If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Obama administration weighing targeted drone strike on unnamed American citizen in unknown country doing unrevealed things   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 404
    More: Scary, American citizens, Obama, Americans, United States, Obama administration, Gadahn, Anwar al-Awlaki, risk aversion  
•       •       •

5057 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:00 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-11 12:25:56 AM  
al-Qaeda terrorist! why didn't we think of this before?

static-secure.guim.co.uk
 
2014-02-11 12:29:54 AM  
If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.
 
2014-02-11 12:59:34 AM  
Everything a soldier does when he's fighting is criminal. Soldiers are the worst criminals in the world. That's why it's legal to shoot them ON SIGHT.

It happens that the terrorist soldiers can't see as far as the American ones. Them's the breaks. If you don't like the rules, you can always refrain from joining the game.
 
2014-02-11 01:16:33 AM  
Anyone remember when the GOP was stepping all over each other to say that the terrorists would be "laughing in the streets" if we elected a pacifist Democrat named Barack Obama?
 
2014-02-11 01:29:02 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


Glenn Beck would disagree.

/so long as a Democrat is in office
 
2014-02-11 02:31:19 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.
 
2014-02-11 03:03:12 AM  
And it just so happens that Ted Cruz is currently traveling overseas. Coincidence?
 
2014-02-11 06:19:05 AM  
Does his name rhyme with snowmen?
 
2014-02-11 07:03:09 AM  

propasaurus: And it just so happens that Ted Cruz is currently traveling overseas. Coincidence?


The article said it was an American, not a Canadian.
 
2014-02-11 07:05:45 AM  
Can we follow the whole thing on Twitter?
 
2014-02-11 07:08:12 AM  
I do find it amusing that as far as some Americans are concerned, the President could drone strike 8 billion people, just as long as none of them are peripherally connected to the US in their past and therefore might technically be a citizen, which would obviously be an outrage of horrendous proportions.
 
2014-02-11 07:08:30 AM  
I don't consider it any more or less ok to kill someone on the basis of citizenship.
 
2014-02-11 07:09:28 AM  
An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.
 
2014-02-11 07:10:27 AM  
Would a targeted high-yield nuke strike make everyone feel better?
 
2014-02-11 07:12:26 AM  

Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.

Accused

of.
 
2014-02-11 07:13:31 AM  

DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.


Stop with the racist diatribe.
 
2014-02-11 07:13:42 AM  
But, but we should BRING THEM BACK FOR TRIAL!

Think through the logistics for just a moment...
 
2014-02-11 07:13:57 AM  
FTA: But Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, alluded to the case last week during a public hearing on security threats, accusing the administration of adopting cumbersome counterterrorism policies that have made Americans more vulnerable to attack.

Oh, now I see who the open source was and what this article is really about.

They're playing Whack-An-Obama.

www.sadlyno.com
 
2014-02-11 07:16:28 AM  
Wait a sec. About a decade ago, I remember folks saying that anyone who is actively working with terrorist organizations is an enemy combatant and should be treated as such.

Wonder what changed. Hmmm.
 
2014-02-11 07:17:54 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?
 
2014-02-11 07:19:13 AM  

Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.


Americans of German descent that had gone to Germany to fight with the Nazis were often executed as soon as they were identified. Italians who were with the American Army were used as translators, which is obvious, but they were welcomed with enthusiasm by Italian villagers as long lost relatives. I heard one story about an Italian-American Soldier entering a village with his company and being called to translate with some village elders, discovered one of them was his grandfather.

And dammit, I can't find that story anywhere.
 
2014-02-11 07:19:26 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?
 
2014-02-11 07:19:30 AM  

Turbo Cojones: But, but we should BRING THEM BACK FOR TRIAL!

Think through the logistics for just a moment...



Problem is, a lot of these guys have made it abundantly clear that they will not be arrested.
Just overnight, there was a report of 20 Iraqi insurgients who were killed during an accident while training to be car bombers.

Some of these people actually go to CLASS to figure out how to kill themselves and take a lot of people with them.
 
2014-02-11 07:19:35 AM  

DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.


Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?
 
2014-02-11 07:20:24 AM  

DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.


It actually does. What do you think "due process of law" means, anyway? It's never so simple as a one line quote. What the president is doing is within the powers of his office, powers that were allocated by the constitution and by various acts of congress over the centuries. The war powers of the president should be more limited,I agree. However, the "due process" doesn't have to be a court, by law. It could be any "due process" as interpreted by the POTUS and SCOTUS, and thus far, it's been deemed appropriate to use intelligence agencies to locate and eliminate any person duly determined to be at war with America or our allies.

TLDR: The due process is the president getting together with the intelligence agencies, looking over the evidence, and determining if another human should die on the other side of the world, all within the law.
 
2014-02-11 07:21:40 AM  
We get it, he's black.
 
2014-02-11 07:23:16 AM  

irate vegetable: Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?


The police coordinate raids with the intention of executing suspects?
 
2014-02-11 07:24:11 AM  

lohphat: Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?


You do, when you decide to move to Yemen and live in an al Qaeda cell.
What, do you think the military would just start targeting American tourists in foreign countries for the hell of it?
 
2014-02-11 07:25:21 AM  

GoldSpider: irate vegetable: Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?

The police coordinate raids with the intention of executing suspects?


and their dogs too judging by how often it happens.
 
2014-02-11 07:25:29 AM  
We can't trust our government to feed poor people but we can trust it to kill citizens based on secret information.
 
2014-02-11 07:26:27 AM  

GoldSpider: irate vegetable: Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?

The police coordinate raids with the intention of executing suspects?


Ask Rodney King.
 
2014-02-11 07:27:19 AM  

GoldSpider: irate vegetable: Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?

The police coordinate raids with the intention of executing suspects?


sometimes...
 
2014-02-11 07:28:46 AM  

stoli n coke: Wait a sec. About a decade ago, I remember folks saying that anyone who is actively working with terrorist organizations is an enemy combatant and should be treated as such.

Wonder what changed. Hmmm.


The left started to agree with the right.
This simply means the president can write, judge, and execute the law as he sees fit.

/Its what we elected him to do.
 
2014-02-11 07:29:08 AM  
"That's the good thing about being president.  I can do whatever I want." - Obama

Funny I should hear him say that just as I was reading this thread.

/yes, he actually said that.
//no, he was not referring to the subject of this thread.
 
2014-02-11 07:29:30 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?

You do, when you decide to move to Yemen and live in an al Qaeda cell.
What, do you think the military would just start targeting American tourists in foreign countries for the hell of it?


I have a former colleague who was working inYemen before the bottom fell out for an oil company.

All it takes in Afghanistan is some warlord to make a statement, no matter if it's true or not, that so and so "is a terrorist" to have them disappeared to Gitmo.

Yes. That's all it takes to have your freedom taken from you. A single bald accusation.

And yes. I have a problem with that.
 
2014-02-11 07:29:49 AM  

irate vegetable: and their dogs too judging by how often it happens.


That's just for fun.

lohphat: Ask Rodney King.


wut?
 
2014-02-11 07:30:54 AM  

lohphat: Ask Rodney King.


Dorner, anyone?  That was an unabashed, unapologetic assassination.  There were never any orders to capture him, it was "shoot to kill."
 
2014-02-11 07:30:56 AM  

lohphat: ReverendJasen: lohphat: Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?

You do, when you decide to move to Yemen and live in an al Qaeda cell.
What, do you think the military would just start targeting American tourists in foreign countries for the hell of it?

I have a former colleague who was working inYemen before the bottom fell out for an oil company.

All it takes in Afghanistan is some warlord to make a statement, no matter if it's true or not, that so and so "is a terrorist" to have them disappeared to Gitmo.

Yes. That's all it takes to have your freedom taken from you. A single bald accusation.

And yes. I have a problem with that.


So it pretty much works like America then?
 
2014-02-11 07:31:08 AM  

gfid: "That's the good thing about being president.  I can do whatever I want." - Obama

Funny I should hear him say that just as I was reading this thread.

/yes, he actually said that.
//no, he was not referring to the subject of this thread.


www.emergingmarketsillustrated.com
 
2014-02-11 07:31:13 AM  
Kill them now, let Allah sort it out later.
 
2014-02-11 07:31:19 AM  
So don't target the "citizen". Target the terrorist(s) he is standing next to. Problem solved.

Personally if he's one of those idiots making videos for Al qaeda, he should be considered a citizen of the US.
 
2014-02-11 07:31:37 AM  

GoldSpider: lohphat: Ask Rodney King.


wut?


he meant Chris Dorner and all the people in trucks the LAPD shot up.
 
2014-02-11 07:31:38 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Ask Rodney King.

Dorner, anyone?  That was an unabashed, unapologetic assassination.  There were never any orders to capture him, it was "shoot to kill."


That was done purely for his safety.
 
2014-02-11 07:31:51 AM  

GoldSpider: irate vegetable: Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?

The police coordinate raids with the intention of executing suspects?


Do you think the administration would be coordinating drone strikes if they were capable of detaining the suspects in question?  If they were in Europe, or not a tribal backwater with no real police force, they wouldn't.


they might kill white people with drone strikes in Europe
 
2014-02-11 07:32:18 AM  
Meh, you were warned.
 
2014-02-11 07:32:19 AM  

GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?



You do surrender your rights to due process. Ask those sailors that were convicted of raping a girl in Okinawa 2 years ago. First thing they did was run screaming for the MPs to take them into custody. Military washed their hands of them and now they're in a Japanese prison.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/01/us-navy-sailors -o kinawa-rape/1955873/

Essentially, if you go to another country and commit criminal acts, don't pretend that saying "I want to go to the U.S. for my punishment" is going to save you.
 
2014-02-11 07:33:13 AM  
So, where is all the outrage with Mr. Rule of Law?  Oh, that's right, he's a wiberal, he knows what's best for the country.  Remember this when a Republican takes over.
 
2014-02-11 07:33:15 AM  

ReverendJasen: You do, when you decide to move to Yemen and live in an al Qaeda cell.
What, do you think the military would just start targeting American tourists in foreign countries for the hell of it?


Remember that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit? Without that particular test being met, that's precisely what this sounds like to me. And, that should frighten you, IMO.
 
2014-02-11 07:34:05 AM  

gfid: "That's the good thing about being president.  I can do whatever I want." - Obama


that's what he says when he snags Malia's toaster strudel on the way by the breakfast table in the morning.
 
2014-02-11 07:36:32 AM  
Dedmon:
It actually does. What do you think "due process of law" means, anyway? It's never so simple as a one line quote. What the president is doing is within the powers of his office, powers that were allocated by the constitution and by various acts of congress over the centuries. The war powers of the president should be more limited,I agree. However, the "due process" doesn't have to be a court, by law. It could be any "due process" as interpreted by the POTUS and SCOTUS, and thus far, it's been deemed appropriate to use intelligence agencies to locate and eliminate any person duly determined to be at war with America or our allies.

TLDR: The due process is the president getting together with the intelligence agencies, looking over the evidence, and determining if another human should die on the other side of the world, all within the law.


