June 10, 2012 11:52 AM
A U.S. drone strike in Yemen killed an American citizen linked to terrorism in this country. How does Defense Secretary Leon Panetta justify this killing?
The Defense Secretary: Leon Panetta
A Long and Dangerous Journey, Lion Kings, Taylor Swift 42:46 May 19, 2013
Taylor Swift: A young singer's meteoric rise 12:09 May 19, 2013
Afghan children on a long and perilous journey 12:10 May 19, 2013
A Face in the Crowd, Three Generations of Punishment, Michael Jackson 43:59 May 19, 2013
60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the weekly television broadcast ends
MJ's "manifesto," penned in 1979
May 19, 2013
Backstage at Cirque du Soleil show "Immortal"
May 19, 2013
Becoming human: Shin's new life
May 19, 2013
Big changes for the 2012-2013 season! Watch the current week's episode for FREE up to a week after it airs or subscribe for access to all shows, classic episodes and more!
If I or any troop mistreated an enemy prisoner, and it was found out we would have been punished. Just as any soldier discovered in recent years WRONGLY abused enemy prisoners.
The govt would do well to explain to the public, since the obvious apparently isn't understood by SOME media, that there's separation of agency authorities on who pursues WHICH criminal. Police are't going to spend their funds and budget to chase a person who is a declared war combatant to the nation. Of course the'd apprehend the person if in their path, be aware and cooperate w any agency on the matter.
Yet, the funds and man hours to spend time and intelligence is called upon to the federal level when the crime is against the nation. THEY have control over decisions. Police in our nation can't go to other country soil to chase an enemy like this. Only the feds have such authority. The president "has" to authorize when such chase is required. Just a chain of command thing.
If a national disaster happens. A flood which is declared national level, funds are appropriated to the problem, and if needed, national guard, military or other federal level agency man labor and funds can be released to tend to the problem. The local authorities of a disaster area do cooperate and work side to side with the federal agency. Yet the military and federal agency have the ultimate controlling decision power if there's a variance on how to handle soemthing between agencies.
In crime situations, such as a person who decides to be a declared war terrorist, it becomes a crime againt the nation. It becomes Federal. Thus the decision on how to handle it becomes Federal. Fed law steps in. THIS IS NOT NEW. There's always been, Federal statutes and fed crimes for ones that commit a crime that falls under fed statutes, the local police do not have power to decide what to do with a person. They must release them to the feds if the Feds do not get them first. You commit Fed crime not an act of war crime, but still Fed crime, they can chase you into another country you flee to, kill u if needed. Meaning when they find you if you don't put up your hands and say ok I surrender, they can and will kill you.
THIS IS NOT NEW LAW. Just new types of crime that Federal laws are having to be created for do to increasing acts of that type of crime. New laws are created all the time. If a law isnt in place when some person starts committing evil acts, then new laws r created giving govt power to act in certain ways under such new law. That is all new terrorist laws are. The increasing threats against our nation has required such new laws unfortunately. we the people do have to make sure there is a balamce with new laws that such new laws do not step over the realm of being constituional violations. Yet outright calling very new law unconsitutional just becuase it involves a terrorist.
It is just a new generation that we have for the first time stepped into the realm of a never ending war. There is no cease war on terrorism now. There IS a terrorism war. In fact it has been prophesied centuries ago. As a Christian on line, I have been approached by terrorist talking person applauding the execution of the victims of the TEXAS military shrink killing ours. They appluaded and encouraged more of it in the open online in comment section. NO joking either they meant it. THAT is how bad it is now. They actually go online and commit crimes of inciting murder to criminals in the open! Terrorism is real people. Let the Feds do what they need to do CBS.
IF the authorities do any wrong thing while apprehending an enemy they are accountable. Certanly our government has been criticized for any torture methods. Also any soldiers giving into anger during a war and using their power for evil has also been brought to light and punished. Our government is kept in check. Yet going overkill of judging the fed level agencies for protecting this land, with laws that are rightly used such as here, is wrong. THIS time the government is not doing wrong. As long as they give a person the right not to be killed if they surrender when found. Which it is said here of course they get the due process.
Like the criminal taking a woman hostage, online video couple years back. HE was executed on the spot by local police. Same thing here. If the guy had stopped, laid on the ground surrendered he would've had the right to not be killed. Saddam was'nt murdered on the spot because he surrendered. He got his day in court. Same with federal level crimes. GO get em FEDS! Prayers are with you in "my" home!
The framing of your question lacks a significant amount of context. Imagine if you will: a man, a citizen of the US, takes a certain amount of hostages and threatens to kill them. The police are alerted to this fact, but do not know the hostage taker's location. He continues, publicly, to threaten the lives of these hostages. The police spend much time and resources searching for the man and his victims - in the meantime, he continues to take hostages and issue clear unequivocal threats - and he murders some of his hostages. Finally, he is located..he is located at his base of hostage taking operations. SWAT teams surveill the area and find he is heavily armed and takes active measures in his own defense, postured to repel and prevent his capture by police. The police use technology, training, and strategy, to overcome him and his defenses i n such a way that he becomes dead at the end of the operation and no police are hurt. The mans hostages are freed, and of course, he can now no longer take any more hostages. Has he been "executed" or denied "due process"? Anwar Awlaki declared open war on his country, executed acts of war against this country, positioned himself in a foreign land, organized, trained, and equipped himself for further war against this nation, and actively took part in hiding and defending himself from capture by this nation. At no point did he, or any representatives of his, take umbrage with our assertions of his war - he openly declared it. At no point did he cease his acts of war, or cease planning acts of war. At no point did he take steps to turn himself in and recieve due process of law. He was in an open, active, and declared war with us. He was killed on the field of battle. A field of his choosing. The place where HE chose to live, to work, to wage war against us. He was no more denied due process than a man with a gun to a bank teller's head who is shot by the swat team sniper even while "negotiations" are being attempted by the FBI hostage negotiators. This is a loaded question, and is a classic example of a straw man argument. As a 60 minutes correspondent, I am not surprised as your question does well at gaining viewership, and at most, opens a topic ripe for lucid explanation from an official...but as for the contextual or journalistic integrity of the question, it was the question of a simpleton. A question my 8th grader may have asked after her civics course.