branch to kill citizens.

That's not what this is about, it's about the executive branch making the decision to kill people.

That's the issue at hand, that's the point of discussion.

Who Awlaki was, or what he did, is completely irrelevant.

The authority to kill someone rests with the judiciary, not the executive.

Re:Nope.

[cold fjord]

Yep. He was operating as a member of the enemy in an armed conflict. No trial required.

It is indeed perfectly legitimate for the executive branch to kill citizen in certain circumstances. This is one of them. For prior art see the Civil War, WW1, WW2. You will find US citizens fighting with enemy forces in each of them. When possible they were either killed or captured, the same as anyone else fighting with the enemy.

Yes indeed, the executive branch can decide to kill people, American citizens, serving with the enemy in armed conflict.

What al-Awlaki did is completely relevant. Going to fight with the enemy makes you part of the enemy. It is simple.

The executive branch can use deadly force to enforce the law of the land, to suppress riot or rebellion, and to defend the US and its Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The use of deadly force means you may be killed. If you don't want that, either don't go to fight with the enemy, or surrender. That's it. This is an executive function, no judicial action required. As a citizen you have no right to join the enemy to fight against the United States that grants you some sort of privilege.

You may not like this, but it is pretty clear as a legal matter.

Re:Nope.

[AmiMoJo]

That's what the GP said. Obama had the guy assassinated. That's what it's called when you get someone else to murder another person for you.

It's hardly the only time either. Bin Laden never had a trial, and you can't declare war on something that isn't a county.

Re:Nope.

[vel-ex-tech]

*slow clap*

Re:Nope.

[khallow]

It's not about Awlaki, it's about not having a trial.

He was an enemy combatant caught in the act. You won't get a trial in that case.

That's not what this is about, it's about the executive branch making the decision to kill people.

It's the president's job as head of the US military to do just that.

Who Awlaki was, or what he did, is completely irrelevant.

Which is quite wrong.

Re:Nope.

[cold fjord]

I'll take that as an indicator of how informed you are on the subject. If you were either well informed to persuaded to hold a well informed position it would be a fast clap. Unfortunately on Slashdot people that are well informed on some topics are rare, and people that change their minds based on evidence are almost a statistical oddity. Despite the claim that people on Slashdot respect STEM, and you would think by extension such niceties as "evidence" and "argument based on facts", it is in fact much more common for people to dig in their opposition in face of the facts, in opposition to the truth on various topics. This subject touches on several of those opinion vectors. So . . . how deep are you?

Did you recall his trial?

[Okian Warrior]

As I recall his son had recently pledged allegiance to al Qaida's leadership and was killed in the company of another al Qaida member.

Did you recall his trial?

Re: Did you recall his trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have this foolish notion that soldiers should be cops. That's very, very bad idea. By the way, his terrorist son wasn't the target, he was collateral damage because he was very deliberately eating lunch with terrorists. You see very confused about the difference between petty crime and genocide, between a cop beat and a war, and between honesty and hyperbole.

Re:Did you recall his trial?

[cold fjord]

No trail required. It was an act of war, not law enforcement.

Edward Snowdon

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the comments b- it's all talk,talk, blabber. Why is it apprently so difficult for some to acknowledge the absolute selfless integrity, not to mention personal bravery and well-founded sense of moral outrage that led Edward Snowdon to do what he did? We are all benefitting from it - and will continue to do so.To those who sneeringly ask why he didn't go to the relevant US authorities - I suggestr you ask Thomas Drake, Walter Binney et al that question! He did not "choose" to live in Russia -he was compelled to do so when US (illegally) revoked his passport whilst he was en route to Latin America. I wish I had just a quarter of his courage. So stop colluding with US govt by accusing him of having harmed US security - WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? Devorah Marks

Re:Edward Snowdon

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because 1%, where lying is mandatory. Life today is proof it is not that hard for 1% of the population, with 100% of the money & power, to control the rest.

Then so can Putin

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, then is the POTUS can do all these life ending things, then surely Putin can do similar (not necessarily identical) killings?

Oh, and if you want to be at war, get your congress to declare one. Something you haven't done since WWII