Yes, that is what some folks in the government have decided. I (and many Americans) believe they are wrong, and these decisions are dangerous. We shouldn't all pretend like these sorts of powers aren't open to abuse and mistakes. In the latter case, how often do you think they might err on the side of "safety" and kill people who they really aren't sure are in fact terrorists? Hell, just the other day we had a story of a woman mistakenly placed on the no fly list and her hell of trying to get off. We also know that a number of completely innocent people were "extraordinarily rendered" to Middle Eastern regimes in order to endure horrific torture. Oops, our bad. Similarly, a lot of folks who ended up at Guantanamo were just poor suckers caught in the wrong place at teh wrong time. Do we really believe that such mistakes never happen with folks on the "kill" lists? Life isn't a movie where everything is always neat and obvious. In addition, how often might they kill people who are "fellow travelers" of the terrorists but are themselves not violent and might not even advocate violence? Finally, do we really think a president would never, even in the future, abuse such unchecked power?

If we are now going to be in the business of regularly assassinating folks, we should come up with a proper due process, not this ad hoc one. I'm not a big fan of secret courts, but maybe that will have to be the way to go. It wouldn't be perfect, but at least there might be a properly independent institutional check on the executive branch.
 
2014-02-11 07:36:53 AM  

lohphat: Yes. That's all it takes to have your freedom taken from you. A single bald accusation.


So you think our military and intelligence agencies are so inept that they simply take the word of any random camel lord, and will take out American citizens with no evidence at all.
 
2014-02-11 07:37:13 AM  

Mean Daddy: So, where is all the outrage with Mr. Rule of Law?  Oh, that's right, he's a wiberal, he knows what's best for the country.  Remember this when a Republican takes over.


Due process as determined by several acts of Congress and SCOTUS deem what he is doing is the rule of law, whether you agree with it or not.

Go find your hoe, potato farmer.
 
2014-02-11 07:37:56 AM  

irate vegetable: Do you think the administration would be coordinating drone strikes if they were capable of detaining the suspects in question?


Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these guys that sees this as an all-or-nothing kind of thing, but I'm just not terribly comfortable with the notion of "It's too hard to get him within the confines of the Constitution" as a means to shift legal precedent.

phenn: Remember that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit?


Exactly, can't they even go through a show-trial-in-absentia?
 
2014-02-11 07:38:24 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Yes. That's all it takes to have your freedom taken from you. A single bald accusation.

So you think our military and intelligence agencies are so inept that they simply take the word of any random camel lord, and will take out American citizens with no evidence at all.


pretty sure that's how most of the people in Guantanamo Bay ended up there, so it isn't much of a stretch.
 
2014-02-11 07:39:12 AM  

irate vegetable: DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.

Is it a violation when the police shoot a suspect without trial?


Police can only kill you in self defense.

Hahaha, yeah, that's a good one!
 
2014-02-11 07:40:56 AM  

phenn: Remember that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit? Without that particular test being met, that's precisely what this sounds like to me. And, that should frighten you, IMO.


It would if there were any indication it was used in any cases where apprehension without a significant loss of life were possible.  When it's occurring in places where we can't bring them to trial, I really don't find it that scary.
 
2014-02-11 07:40:59 AM  
We have already droned an American for work place violence.
 
2014-02-11 07:41:47 AM  

gfid: "That's the good thing about being president.  I can do whatever I want." - Obama

Funny I should hear him say that just as I was reading this thread.

/yes, he actually said that.
//no, he was not referring to the subject of this thread.


No president would ever say anything like that!

"I'm the commander, see. I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." - Bush
 
2014-02-11 07:42:28 AM  

stoli n coke: Wait a sec. About a decade ago, I remember folks saying that anyone who is actively working with terrorist organizations is an enemy combatant and should be treated as such.

Wonder what changed. Hmmm.


That would make 75% of Congress a target. They seem to hate Americans more than El Diablo Qaeda.
 
2014-02-11 07:43:10 AM  

GoldSpider: phenn: Remember that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' bit?

Exactly, can't they even go through a show-trial-in-absentia?


that actually is unconstitutional IIRC
 
2014-02-11 07:44:39 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Yes. That's all it takes to have your freedom taken from you. A single bald accusation.

So you think our military and intelligence agencies are so inept that they simply take the word of any random camel lord, and will take out American citizens with no evidence at all.


They've been doing it with foreign nationals at Gitmo what makes you think Americans are immune from government incompetence?
 
2014-02-11 07:46:44 AM  

badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.


And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
 
2014-02-11 07:47:25 AM  

phenn: And, that should frighten you, IMO.


No, it really doesn't.  Because I'm not planning a trip to Pakistan to hang out with terrorists.  And even if I was crazy enough to take a vacation in the middle east right now, I still wouldn't be frightened of being mistaken for a terrorist.  Because I'd be checked into a hotel on the beach.  If the CIA had any questions about my intentions, they could come ask me over a Mai Tai at the Dubai Hilton.  They wouldn't need to send a drone to find me hiding in a cave with Bin Laden.

And so far, not one person has been hit by a drone in America yet.  I'm saving up my fright for that day.
 
2014-02-11 07:48:11 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're operating as part of a terrorist network


As determined by whom?
 
2014-02-11 07:51:40 AM  

MugzyBrown: TuteTibiImperes: If you're operating as part of a terrorist network

As determined by whom?


Wasn't that one of the more contentious parts of the PATRIOT Act that a large number of people used to have a major problem with?
 
2014-02-11 07:51:54 AM  

Headso: We can't trust our government to feed poor people but we can trust it to kill citizens based on secret information.


Obama, yes.

Clinton, yes.

Bush, no.

see how simple that is?
 
2014-02-11 07:52:44 AM  

lohphat: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?


FTA: "a step that would require Justice Department approval under new counterterrorism guidelines adopted by President Obama last year. "

Yes, I too would prefer it to be a court.
 
2014-02-11 07:54:32 AM  

ReverendJasen: phenn: And, that should frighten you, IMO.

No, it really doesn't.  Because I'm not planning a trip to Pakistan to hang out with terrorists.  And even if I was crazy enough to take a vacation in the middle east right now, I still wouldn't be frightened of being mistaken for a terrorist.  Because I'd be checked into a hotel on the beach.  If the CIA had any questions about my intentions, they could come ask me over a Mai Tai at the Dubai Hilton.  They wouldn't need to send a drone to find me hiding in a cave with Bin Laden.

And so far, not one person has been hit by a drone in America yet.  I'm saving up my fright for that day.


It bugs me because it's thin end of the wedge, toe in the door kind of crap. And, no, I don't trust DOJ to do the proper things at all times because that agency - like all others - is run by people and people make bad decisions some times.

You seem to be among those who feel that, if you're not breaking any laws, you have nothing to hide. But how soon will some of these 'authorities' be used to squash dissenters on American soil? That's the part that is most worrisome to me.

Now, you may have faith in this particular administration to do the proper things. But, what about the next one? The one after that?

I don't think they should have any authority or power to end the life of a US citizen without the appropriate due process and, by that, I mean a court, conviction and sentencing.

I would think most Americans wouldn't really want this can of worms opened up any farther.
 
2014-02-11 07:56:56 AM  

badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki



You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.
 
2014-02-11 08:01:45 AM  

ReverendJasen: And so far, not one person has been hit by a drone in America yet.  I'm saving up my fright for that day.


So it has to be a drone?  What about LAPD cops burning down a house with a suspected murderer inside?
 
2014-02-11 08:02:29 AM  

the801: al-Qaeda terrorist! why didn't we think of this before?

[static-secure.guim.co.uk image 460x276]


He's not AQ, but he and his co-conspirators are just as much of a threat.  Since they're outside the US and at least one of them is not interested in due process, fark 'em.  Repeat until the information dies out.


ReverendJasen: Dorner, anyone? That was an unabashed, unapologetic assassination. There were never any orders to capture him, it was "shoot to kill."


Shame that such efforts aren't being expounded on Snowden and his helpers.  Endangering the country, aiding a couple of hostile countries, and constantly refusing due process means that you're not interested in the law.  Had there been a similarly aggressive hunt against those in the US (albeit quietly), nobody would even want to touch information that would result in their death - just for touching it.
 
2014-02-11 08:02:45 AM  

stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.


Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.
 
2014-02-11 08:03:20 AM  
Democrat bombs are good bombs.

// bush would have been called a murderer. Obama, worshiped as all congregations worship a vengeful god.
 
2014-02-11 08:05:41 AM  

MugzyBrown: ReverendJasen: And so far, not one person has been hit by a drone in America yet.  I'm saving up my fright for that day.

So it has to be a drone?  What about LAPD cops burning down a house with a suspected murderer inside?


The guy in a stand off refusing to surrender?

no, burning the building to get him to evacuate wasn't the correct choice, if that was actually the reasoning, but when a guy sets up in a house and starts shooting cops...
 
2014-02-11 08:06:02 AM  

lohphat: stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.

Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.



And this has to do with Anwar Al-Alawi how?
 
2014-02-11 08:10:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: ReverendJasen: And so far, not one person has been hit by a drone in America yet.  I'm saving up my fright for that day.

So it has to be a drone?  What about LAPD cops burning down a house with a suspected murderer inside?


I thought he was going to be the first to get droned. It will happen sooner than later.
 
2014-02-11 08:11:11 AM  

stoli n coke: lohphat: stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.

Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.


And this has to do with Anwar Al-Alawi how?


How many innocent people are going to die because some remote drone operator makes a mistake or chooses a public area where civilians don't know he's around them?
 
2014-02-11 08:12:43 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


That's really not an accurate statement of the law, and I'm somewhat surprised to see you post that. The Bill of Rights and due process requirements are restrictions on the power of the state and one need not be within US borders for them to apply.
 
2014-02-11 08:13:33 AM  
The Brown Bomber strikes again.  Heck, I'm just happy that this time they're considering whether it's right or wrong.  Progress of a sort.
 
2014-02-11 08:14:54 AM  
Because the government would never make an unfounded accusation before screwing someone over. And absolutely everything we're told about The Global War on Terror™ is completely and 100% true.

Right?

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-11 08:16:06 AM  
Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.
 
2014-02-11 08:16:21 AM  

sethstorm: and constantly refusing due process means that you're not interested in the law.


I love seeing this argument hurled from the safety of a mother's basement.
 
2014-02-11 08:18:17 AM  

lohphat: stoli n coke: lohphat: stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.

Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.


And this has to do with Anwar Al-Alawi how?

How many innocent people are going to die because some remote drone operator makes a mistake or chooses a public area where civilians don't know he's around them?


He does not care. Those people deserve it if Obama decides someone needed to die. Obama's will is all that matters to him. He was probably shouting Bush and Cheney should have stood before the Hague a few years ago, but he'll defend a program Amnesty International has branded a "war crime" until the cows come home now.
 
2014-02-11 08:18:30 AM  

stoli n coke: lohphat: stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.

Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.


And this has to do with Anwar Al-Alawi how?


He was the first American specifically targeted with a drone. He was not killed on a "battlefield". I also wanted to note the Orwellian twist that the American that inspired terrorism was droned and the American that committed the terrorism was charged with work place violence.
 
2014-02-11 08:20:27 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.


Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.
 
2014-02-11 08:21:17 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.


I'll give you a pass since you clearly have no legal education whatsover, but while Barhain is not constrained by US law to do what it wants yo US citizens within its borders, the US is still bound by US law when carrying out actions of foreign soil. For example, courts have excluded evidence in drug prosecutions that the DEA obtained in violation of US law even though it was on foreign soil. Again, that's the sort of thing I would not expect you to know, but people with knowledge of the law would have at least a working familiarity with that.
 
2014-02-11 08:21:36 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.



The topic is an action by the US government against a US citizen, not a foreign government against a visiting US citizen. Try to keep up.
 
2014-02-11 08:22:06 AM  

MugzyBrown: So it has to be a drone? What about LAPD cops burning down a house with a suspected murderer inside?


Or cops giving you hours-long enema sessions?
Or fingering women they pull over while "looking for drugs"?
Or shooting your handicapped child after you called because you feared for his safety?
Or killing every dog they encounter?
Or arresting an employee of your store 300 times in a year for trespassing at work?
Or busting the scrotum of some kid during an uncalled for stop'n'frisk?
Or shooting a subdued, handcuffed suspect while he lays on the ground?

Those are all examples of horrible abuses of the law perpetrated by local law enforcement.  It needs to be fixed.  I'd love to see all those cops roasted.

However none of them were done by the federal government, the administration, or the military--which is what we're really discussing now.  I think that the idea that the CIA's tactics against terrorists in foreign countries will somehow trickle down and encourage local police forces to use the same tactics is a bit tenuous.  Unlike Afghanistan, we do have easy ways to track down and capture suspects here, and we are supposed to still have due process.
 
2014-02-11 08:22:06 AM  

lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.


the same government they are taking up arms against?
 
2014-02-11 08:22:27 AM  
Farking autocorrect. "The Constitution doesn't have..."
 
2014-02-11 08:23:09 AM  

Nabb1: lohphat: stoli n coke: lohphat: stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.

Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.


And this has to do with Anwar Al-Alawi how?

How many innocent people are going to die because some remote drone operator makes a mistake or chooses a public area where civilians don't know he's around them?

He does not care. Those people deserve it if Obama decides someone needed to die. Obama's will is all that matters to him. He was probably shouting Bush and Cheney should have stood before the Hague a few years ago, but he'll defend a program Amnesty International has branded a "war crime" until the cows come home now.


I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.
 
2014-02-11 08:24:02 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.


The Constitution is a set of restrictions on the power of the United States government. As you have correctly pointed out, it has no bearing on the actions of other governments, but we aren't talking about another country executing this person without trial, are we? We're talking about the United States doing it.

It's an incredibly mendacious argument.
 
2014-02-11 08:25:01 AM  

Headso: Nabb1: lohphat: stoli n coke: lohphat: stoli n coke: badhatharry: badhatharry: We have already droned an American for work place violence.

And his 16 year old American son was killed by accident. Oops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


You mean the guy that had been connected to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers and corresponded with both the Underwear Bomber and the guy that killed 13 U.S. soldiers on our own soil? The guy who was hanging out with an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen.

It's common knowledge that if you regularly hang out in a crackhouse run by gangbangers, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot by police during a raid. And you probably shouldn't put your kid in that environment.

Chalk that one up to lousy parenting.

And given what that asshole convinced other 16-year old boys to do in the name of religion, you're not going to get any sympathy.

Yeah. Oops. Wedding party incorrectly targeted by drone. 16 dead, 10 injured.


And this has to do with Anwar Al-Alawi how?

How many innocent people are going to die because some remote drone operator makes a mistake or chooses a public area where civilians don't know he's around them?

He does not care. Those people deserve it if Obama decides someone needed to die. Obama's will is all that matters to him. He was probably shouting Bush and Cheney should have stood before the Hague a few years ago, but he'll defend a program Amnesty International has branded a "war crime" until the cows come home now.

I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.


So, perception of Republicans is more important to you than the rule of law. It's not what's right or wrong?
 
2014-02-11 08:25:07 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.


I'm not following this... the US Constitution defines, enumerates and limits powers of the US Government.  If you're arrested overseas by a foreign government for speech, your free speech rights have not been impinged as written in the Bill of Rights.  If you were arrested and imprisoned for that speech in the US, that would constitute a violation of those rights.

Similar to the example given up thread of the rape case in Okinawa... I don't see how being arrested by the government of Japan could consitute any violation of due process as defined by the US Constitution just because the military declined to arrest and try them under UCMJ.  Doesn't make sense.
 
2014-02-11 08:26:23 AM  

irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?


"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?
 
2014-02-11 08:26:32 AM  
Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.
 
2014-02-11 08:27:00 AM  

irate vegetable:
the same government they are taking up arms against?


Yes, that government. They can be charged with treason, captured, and brought before a court to stand trial by their accusers instead of being called a criminal and executed without due process.

Remember the old white guys who wrote a document in protest against this and similar gripes against a monarch who could disappear you for any reason?
 
2014-02-11 08:28:10 AM  
Nabb1:"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

Apparently they think that "due process of law" means "the President says so".
 
2014-02-11 08:29:16 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.


Well, in this age of hyperpartisanship, I'm afraid you'll find some people would rather let a war crime continue rather than be the party to admit the policy is wrong and pay for it politically.
 
2014-02-11 08:29:56 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Nabb1:"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

Apparently they think that "due process of law" means "the President says so".


Well, not any President. Just this one.
 
2014-02-11 08:30:11 AM  
This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-11 08:31:57 AM  

jso2897: This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
[i18.photobucket.com image 432x335]


Well, that's pretty dumb. He was tried and convicted in a court of law, no? Sentence was carried out after appellate relief was exhausted and everything. Nice work.
 
2014-02-11 08:33:43 AM  

Nabb1: YixilTesiphon: Nabb1:"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

Apparently they think that "due process of law" means "the President says so".

Well, not any President. Just this one.


And there is another set who trusted Bush with it, but not this one.

Apparently it's alien to people that if you don't trust somebody who could possibly be President with a power, no President should have that power.

/do they really want Ted Cruz to decide who lives and dies?
 
2014-02-11 08:34:28 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.


that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.
 
2014-02-11 08:34:35 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.


Wow. The glow of stupidity emanating from this post is so bright it blinds.
 
2014-02-11 08:34:49 AM  

Nabb1: irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?

"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?


What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.
 
2014-02-11 08:35:24 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


Where's it written in the Constitution that it applies only when the US citizen is on US soil? The document is a declaration of freedoms of a US citizen in relation to their government's authority. Leaving the US does not invalidate or cancel those protections. You still have freedom of speech against the US government no matter where you happen to be on or around this planet.
 
2014-02-11 08:36:57 AM  

lohphat: irate vegetable:
the same government they are taking up arms against?

Yes, that government. They can be charged with treason, captured, and brought before a court to stand trial by their accusers instead of being called a criminal and executed without due process.

Remember the old white guys who wrote a document in protest against this and similar gripes against a monarch who could disappear you for any reason?


So guys in the middle of Yemen, or Pakistan, with no police forces in the country to speak of,can be captured?
 
2014-02-11 08:38:26 AM  
Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.
 
2014-02-11 08:39:08 AM  
Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.
 
2014-02-11 08:39:23 AM  

irate vegetable: As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.


Actually there are limitations when using force when it's shown the suspect was not a threat during the crime. Shoot and kill a fleeing suspected unarmed burglar and expect to get a murder charge handed to you.
 
2014-02-11 08:43:19 AM  

Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.


Either America killed your brother, or it didn't. I don't think they give a fark beyond that.

irate vegetable: What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.


So, the executive branch determines that it's not possible to bring somebody they believe committed a crime to trial and then they kill him?

It is not illegal to shoot somebody pointing a gun at the gas station clerk. It is illegal to shoot somebody making a plan to rob the gas station.
 
2014-02-11 08:44:13 AM  

irate vegetable: lohphat: irate vegetable:
the same government they are taking up arms against?

Yes, that government. They can be charged with treason, captured, and brought before a court to stand trial by their accusers instead of being called a criminal and executed without due process.

Remember the old white guys who wrote a document in protest against this and similar gripes against a monarch who could disappear you for any reason?

So guys in the middle of Yemen, or Pakistan, with no police forces in the country to speak of,can be captured?


Nope. But he also can't harm the United States.
 
2014-02-11 08:44:14 AM  
ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.
 
2014-02-11 08:44:39 AM  

Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.


If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.
 
2014-02-11 08:45:26 AM  
The Obamikado- I've got a little list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b_gmO7AJS4
 
2014-02-11 08:45:41 AM  

Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.


The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.
 
2014-02-11 08:45:53 AM  

irate vegetable: Nabb1: irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?

"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.


Due process applies before custody - arrest warrants, probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, etc.
 
2014-02-11 08:45:53 AM  

ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.


You make life/business as painful as possible for those sheltering the suspect.

E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.

The 9/11 hijackers came from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why did we invade Iraq? They had proper IDs on them. Why does the TSA enforce ID checks when they're not needed?
 
2014-02-11 08:47:52 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.


So what?
 
2014-02-11 08:49:41 AM  

ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.


After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...
 
2014-02-11 08:49:45 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


That is setting quite a precedence for all of the Presidents out there in fear of the terrorist here.
 
2014-02-11 08:50:55 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?


Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.
 
2014-02-11 08:50:59 AM  

Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...


So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.
 
2014-02-11 08:51:38 AM  

The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.


is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.
 
2014-02-11 08:52:08 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?

Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.


I think his point is, who gives a damn what Republicans think?
 
2014-02-11 08:52:21 AM  
How can anyone have a issue with this.  the story I read on this stated this is for those who are

1.  In a country that will not work with the US to arrest the person(ie will not go in and arrest him and turn him over or who will not let us go in and do it our self).

and or

2. Is so protected as to make it to much of a risk to a team of special forces to go in after the person.

Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.
 
2014-02-11 08:52:52 AM  
Of the 776 people rounded up in Guantanamo, 600 were eventually released without charge. That's how good we are at this.

Honestly I really don't understand what we are fighting to protect anymore.
 
2014-02-11 08:52:57 AM  
It truly is amazing how many people are entirely fine with secret courts and powerful figures executing people without showing any justification, beyond their own assertions that those people deserved it.

I don't know if it has been posted around here, but take a look at this:   http://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret- r ole/  Drone strikes are being done targeting cell phones, not people.  If a cell phone has called other targeted cell phones a few too many times, we'll drone strike that cell phone regardless of who was holding it at that time.

Does anyone out there actually think we're trying to win this "war on terrorism"?  Isn't it abundantly clear that this is just used to prop up the MIC and instill a secretive system so it never has to answer to the American public ever again?
 
2014-02-11 08:53:05 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.


Those two are a lot more similar than either is to killing zero.
 
2014-02-11 08:53:13 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.

The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.


Whether or not you personally agree with specific rulings is besides the point (there's no real room for rational disagreement with this particular decision, but that too is a separate discussion).

The point is that constitutionality is determined by the courts - when people come in here claiming that there's some due process violation going on, they sound roughly as clever as the morons who still claim that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.
 
2014-02-11 08:53:42 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?

Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.


Are you insinuating that I am against trying them here? I'm not. Maybe you ought to just admit you support war crimes and subversion of the rule of law and stop blaming others?
 
2014-02-11 08:53:54 AM  

Nabb1: Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...

So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.


Sorry the guy you apologize for was in charge for part of the 12 years I mentioned, if I could turn back time I'd change that too.
 
2014-02-11 08:55:48 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.

Those two are a lot more similar than either is to killing zero.


unless you or your family members are numbers 2 - hundreds of thousand on the list of civilians killed, then they are very, very different.
 
2014-02-11 08:55:52 AM  

Biological Ali: YixilTesiphon: Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.

The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.

Whether or not you personally agree with specific rulings is besides the point (there's no real room for rational disagreement with this particular decision, but that too is a separate discussion).

The point is that constitutionality is determined by the courts - when people come in here claiming that there's some due process violation going on, they sound roughly as clever as the morons who still claim that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.


Constitutionality is determined by the Constitution. What rules the government follows is determined by the courts, and increasingly by pulling them out of the President's anus.
 
2014-02-11 08:56:52 AM  

Nabb1: war crimes


[chandlerbingvoice]

Could you be any more melodramatic?

[/chandlerbingvoice]
 
2014-02-11 08:56:54 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?

Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.

Are you insinuating that I am against trying them here? I'm not. Maybe you ought to just admit you support war crimes and subversion of the rule of law and stop blaming others?


I'm not saying 'you' personally. I'm saying that Republicans have blocked several attempts by the administration to bring suspected terrorist to the United States based on (surprise, surprise) fear.

How would you handle it? You've already said what you wouldn't do
 
2014-02-11 08:58:00 AM  

jumac: Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.


We have no evidence of any of that besides the powers that be saying that.  That is a problem.
 
2014-02-11 08:58:23 AM  

lohphat: E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.


So essentially...
US drone killing him without trial is bad, but...
US forcing Pakistan to kill him for us without trial is Ok.  It's like claiming you didn't commit the murder, because the hitman you hired technically did.
And then you have the matter of Pakistani soldiers' lives lost during the conflict to capture or kill him.  Or the fact that Pakistan might just fly over and drop a bomb on him anyway.
 
2014-02-11 08:59:08 AM  

MattStafford: It truly is amazing how many people are entirely fine with secret courts and powerful figures executing people without showing any justification, beyond their own assertions that those people deserved it.

I don't know if it has been posted around here, but take a look at this:   [redacted]  Drone strikes are being done targeting cell phones, not people.  If a cell phone has called other targeted cell phones a few too many times, we'll drone strike that cell phone regardless of who was holding it at that time.



That's some nice Snowden propaganda there, but it's not going to cross into anywhere close to fact until Snowden and his helpers are experiencing due process in a US court, in US custody - with no immunities.
 
2014-02-11 08:59:15 AM  

Biological Ali: YixilTesiphon: Biological Ali: ITT: Area Men Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine Due Process To Be

You'd think that the issue would have been settled for good once Aulaqi's dad's lawsuit was laughed out of court, but apparently internet debates operate on a logic entirely of their own, completely unconnected to actual constitutional law.

The Supreme Court also decided Korematsu.

Whether or not you personally agree with specific rulings is besides the point (there's no real room for rational disagreement with this particular decision, but that too is a separate discussion).

The point is that constitutionality is determined by the courts - when people come in here claiming that there's some due process violation going on, they sound roughly as clever as the morons who still claim that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.


No, there has not been a ruling on the summary execution of citizens abroad. The case was dismissed on standing.
 
2014-02-11 09:00:33 AM  

MattStafford: jumac: Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.

We have no evidence of any of that besides the powers that be saying that.  That is a problem.


We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.
 
2014-02-11 09:00:35 AM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: war crimes

[chandlerbingvoice]

Could you be any more melodramatic?

[/chandlerbingvoice]


Ask Amnesty International. That's what they've labeled out drone program.
 
2014-02-11 09:00:38 AM  

sethstorm: That's some nice Snowden propaganda there, but it's not going to cross into anywhere close to fact until Snowden and his helpers are experiencing due process in a US court, in US custody - with no immunities.


Yeah, ok.
 
2014-02-11 09:01:50 AM  

Headso: Nabb1: Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...

So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.

Sorry the guy you apologize for was in charge for part of the 12 years I mentioned, if I could turn back time I'd change that too.


Poor Obama. He can't stop now. Look what Bush made him do.
 
2014-02-11 09:01:51 AM  

Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.


Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.
 
2014-02-11 09:03:06 AM  

MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.


So fabricated evidence is cool then?
 
2014-02-11 09:04:38 AM  

Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?


No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?
 
2014-02-11 09:05:38 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.

So essentially...
US drone killing him without trial is bad, but...
US forcing Pakistan to kill him for us without trial is Ok.  It's like claiming you didn't commit the murder, because the hitman you hired technically did.
And then you have the matter of Pakistani soldiers' lives lost during the conflict to capture or kill him.  Or the fact that Pakistan might just fly over and drop a bomb on him anyway.


That would allow Pakistan to handle it in a way that Pakistan wants to handle it, drop a bomb on their own nation, it's not us invading their sovereignty and causing diplomatic problems on a global scale.
 
2014-02-11 09:05:47 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?


Nothing?
 
2014-02-11 09:06:20 AM  

Epic Fap Session: So fabricated evidence is cool then?


Is reading comprehension not your friend?  I specifically said they should be held accountable for it.  If the Obama administration said that someone was a terrorist using bullshiat evidence, killed the "terrorist", and later it was found out that the evidence was bullshiat, they should be held accountable.
 
2014-02-11 09:07:26 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.

So essentially...
US drone killing him without trial is bad, but...
US forcing Pakistan to kill him for us without trial is Ok.  It's like claiming you didn't commit the murder, because the hitman you hired technically did.
And then you have the matter of Pakistani soldiers' lives lost during the conflict to capture or kill him.  Or the fact that Pakistan might just fly over and drop a bomb on him anyway.


Where did I state I was ok with Pakistan killing him? If they try to apprehend him and he fights back resulting in his own death instead of cooperating, I have zero problem with that as I would a suspected murderer committing suicide by cop here at home.
 
2014-02-11 09:07:31 AM  

Epic Fap Session: So fabricated evidence is cool then?


Only if it has this guy's seal of approval:

img.fark.net

Then it becomes unquestionable fact, no matter how dangerous or questionable it may be.
 
2014-02-11 09:07:34 AM  

Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...

So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.

Sorry the guy you apologize for was in charge for part of the 12 years I mentioned, if I could turn back time I'd change that too.

Poor Obama. He can't stop now. Look what Bush made him do.


I don't know where you even got that out of my post, you're just swinging blind at this point, breh.
 
2014-02-11 09:07:39 AM  

lohphat: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?


The same people who decide who is a terrorist vs a freedom fighter.
 
2014-02-11 09:07:48 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?

Nothing?


WE HOLD A TRIAL BECAUSE WE ARE A CIVILIZED COUNTRY DUMBASS
 
2014-02-11 09:09:25 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?


You must not have RTFF. This is only for very special cases where it would be DANGEROUS to apprehend the suspect and have a trial. I mean come on, America accounts for only 50% of the world's "defense" spending; you can only expect so much.
 
2014-02-11 09:09:25 AM  

modesto: No, there has not been a ruling on the summary execution of citizens abroad. The case was dismissed on standing.


It's okay to admit when you haven't read something. Nobody will judge you for that. You may, however, be judged if you claim knowledge about something that you clearly haven't read.
 
2014-02-11 09:09:42 AM  

Smackledorfer: lohphat: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?

The same people who decide who is a terrorist vs a freedom fighter.


*shudder*
 
2014-02-11 09:09:50 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


The constitution makes no reference to any geographical limitations wrt to the restrictions it places on the actions of the government. At least not in the Bill of Rights.
 
2014-02-11 09:11:34 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.


The point is you don't use Bush to set the bar on how Obama is judged, even if it makes you feel better. When the next Republican President that comes along, do they get a pass on 'collateral damage' up to the same number as Obama, and then it becomes unacceptable to you?
 
2014-02-11 09:11:47 AM  

Nabb1: Ask Amnesty International. That's what they've labeled out drone program.


This may come as a shock to you, but Amnesty International isn't necessarily the best authority on the jurisprudence of military actions.
 
2014-02-11 09:12:04 AM  

lohphat: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

You make life/business as painful as possible for those sheltering the suspect.

E.g. Pakistan should have been given the full court press when we found out where he was. No more military, food, economic aid. Block travel, goods, money transfers, etc. until they hand him over dead or alive.

The 9/11 hijackers came from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why did we invade Iraq? They had proper IDs on them. Why does the TSA enforce ID checks when they're not needed?



That is funny.  90% of the counties that we would be going after fall into 1 of 2 list.

1st.  Any threat that this side of giving them the chose of turning the person(s) over or have us come in and do a full takeover, and the country is going tell us to go F*&&^ ourself.

2nd. The area of the country that the person(s) are hiding in even that counties  armed forces/law enforcement will not go near as they have no control there, and its controlled by local warlords or the terrorist themselfs.

So in these to times how do you handle the person?
 
2014-02-11 09:12:25 AM  
If it's ok for us to send in a missile and bomb a suspect because it's too hard to go get him, is it ok for another country to do the same thing here in the US if they find it too hard? Is the collateral damGe just as tolerable as we find it when an innocent wedding party is obliterated?
 
2014-02-11 09:12:32 AM  

Headso: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: Headso: ReverendJasen: Just out of curiosity, from those who are against this drone strike, what would be your solution?

Send Seal Team 6 to the terrorist compound to capture this one guy?  How many lives are worth losing to capture him?  So it's better that a few soldiers might die just so he gets a trial?  Then we could add on some murder charges too I guess.
I don't think the cost is worth it.

After a dozen years of invading countries  and using drones to ignore   sovereignty I don't think there is much of an option, but if I was Cher and could turn back time and we went forward with more diplomatic avenues we might have relations with the powers that be in these nations so they could just grab the people we are after. But as it stands now I dunno, you could probably just ignore the people for the most part I guess and just break up actual terror plots or spend the trillions of dollars making the world a better place instead then even with the occasional terror attack we'd still be ahead on the old cosmic scale...

So, you're still going to blame Bush. Got it.

Sorry the guy you apologize for was in charge for part of the 12 years I mentioned, if I could turn back time I'd change that too.

Poor Obama. He can't stop now. Look what Bush made him do.

I don't know where you even got that out of my post, you're just swinging blind at this point, breh.


You seem to be doing quite a bit of work to avoid holding Obama accountable for his policies.
 
2014-02-11 09:12:40 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?

Nothing?

WE HOLD A TRIAL BECAUSE WE ARE A CIVILIZED COUNTRY DUMBASS


Actually, in cases involving people deemed "enemy combatants" we don't.

Thanks for the all caps and bolded response. Now I know you mean business.
 
2014-02-11 09:14:02 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Actually, in cases involving people deemed "enemy combatants" we don't.


Which is wrong.
 
2014-02-11 09:15:05 AM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: Ask Amnesty International. That's what they've labeled out drone program.

This may come as a shock to you, but Amnesty International isn't necessarily the best authority on the jurisprudence of military actions.


How dare the question Obama and criticize civilian deaths! Such insolence! Obama is the final authority! All hail him and let the doubters suffer in Hell!
 
2014-02-11 09:15:08 AM  

modesto: You must not have RTFF. This is only for very special cases where it would be DANGEROUS to apprehend the suspect and have a trial. I mean come on, America accounts for only 50% of the world's "defense" spending; you can only expect so much.


Again - the people saying that it is a special case have no responsibility to show that it is indeed a special case.  As it currently stands, they are allowed to kill that person and have to provide no evidence that they were a terrorist or that it was a special case.

To drop some analogies here, suppose you went overseas, and the administration decided that you were a terrorist and too difficult to be captured alive.  Outside of your trust that they wouldn't do such a thing, what recourse do you, or any of your family members, or anyone at all, have to prevent such a thing from occurring?
 
2014-02-11 09:16:30 AM  

lohphat: Where did I state I was ok with Pakistan killing him?


"...until they hand him over dead or alive. " rather implies that.  Poor choice of phrasing perhaps.
 
2014-02-11 09:17:00 AM  

Epic Fap Session: YixilTesiphon: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: MattStafford: Epic Fap Session: We also go to war without any evidence besides the powers that be saying it's necessary also.

Are you referring to Iraq?  Because we went to the UN and presented copious amounts of evidence about why we needed to go into Iraq.  It turned out to be bullshiat, and people should be held accountable for it, but to act like we didn't have any evidence is complete bullshiat.

So fabricated evidence is cool then?

No, it's not. And what do we generally do to protect people from being executed based on such evidence?

Nothing?

WE HOLD A TRIAL BECAUSE WE ARE A CIVILIZED COUNTRY DUMBASS

Actually, in cases involving people deemed "enemy combatants" we don't.

Thanks for the all caps and bolded response. Now I know you mean business.


So, you think we should apply the Geneva Conventions to our use of drones? Good.
 
2014-02-11 09:17:07 AM  

Biological Ali: modesto: No, there has not been a ruling on the summary execution of citizens abroad. The case was dismissed on standing.

It's okay to admit when you haven't read something. Nobody will judge you for that. You may, however, be judged if you claim knowledge about something that you clearly haven't read.


I've got one District Court judge dismissing on standing. Is your argument that the subsequent ponderings of the judge is now standing constitutional law? Are there other cases of which I'm not aware, and if so, would you please point them out?
 
2014-02-11 09:18:29 AM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Where did I state I was ok with Pakistan killing him?

"...until they hand him over dead or alive. " rather implies that.  Poor choice of phrasing perhaps.


if he dies resisting arrest, I have no problem with that.
 
2014-02-11 09:18:59 AM  

MattStafford: jumac: Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.

We have no evidence of any of that besides the powers that be saying that.  That is a problem.


sometimes I agree.  But what bout cases like the American that was making the videos trying to recuit people and calling for attack on the USA.  They where all over the internet.
 
2014-02-11 09:19:04 AM  

modesto: Biological Ali: modesto: No, there has not been a ruling on the summary execution of citizens abroad. The case was dismissed on standing.

It's okay to admit when you haven't read something. Nobody will judge you for that. You may, however, be judged if you claim knowledge about something that you clearly haven't read.

I've got one District Court judge dismissing on standing. Is your argument that the subsequent ponderings of the judge is now standing constitutional law? Are there other cases of which I'm not aware, and if so, would you please point them out?


Oh, yeah, dicta in one district court ruling is totally binding in all other courts in the land.
 
2014-02-11 09:19:47 AM  
If you are a citizen of America, and you suspect you are on a capture or kill list, which is what this is, you can only fight this "unconstitutional injustice" by surrendering yourself to the American embassy in the country you are in and making yourself subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts to make your case on the unconstitutionality of the action.  If you refuse to surrender yourself to the jurisdiction of the American court and refuse to make the argument that the action is unconstitutional then you are giving up your rights granted in the Constitution to a jury and accepting the constitutionality of the action in your case.  No man can unilaterally declare government actions made against him unconstitutional, just as no man can act as judge in a case he is a party to. That is the job of the courts, and if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.
 
2014-02-11 09:21:09 AM  

jumac: MattStafford: jumac: Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.

We have no evidence of any of that besides the powers that be saying that.  That is a problem.

sometimes I agree.  But what bout cases like the American that was making the videos trying to recuit people and calling for attack on the USA.  They where all over the internet.


Who cares about him?
 
2014-02-11 09:21:47 AM  

jumac: MattStafford: jumac: Sorry but if you are helping a terrorist group that has attacked the USA in a few different ways and still make plans to attack the USA(ether in the US or by hitting our bases/interests overseas) in anyway you have stated you don't like USA and have become a traitor.  Now if we can get you safely then great we bring you in and try you in a court of law.  But if you are in a spot where its to much of a risk to get you out oh well hope you like missile coming after you.

We have no evidence of any of that besides the powers that be saying that.  That is a problem.

sometimes I agree.  But what bout cases like the American that was making the videos trying to recuit people and calling for attack on the USA.  They where all over the internet.


A video can't hurt you. If he actually takes up arms and does more to tangibly further it to the point where there is probability of actual harm, then take appropriate action. I don't think we should blow people up for posting videos, no matter how insidious.
 
2014-02-11 09:22:14 AM  

RyogaM: If you are a citizen of America, and you suspect you are on a capture or kill list, which is what this is, you can only fight this "unconstitutional injustice" by surrendering yourself to the American embassy in the country you are in and making yourself subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts to make your case on the unconstitutionality of the action.  If you refuse to surrender yourself to the jurisdiction of the American court and refuse to make the argument that the action is unconstitutional then you are giving up your rights granted in the Constitution to a jury and accepting the constitutionality of the action in your case.  No man can unilaterally declare government actions made against him unconstitutional, just as no man can act as judge in a case he is a party to. That is the job of the courts, and if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.


You're just supposed to guess?

Also, how are you supposed to convince somebody you're planning to perform an unconstitutional injustice on to trust your courts?
 
2014-02-11 09:24:05 AM  

RyogaM: If you are a citizen of America, and you suspect you are on a capture or kill list, which is what this is, you can only fight this "unconstitutional injustice" by surrendering yourself to the American embassy in the country you are in and making yourself subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts to make your case on the unconstitutionality of the action.  If you refuse to surrender yourself to the jurisdiction of the American court and refuse to make the argument that the action is unconstitutional then you are giving up your rights granted in the Constitution to a jury and accepting the constitutionality of the action in your case.  No man can unilaterally declare government actions made against him unconstitutional, just as no man can act as judge in a case he is a party to. That is the job of the courts, and if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.


That is not how our law works. At all. Due process does not mean that.
 
2014-02-11 09:25:52 AM  

The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.

The point is you don't use Bush to set the bar on how Obama is judged, even if it makes you feel better. When the next Republican President that comes along, do they get a pass on 'collateral damage' up to the same number as Obama, and then it becomes unacceptable to you?


I think the route he has taken is less bad than invading whole countries, and all the civilians not being bombed in the invasions would probably agree. You all are arguing purely from an academic standpoint without a single thought for the people who are killed or not based on the policies, like it is an experiment being done in a lab. Is the window the debate is framed in, where the loss of life and cost invasion is a far second to your interpretation of international law and your moral code?
 
2014-02-11 09:27:33 AM  

Nabb1: That is not how our law works. At all. Due process does not mean that.


If you suspect that the police might be trying to kill you, turn yourself in at the local police station and plead your case.  Otherwise, you have no right to complain about any actions that the place take, up to and including killing you.
 
2014-02-11 09:28:29 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.

The point is you don't use Bush to set the bar on how Obama is judged, even if it makes you feel better. When the next Republican President that comes along, do they get a pass on 'collateral damage' up to the same number as Obama, and then it becomes unacceptable to you?

I think the route he has taken is less bad than invading whole countries, and all the civilians not being bombed in the invasions would probably agree. You all are arguing purely from an academic standpoint without a single thought for the people who are killed or not based on the policies, like it is an experiment being done in a lab. Is the window the debate is framed in, where the loss of life and cost invasion is a far second to your interpretation of international law and your moral code?


Che Guevara murdered fewer people than Stalin did, but that doesn't make him a good person.
 
2014-02-11 09:28:51 AM  

modesto: I've got one District Court judge dismissing on standing. Is your argument that the subsequent ponderings of the judge is now standing constitutional law? Are there other cases of which I'm not aware, and if so, would you please point them out?


The judge found (much like any other past, present and future judge) that military decisions are non-justiciable political matters which are left to the legislative and the executive.

The judge also found that the father didn't have standing to sue on behalf of his son, but that was because it was up to the son to surrender himself to US authorities and make the challenge himself if he was upset with his designation as a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist. Much like when a suspected violent criminal is considered so dangerous that a SWAT team is sent after him (the civilian equivalent to the "capture or kill" designation that people like Aulaqi got) - if the guy ends up getting killed because he was too stupid to turn himself in while he still had the chance, it's on him.
 
2014-02-11 09:29:00 AM  

YixilTesiphon: You're just supposed to guess?


Yeah, if you've been doing things that might get you on a "capture if you can, kill if you can't" list, you might want to take a moment to call your embassy, give them your name, and ask.

Also, how are you supposed to convince somebody you're planning to perform an unconstitutional injustice on to trust your courts?

If you are an American citizen, you have two choices: trust either the courts or trust your ability to dodge U.S. drones.  That's it.  You can go to the media first, call your congressman, do whatever, but, in the end, your only way to get off the lists is to make yourself subject to the U.S. courts.
 
2014-02-11 09:29:33 AM  

RyogaM: If you are a citizen of America, and you suspect you are on a capture or kill list, which is what this is, you can only fight this "unconstitutional injustice" by surrendering yourself to the American embassy in the country you are in and making yourself subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts to make your case on the unconstitutionality of the action.  If you refuse to surrender yourself to the jurisdiction of the American court and refuse to make the argument that the action is unconstitutional then you are giving up your rights granted in the Constitution to a jury and accepting the constitutionality of the action in your case.  No man can unilaterally declare government actions made against him unconstitutional, just as no man can act as judge in a case he is a party to. That is the job of the courts, and if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.


Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks they might be suspected of a crime but doesn't turn themselves in can be justifiably denied due process?
 
2014-02-11 09:30:18 AM  

RyogaM: Yeah, if you've been doing things that might get you on a "capture if you can, kill if you can't" list, you might want to take a moment to call your embassy, give them your name, and ask.


What if the government is wrong?
 
2014-02-11 09:30:20 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.

The point is you don't use Bush to set the bar on how Obama is judged, even if it makes you feel better. When the next Republican President that comes along, do they get a pass on 'collateral damage' up to the same number as Obama, and then it becomes unacceptable to you?

I think the route he has taken is less bad than invading whole countries, and all the civilians not being bombed in the invasions would probably agree. You all are arguing purely from an academic standpoint without a single thought for the people who are killed or not based on the policies, like it is an experiment being done in a lab. Is the window the debate is framed in, where the loss of life and cost invasion is a far second to your interpretation of international law and your moral code?


I'm arguing from a legal standpoint that extrajudicial summary executions are illegal, especially where civilians are getting blown up and you think 17 people getting blown up at a wedding is an "experiment." I guess Mengele did experiments, too, in a purely technical sense.
 
2014-02-11 09:31:08 AM  

Nabb1: Biological Ali: Nabb1: Ask Amnesty International. That's what they've labeled out drone program.

This may come as a shock to you, but Amnesty International isn't necessarily the best authority on the jurisprudence of military actions.

How dare the question Obama and criticize civilian deaths! Such insolence! Obama is the final authority! All hail him and let the doubters suffer in Hell!


You do realize you sound completely unhinged, right? I mean seriously - just just read that post back to yourself, out loud. It's bordering on "man with sandwich board on street corner" territory.
 
2014-02-11 09:32:11 AM  

lohphat: Smackledorfer: lohphat: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

Who gets to determine that is accurate instead of a bald accusation with no proof?

The same people who decide who is a terrorist vs a freedom fighter.

*shudder*


Shudder all you like.

The point is that citizenship should be nothing special when discussing anti-terrorist strikes abroad.

Either we are justified in taking a life in that matter, or we aren't. I understand both views, but personally would like to see significant reductions in the war on terror's scope.
 
2014-02-11 09:33:24 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:

I think the route he has taken is less bad than invading whole countries, and all the civilians not being bombed in the invasions would probably agree. You all are arguing purely from an academic standpoint without a single thought for the people who are killed or not based on the policies, like it is an experiment being done in a lab. Is the window the debate is framed in, where the loss of life and cost invasion is a far second to your interpretation of international law and your moral code?


Right, thanks for the perspective. Drones are, in fact, just humanitarian assistants.

What really happened when a U.S. drone hit a Yemeni wedding convoy?

Sorry, I refuse to choose between mass-civilian-casualty ineffective wars and targeted killings from afar with whatever collateral damage may come. It's a false choice and both have made us more unsafe, less free, and without moral standing.
 
2014-02-11 09:36:02 AM  

modesto: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:

I think the route he has taken is less bad than invading whole countries, and all the civilians not being bombed in the invasions would probably agree. You all are arguing purely from an academic standpoint without a single thought for the people who are killed or not based on the policies, like it is an experiment being done in a lab. Is the window the debate is framed in, where the loss of life and cost invasion is a far second to your interpretation of international law and your moral code?

Right, thanks for the perspective. Drones are, in fact, just humanitarian assistants.

What really happened when a U.S. drone hit a Yemeni wedding convoy?

Sorry, I refuse to choose between mass-civilian-casualty ineffective wars and targeted killings from afar with whatever collateral damage may come. It's a false choice and both have made us more unsafe, less free, and without moral standing.


eep!

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-toni g ht-blog/2014/1/17/what-really-happenedwhenausdronehitayemeniweddingcon voy.html
 
2014-02-11 09:36:20 AM  
Well, my big takeaway from this is "If you're an American, don't travel abroad." Because, apparently, even if you're an American citizen, your government reserves the right to murder you by remote control without even the pretense of due process, and all it takes is an executive order to do so. No evidence, no accusation, no trial, no sentence - none of that need apply here. If I'm on American soil, though, well, drat, I guess that the government will have to (*cough* Jose Padilla *cough*) go through the expense of convening a kangaroo court and have me imprisoned for life on no more than the government's claim that I might have thought about agreeing to commit a crime.

Thanks, Dubya! You opened the door that Obama stepped on through.
 
2014-02-11 09:37:04 AM  

Nabb1: I'm arguing from a legal standpoint that extrajudicial summary executions are illegal


why do you think that killings under war powers must meet your own arbitrary standards that only hold bearing when a criminal court is attempting to convict a person of a crime
 
2014-02-11 09:38:03 AM  

YixilTesiphon: RyogaM: If you are a citizen of America, and you suspect you are on a capture or kill list, which is what this is, you can only fight this "unconstitutional injustice" by surrendering yourself to the American embassy in the country you are in and making yourself subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts to make your case on the unconstitutionality of the action.  If you refuse to surrender yourself to the jurisdiction of the American court and refuse to make the argument that the action is unconstitutional then you are giving up your rights granted in the Constitution to a jury and accepting the constitutionality of the action in your case.  No man can unilaterally declare government actions made against him unconstitutional, just as no man can act as judge in a case he is a party to. That is the job of the courts, and if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.

You're just supposed to guess?

Also, how are you supposed to convince somebody you're planning to perform an unconstitutional injustice on to trust your courts?


While I get your concerns, I find it a bit of a slippery slope that innocent citizens are hanging out with terrorist cells to such a point that the cia makes them a target. I highly doubt they are simply blasting everyone who ever talks to a suspected terrorist.
 
2014-02-11 09:38:24 AM  

stoli n coke: Turbo Cojones: But, but we should BRING THEM BACK FOR TRIAL!

Think through the logistics for just a moment...


Problem is, a lot of these guys have made it abundantly clear that they will not be arrested.
Just overnight, there was a report of 20 Iraqi insurgients who were killed during an accident while training to be car bombers.

Some of these people actually go to CLASS to figure out how to kill themselves and take a lot of people with them.


But apparently we dont have to worry about them getting past the final exams. Only the incompetent ones survive.
 
2014-02-11 09:39:18 AM  

modesto: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:

I think the route he has taken is less bad than invading whole countries, and all the civilians not being bombed in the invasions would probably agree. You all are arguing purely from an academic standpoint without a single thought for the people who are killed or not based on the policies, like it is an experiment being done in a lab. Is the window the debate is framed in, where the loss of life and cost invasion is a far second to your interpretation of international law and your moral code?

Right, thanks for the perspective. Drones are, in fact, just humanitarian assistants.

What really happened when a U.S. drone hit a Yemeni wedding convoy?

Sorry, I refuse to choose between mass-civilian-casualty ineffective wars and targeted killings from afar with whatever collateral damage may come. It's a false choice and both have made us more unsafe, less free, and without moral standing.


how do you "refuse to choose" when voting?
 
2014-02-11 09:40:02 AM  

Smackledorfer: YixilTesiphon: RyogaM: If you are a citizen of America, and you suspect you are on a capture or kill list, which is what this is, you can only fight this "unconstitutional injustice" by surrendering yourself to the American embassy in the country you are in and making yourself subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts to make your case on the unconstitutionality of the action.  If you refuse to surrender yourself to the jurisdiction of the American court and refuse to make the argument that the action is unconstitutional then you are giving up your rights granted in the Constitution to a jury and accepting the constitutionality of the action in your case.  No man can unilaterally declare government actions made against him unconstitutional, just as no man can act as judge in a case he is a party to. That is the job of the courts, and if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.

You're just supposed to guess?

Also, how are you supposed to convince somebody you're planning to perform an unconstitutional injustice on to trust your courts?

While I get your concerns, I find it a bit of a slippery slope that innocent citizens are hanging out with terrorist cells to such a point that the cia makes them a target. I highly doubt they are simply blasting everyone who ever talks to a suspected terrorist.


Maybe the government could publish the evidence they have against the people they blow up.

However, I expect you'd find it disappointing. Frequently they don't know their names.
 
2014-02-11 09:41:03 AM  

The Numbers: if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.

Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks they might be suspected of a crime but doesn't turn themselves in can be justifiably denied due process?


First, who determines Due Process or whether it has been denied to you? The Court. Everyone keeps saying that being put on a "capture if you can, kill if you must list" is a violation of Due Process.  But the only forum to determine if that is true is the Court. If you refuse to go to court and assert, "Being put on a Cap or Kill List violates my Due Process,"  then you are basically saying you agree that it is not a violation.  The Court WILL NOT protect your Rights Sua Sponte and say, "Hey, by the way, you and your lawyer haven't mentioned it, but the actions taken by the government also violate your right to free speech, so, I am going to assert that they do for you."  That's not how the Courts work.
 
2014-02-11 09:41:43 AM  

sprawl15: Nabb1: I'm arguing from a legal standpoint that extrajudicial summary executions are illegal

why do you think that killings under war powers must meet your own arbitrary standards that only hold bearing when a criminal court is attempting to convict a person of a crime


He doesn't want there to be these types of killings under war powers.

Also, the United States isn't in a declared war.

Headso: how do you "refuse to choose" when voting?


Well, as I told the Obama volunteers who came to my house in 2012, I voted for Gary Johnson because Obama and Romney would both continue to murder innocents in the Middle East.
 
2014-02-11 09:41:50 AM  

FormlessOne: without even the pretense of due process


'due process' means 'due process of law'. people who are killed under war powers receive due process of law by having that killing be in accordance with laws relating to who and how we kill people under war powers

you, like a lot of other people who are extremely loud about shiat they know nothing about, seem to be applying the standard of "a court must convict you of a crime in a court of law before your peers before punishing you" to the military using military force on a target per congressionally authorized powers of war

its farking babytime frolics
 
2014-02-11 09:42:36 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: YixilTesiphon: Headso:I don't like these drone strikes either, but this is why republicans can't be taken seriously when they do comparisons, come on man, W invaded a whole country based on lies, hundreds of thousands of people died or were permanently disabled. These targeted strikes while creepy and gross are atleast a move away from invading countries.

It's less important to me whether the current President is more or less of a criminal than Bush. There are two options: the President can be a criminal, or the President can not be a criminal.

Obama is a criminal, and saying "BOOOSH!" is irrelevant to that point. Bush was a criminal too.

that's cute thing to say as someone who has no real direct involvement in the policies but the people actually getting shock and awed or not probably would have a different criteria to differentiate the two dudes.

If your argument is along the lines that because Obama has killed fewer innocent civilians than Bush, we should rate him as doing a *good* job, that's pretty sick.

is your argument killing 1 civilian is equal to killing hundreds of thousands, that's pretty obtuse.

The point is you don't use Bush to set the bar on how Obama is judged, even if it makes you feel better. When the next Republican President that comes along, do they get a pass on 'collateral damage' up to the same number as Obama, and then it becomes unacceptable to you?

I think the route he has taken is less bad than invading whole countries, and all the civilians not being bombed in the invasions would probably agree. You all are arguing purely from an academic standpoint without a single thought for the people who are killed or not based on the policies, like it is an experiment being done in a lab. Is the window the debate is framed in, where the loss of life and cost invasion is a far second to your interpretation of international law and your moral code?


Man have you ever got the wrong end of the stick. I'm arguing that you draw the line at zero, and casualty rates for innocent civilians above that number rate as a *bad* thing. You appear to be arguing in favor of drawing that same line at the Bush level of innocent civilian deaths, and then claiming that anything below that line should be considered a *good* thing. I don't really understand how you can manage not to see how stupid that is.
 
2014-02-11 09:43:48 AM  
Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.
 
2014-02-11 09:44:05 AM  

sprawl15: FormlessOne: without even the pretense of due process

'due process' means 'due process of law'. people who are killed under war powers receive due process of law by having that killing be in accordance with laws relating to who and how we kill people under war powers

you, like a lot of other people who are extremely loud about shiat they know nothing about, seem to be applying the standard of "a court must convict you of a crime in a court of law before your peers before punishing you" to the military using military force on a target per congressionally authorized powers of war

its farking babytime frolics


The administration made up a set of rules by which it would determine who to kill. No laws are involved, because none were enacted by the legislative branch.
 
2014-02-11 09:44:48 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Also, the United States isn't in a declared war.


in case you're dumber than dogshiat and don't understand war powers and weren't just making a poorly timed joke, the 9/11 AUMF says :
b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
you can go google for yourself what the war powers resolution is, maybe learn a little something
 
2014-02-11 09:45:14 AM  

RyogaM: If you refuse to go to court and assert, "Being put on a Cap or Kill List violates my Due Process,"  then you are basically saying you agree that it is not a violation.


Wow.
 
2014-02-11 09:46:58 AM  

sprawl15: YixilTesiphon: Also, the United States isn't in a declared war.

in case you're dumber than dogshiat and don't understand war powers and weren't just making a poorly timed joke, the 9/11 AUMF says : b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. you can go google for yourself what the war powers resolution is, maybe learn a little something


I know what the War Powers Resolution is. For example, Obama violated it when he ordered acts of war against Libya.
 
2014-02-11 09:47:12 AM  

YixilTesiphon: The administration made up a set of rules by which it would determine who to kill. No laws are involved, because none were enacted by the legislative branch.


i can't help but sort of admire a person who doesn't let the fact that they know nothing about anything get in the way of their very strong opinions
 
2014-02-11 09:47:21 AM  

YixilTesiphon: RyogaM: Yeah, if you've been doing things that might get you on a "capture if you can, kill if you can't" list, you might want to take a moment to call your embassy, give them your name, and ask.

What if the government is wrong?


First, who determines if the government is wrong? The Court. If you think the government put you on a "capture if you can, kill if you must list" based on incorrect information,  the only forum to determine if that is true is the Court. If you refuse to go to court and assert, "the information the government used that caused it to put me n the list is incorrect,"  then you are basically saying you agree that it is true, or true enough for your satisfaction. The Court WILL NOT investigate the truth or falsity of the information Sua Sponte and say, "Hey, by the way, you and your lawyer haven't contested the facts as alleged by the government, but my independent investigation says the facts were incorrect, so, I am going to contest them for you."  That's not how the Courts works.
 
2014-02-11 09:47:22 AM  

The Numbers: Man have you ever got the wrong end of the stick. I'm arguing that you draw the line at zero, and casualty rates for innocent civilians above that number rate as a *bad* thing. You appear to be arguing in favor of drawing that same line at the Bush level of innocent civilian deaths, and then claiming that anything below that line should be considered a *good* thing. I don't really understand how you can manage not to see how stupid that is.


my argument is simple, the less civilians killed and cost to the taxpayer for the war on terr the better. I don't see how you can argue that less civilians killed is equally as bad, it's an odd argument.
 
2014-02-11 09:48:31 AM  

RyogaM: First, who determines if the government is wrong? The Court. If you think the government put you on a "capture if you can, kill if you must list" based on incorrect information,  the only forum to determine if that is true is the Court.


No courts are involved in this process.

sprawl15:
YixilTesiphon: The administration made up a set of rules by which it would determine who to kill. No laws are involved, because none were enacted by the legislative branch.

i can't help but sort of admire a person who doesn't let the fact that they know nothing about anything get in the way of their very strong opinions


Please tell us the legal basis for killing the first responders to the scene of a previous drone attack.
 
2014-02-11 09:49:21 AM  
That core group is known to include at least one American, Adam Gadahn. But he is widely considered a spokesman and media figure for al-Qaeda, not an operative whose role in plotting would meet the criteria for placement on U.S. target lists.

didn't help al-Awlaki
 
2014-02-11 09:49:24 AM  

RyogaM: First, who determines if the government is wrong? The Court. If you think the government put you on a "capture if you can, kill if you must list" based on incorrect information,  the only forum to determine if that is true is the Court. If you refuse to go to court and assert, "the information the government used that caused it to put me n the list is incorrect,"  then you are basically saying you agree that it is true, or true enough for your satisfaction. The Court WILL NOT investigate the truth or falsity of the information Sua Sponte and say, "Hey, by the way, you and your lawyer haven't contested the facts as alleged by the government, but my independent investigation says the facts were incorrect, so, I am going to contest them for you."  That's not how the Courts works.


Your entire argument is guilty until proven innocent - correct?
 
2014-02-11 09:49:34 AM  
A "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign in a city of several million based on trumped up evidence just feels more lawful to me.
 
2014-02-11 09:50:06 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Well, as I told the Obama volunteers who came to my house in 2012, I voted for Gary Johnson because Obama and Romney would both continue to murder innocents in the Middle East.


heh, you want to kill civilians over here with libertarian policies so we don't have to kill them over there?
 
2014-02-11 09:50:19 AM  

sprawl15: Nabb1: I'm arguing from a legal standpoint that extrajudicial summary executions are illegal

why do you think that killings under war powers must meet your own arbitrary standards that only hold bearing when a criminal court is attempting to convict a person of a crime


Oh, so when we use drones to kill "terror suspects" in countries with whom we are not engaged in hostilities we are at war? Could you explain that, because I think it needs some elaboration?
 
2014-02-11 09:52:48 AM  

YixilTesiphon: I know what the War Powers Resolution is.


so when you say "Also, the United States isn't in a declared war." are you saying:

1) you did not know the aumf exists
2) you did not know the aumf called out the war powers resolution
3) you did not know that war powers can be exercised external to a declared war
4) you do not know what war powers are

this is multiple choice, feel free to circle more than one

YixilTesiphon: Please tell us the legal basis for killing the first responders to the scene of a previous drone attack.


war powers

see, the problem with the bullshiat you're spewing is that it sounds really good but makes absolutely zero logical sense when applied to any cases that aren't in the feel-good narrative you've written for yourself

you are asserting a standard that when applied to things like troops killing people attacking their convoy finds that the troops are acting illegally.

just because you find MORAL outrage at an action doesn't make it illegal
 
2014-02-11 09:53:22 AM  

Epic Fap Session: A "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign in a city of several million based on trumped up evidence just feels more lawful to me.


None of us who are disagreeing with you are saying Bush is a good person or anything but a war criminal.
 
2014-02-11 09:53:30 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.


No, what is conspicuously absent is your complete and total inability to defend the policy on the merits. But, in fairness, some of these legal issues confound people with no base of knowledge.
 
2014-02-11 09:54:24 AM  
Headso:  how do you "refuse to choose" when voting?

Not to sound like we've got a badass over here, but I've generally opted out. Live overseas (where apparently I have no right to due process), last vote for Obama in 2008 on the promise that Guantanamo would close and we would wake up from our mass hysteria generally. I just really can't take part. Not saying this is the most civically responsible route.

It's just frustrating and sad. Bin Laden couldn't have hoped for a better decade following 2001. We're broke, willing to sacrifice whatever freedom we're told to out of irrational fear, and at global war with Islam. Most of the world agrees that we are the biggest threat to world peace, and they are right. Because we're reactionary, small minded, fearful, and because nothing is more important than keeping defense contractors happy, excepting maybe the banks.
 
2014-02-11 09:54:30 AM  

sprawl15: war powers


War powers allow the United States to summarily execute anyone, anywhere?
 
2014-02-11 09:54:30 AM  

Nabb1: Oh, so when we use drones to kill "terror suspects" in countries with whom we are not engaged in hostilities we are at war?


(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

why in the blue fark do you think we need to engage in hostilities with a nation for individuals within that nation to be valid targets under the 9/11 aumf

serious question
 
2014-02-11 09:55:25 AM  

YixilTesiphon: No courts are involved in this process.


The courts only get involved when you, as the aggrieved party, goes to the Court and requests it to judge the merits of the case/process. The Courts do not go around and Sua Sponte create court cases for them to hear. Not even if they personally know of an injustice done to another will they create a case on the behalf of the person the injustice was done to.
 
2014-02-11 09:56:19 AM  

YixilTesiphon: War powers allow the United States to summarily execute anyone, anywhere?


just go read the 9/11 aumf

seriously

it literally says that the president can kill any person, group, or nation that the president determines is a target
 
2014-02-11 09:57:12 AM  

sprawl15: YixilTesiphon: War powers allow the United States to summarily execute anyone, anywhere?

just go read the 9/11 aumf

seriously

it literally says that the president can kill any person, group, or nation that the president determines is a target


Does that trouble you?
 
2014-02-11 09:58:28 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.

No, what is conspicuously absent is your complete and total inability to defend the policy on the merits. But, in fairness, some of these legal issues confound people with no base of knowledge.


Drone strikes provide a way to preemptively strike terrorists with minimal risk to the lives of members of our military.

It's not that difficult to defend.
 
2014-02-11 09:58:28 AM  

Nabb1: irate vegetable: Nabb1: irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?

"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.

Due process applies before custody - arrest warrants, probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, etc.


police respond to hold up at gas station, pull up, exchange fire and kill suspect.  No arrest warrant, no 4th amendment.  same probable cause as the administration has, or would probably argue in court.
 
2014-02-11 09:59:12 AM  
so if you flee the country with ill-gotten gains, they're going to hit you with a drone strike because you're no longer under american protection by law?

/damn, there goes my plan

//oops, did I say that out loud?
 
2014-02-11 09:59:32 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Does that trouble you?


we aren't talking about if it is troubling, we're talking about if it's the law

just because you - or me - are morally outraged about something doesn't make it not the law

grow up
 
2014-02-11 10:00:14 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Drone strikes provide a way to preemptively strike suspected terrorists and those around them, or who call their cell phones too many times, or who respond to the scene of their elimination too quicklywith minimal risk to the lives of members of our military.

It's not that difficult to defend.

 
2014-02-11 10:01:03 AM  

sprawl15: Nabb1: Oh, so when we use drones to kill "terror suspects" in countries with whom we are not engaged in hostilities we are at war?

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

why in the blue fark do you think we need to engage in hostilities with a nation for individuals within that nation to be valid targets under the 9/11 aumf

serious question


So, you think someone being merely accused of being involved in terrorism is sufficient cause to engage in extrajudicial summary executions? Because I think that provision is being stretched beyond any reasonable interpretation to subvert the due process guarantees of the Constitution. Can you show me where that law says that its provisions supersede the Constitution of the United States?
 
2014-02-11 10:01:19 AM  

YixilTesiphon: sprawl15: YixilTesiphon: War powers allow the United States to summarily execute anyone, anywhere?

just go read the 9/11 aumf

seriously

it literally says that the president can kill any person, group, or nation that the president determines is a target

Does that trouble you?


No. I'm not:

A) a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, or associate of known terrorists.

B) pants-pissingly afraid of the President of the United States of America (regardless of political persuasion).
 
2014-02-11 10:03:27 AM  

Epic Fap Session: YixilTesiphon: sprawl15: YixilTesiphon: War powers allow the United States to summarily execute anyone, anywhere?

just go read the 9/11 aumf

seriously

it literally says that the president can kill any person, group, or nation that the president determines is a target

Does that trouble you?

No. I'm not:

A) a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, or associate of known terrorists.

B) pants-pissingly afraid of the President of the United States of America (regardless of political persuasion).


So your argument is that this is OK because the government doesn't make mistakes? I guess we're done here.
 
2014-02-11 10:03:45 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Man have you ever got the wrong end of the stick. I'm arguing that you draw the line at zero, and casualty rates for innocent civilians above that number rate as a *bad* thing. You appear to be arguing in favor of drawing that same line at the Bush level of innocent civilian deaths, and then claiming that anything below that line should be considered a *good* thing. I don't really understand how you can manage not to see how stupid that is.

my argument is simple, the less civilians killed and cost to the taxpayer for the war on terr the better. I don't see how you can argue that less civilians killed is equally as bad, it's an odd argument.


Well, I'm not and I suspect that if that's what you're taking from my posts, then there's probably some wilful determination on your part to deliberately miss the point. As to your argument, just to be clear: what you're saying is that as long as Obama kills fewer innocent people than Bush (and spends less money doing it) it's all good by you? That's the extent to which you are willing / able to evaluate this issue?
 
2014-02-11 10:04:40 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.

No, what is conspicuously absent is your complete and total inability to defend the policy on the merits. But, in fairness, some of these legal issues confound people with no base of knowledge.

Drone strikes provide a way to preemptively strike terrorists with minimal risk to the lives of members of our military.

It's not that difficult to defend.


From a legal standpoint. Again, you probably can't, so maybe just forget it.
 
2014-02-11 10:05:02 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Epic Fap Session: YixilTesiphon: sprawl15: YixilTesiphon: War powers allow the United States to summarily execute anyone, anywhere?

just go read the 9/11 aumf

seriously

it literally says that the president can kill any person, group, or nation that the president determines is a target

Does that trouble you?

No. I'm not:

A) a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, or associate of known terrorists.

B) pants-pissingly afraid of the President of the United States of America (regardless of political persuasion).

So your argument is that this is OK because the government doesn't make mistakes? I guess we're done here.


Yes. That's exactly my argument. I used those other words as a sort of code.
 
2014-02-11 10:05:27 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


Yes, the Founding Fathers were totally just kidding with that whole "Due Process" thing.

You must be trolling, since this is like two days after that story about the woman on the No Fly list because an FBI guy checked the wrong farking box on a form...
 
2014-02-11 10:06:17 AM  

irate vegetable: police respond to hold up at gas station, pull up, exchange fire and kill suspect.  No arrest warrant, no 4th amendment.  same probable cause as the administration has, or would probably argue in court.


If police show up and execute the suspect, they would need to show evidence that they were under imminent threat of bodily harm.

If the administration shows up and executes someone, they just say they had it coming and we move on.
 
2014-02-11 10:06:44 AM  
I want to add one more wrinkle: if you truly believe that the "Capture or Kill Lists" are unconstitutional when a U.S. citizen is put on it, you have one more option as a citizen: call on Congress to Impeach the President.  That's it. If the Court doesn't declare the action unconstitutional, and the government is not going to voluntarily stop the action, the only way to stop the action is to impeach the president and any president that also undertakes the actions later.  IF Congress refuses to impeach after the facts become known, they, too, are basically saying they agree with the constitutionality and actions of the government in the matter.  Good luck, because the party who currently controls the House currently agrees with the use of the capture or kill lists as used by Obama. In fact, their last top two presidential nominees explicitly said so.
 
2014-02-11 10:06:48 AM  

irate vegetable: Nabb1: irate vegetable: Nabb1: irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?

"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.

Due process applies before custody - arrest warrants, probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, etc.

police respond to hold up at gas station, pull up, exchange fire and kill suspect.  No arrest warrant, no 4th amendment.  same probable cause as the administration has, or would probably argue in court.


No, what we are doing is more like the police setting up a sniper to shoot him dead in his house without warning based on a tip that he was planning to rob that gas station.
 
2014-02-11 10:07:16 AM  

Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.

No, what is conspicuously absent is your complete and total inability to defend the policy on the merits. But, in fairness, some of these legal issues confound people with no base of knowledge.

Drone strikes provide a way to preemptively strike terrorists with minimal risk to the lives of members of our military.

It's not that difficult to defend.

From a legal standpoint. Again, you probably can't, so maybe just forget it.


Stop. You're hurting my feelings. Your approval is very important to me.
 
2014-02-11 10:07:23 AM  

Nabb1: So, you think someone being merely accused of being involved in terrorism is sufficient cause to engage in extrajudicial summary executions?


again, that is literally what the law says

if the president finds you to be a target, you are a target

per the law, if obama points to a homeless man out the window of his limo and says "that guy looks like a terrorist", he can launch a missile right away. any additional hoops that he has to jump through have been created by the executive branch (like the kill list)

Nabb1: subvert the due process guarantees of the Constitution


'due process' means 'due process of law'. people killed under war powers are not convicted of crimes. and since they aren't being convicted of crimes, they don't need to be tried by a jury of their peers - which is only a standard levied in criminal due process. al-awlaki was buried with a clean criminal record

using the gas station example above, if a person holds up a gas station, cops show up, there's a shootout, and that person is killed, they received full due process of law, because the laws were written in such a way as to allow the police to use lethal force in certain situations. similarly, when congress says 'you are free to farking kill anyone you want', that is the only process of law that people are due
 
2014-02-11 10:07:57 AM  

The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Man have you ever got the wrong end of the stick. I'm arguing that you draw the line at zero, and casualty rates for innocent civilians above that number rate as a *bad* thing. You appear to be arguing in favor of drawing that same line at the Bush level of innocent civilian deaths, and then claiming that anything below that line should be considered a *good* thing. I don't really understand how you can manage not to see how stupid that is.

my argument is simple, the less civilians killed and cost to the taxpayer for the war on terr the better. I don't see how you can argue that less civilians killed is equally as bad, it's an odd argument.

Well, I'm not and I suspect that if that's what you're taking from my posts, then there's probably some wilful determination on your part to deliberately miss the point. As to your argument, just to be clear: what you're saying is that as long as Obama kills fewer innocent people than Bush (and spends less money doing it) it's all good by you? That's the extent to which you are willing / able to evaluate this issue?


Ok, so you you also believe that the route Obama is taking with the drone strikes is less bad than invading whole countries?
 
2014-02-11 10:08:11 AM  

irate vegetable: Nabb1: irate vegetable: Nabb1: irate vegetable: lohphat: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

Or some of us understand the difference between being in a foreign country and obeying local laws vs being a US citizen and expecting the constitution to apply between them and their own government not the local government.

The Constitution does. It have a caveat as to locale of the citizen it protects.

Remember that this country was founded to protect the individual from THEIR OWN government.

the same government they are taking up arms against?

"No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Which of these terms is giving you difficulty?

What qualifies as due process when it's not reasonably possible to bring them to trial.  As well as how it's not a violation of the fifth amendment to shoot suspect during a crime.

Due process only really seems to apply once people are apprehended.

Due process applies before custody - arrest warrants, probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, etc.

police respond to hold up at gas station, pull up, exchange fire and kill suspect.  No arrest warrant, no 4th amendment.  same probable cause as the administration has, or would probably argue in court.


Sure, if the drone catches him with a gun in his hand, pointed at an American.

/not sure if serious...
 
2014-02-11 10:08:37 AM  

Nabb1: No, what we are doing is more like the police setting up a sniper to shoot him dead in his house without warning based on a tip that he was planning to rob that gas station.


And the tip, the person who gave the tip, or the method of the tip being given never has to be shown to the public.
 
2014-02-11 10:08:38 AM  
Why is this being reported and debated at all?

Shouldn't he just be dead without us ever knowing anything about it?
 
2014-02-11 10:09:15 AM  

sprawl15: again, that is literally what the law says

if the president finds you to be a target, you are a target

per the law, if obama points to a homeless man out the window of his limo and says "that guy looks like a terrorist", he can launch a missile right away. any additional hoops that he has to jump through have been created by the executive branch (like the kill list)


And you are defending this?
 
2014-02-11 10:09:33 AM  

sprawl15: Nabb1: Oh, so when we use drones to kill "terror suspects" in countries with whom we are not engaged in hostilities we are at war?

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

why in the blue fark do you think we need to engage in hostilities with a nation for individuals within that nation to be valid targets under the 9/11 aumf

serious question


Offer not valid in Saudi Arabia :)
 
2014-02-11 10:10:00 AM  
If you believe that the Constitution allows a law to be passed that gives the President the power to order the death of anybody, anywhere, you are beyond help.
 
2014-02-11 10:10:49 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.

No, what is conspicuously absent is your complete and total inability to defend the policy on the merits. But, in fairness, some of these legal issues confound people with no base of knowledge.

Drone strikes provide a way to preemptively strike terrorists with minimal risk to the lives of members of our military.

It's not that difficult to defend.

From a legal standpoint. Again, you probably can't, so maybe just forget it.

Stop. You're hurting my feelings. Your approval is very important to me.


It's not about approval. It's about me not having any confidence that you even understand the concepts we've been discussing in a legal respect to even make trying to debate it with you worthwhile. You've clearly made up your mind, and I don't think arguing legal points you don't grasp is going to go anywhere. It's okay. I understand.
 
2014-02-11 10:12:48 AM  

MattStafford: And you are defending this?


am i?

i seem to be saying "this is why it is legal, this is the law, this is how it works, here are my references" in response to people saying "this is illegal because ~reasons~". if you're the type of person who can't figure out the difference between someone asserting legality and someone asserting morality, then you've already answered your own question
 
2014-02-11 10:15:01 AM  

RyogaM: YixilTesiphon: RyogaM: Yeah, if you've been doing things that might get you on a "capture if you can, kill if you can't" list, you might want to take a moment to call your embassy, give them your name, and ask.

What if the government is wrong?

First, who determines if the government is wrong? The Court. If you think the government put you on a "capture if you can, kill if you must list" based on incorrect information,


Miss the part in the article where it says the government won't TELL US who the suspect is?

How the fark is he supposed to appeal a decision he's unaware of?
 
2014-02-11 10:15:34 AM  

GoldSpider: MugzyBrown: TuteTibiImperes: If you're operating as part of a terrorist network

As determined by whom?

Wasn't that one of the more contentious parts of the PATRIOT Act that a large number of people used to have a major problem with?


Right up until a democrat was elected to the Presidency, yes.
 
2014-02-11 10:16:11 AM  

MattStafford: If the administration shows up and executes someone, they just say they had it coming and we move on.


Nope, in fact, the estate of the deceased can go to court and sue the government for loads of money if the court finds that the Government killed them illegally.  As well they should, if they feel their relation was some innocent guy who did not have it coming.  Of course, the families know better.

The father of the last citizen we killed admitted that his son was an active al Qaeda terrorist.  Guess why he didn't sue after his son got smoked.
 
2014-02-11 10:16:18 AM  

sprawl15: MattStafford: And you are defending this?

am i?

i seem to be saying "this is why it is legal, this is the law, this is how it works, here are my references" in response to people saying "this is illegal because ~reasons~". if you're the type of person who can't figure out the difference between someone asserting legality and someone asserting morality, then you've already answered your own question


And I'm saying that when your conclusion is that the US Government is not one of limited, enumerated powers, you are in error.
 
2014-02-11 10:16:18 AM  

sprawl15: Nabb1: So, you think someone being merely accused of being involved in terrorism is sufficient cause to engage in extrajudicial summary executions?

again, that is literally what the law says

if the president finds you to be a target, you are a target

per the law, if obama points to a homeless man out the window of his limo and says "that guy looks like a terrorist", he can launch a missile right away. any additional hoops that he has to jump through have been created by the executive branch (like the kill list)


So, your argument is that an act of Congress can give the President carte blanc authority over and above the restrictions of the Constitution? Upon what basis to you conclude that the use in the fashion you described would not conflict with the provisions of due process and the Bill of Rights? I mean, specifically.

Nabb1: subvert the due process guarantees of the Constitution

'due process' means 'due process of law'. people killed under war powers are not convicted of crimes. and since they aren't being convicted of crimes, they don't need to be tried by a jury of their peers - which is only a standard levied in criminal due process. al-awlaki was buried with a clean criminal record

using the gas station example above, if a person holds up a gas station, cops show up, there's a shootout, and that person is killed, they received full due process of law, because the laws were written in such a way as to allow the police to use lethal force in certain situations. similarly, when congress says 'you are free to farking kill anyone you want', that is the only process of law that people are due


You are arguing in a very circular manner. There are also two types of due process - substantive due process and procedural due process. Every 1L knows that. And your example about the shooting is completely wrong in its legal analysis. I mean, fundamentally flawed on just a pure basic level. The police are allowed to defend themselves in as shootout. That is because it poses an immediate, imminent threat of grave bodily harm to the officers and those around them. But the mere fact that Congress gives the President the authority to do something does not give the President the authority to do something unconstitutional. That is just a plainly wrong argument that would get you laughed out of court.
 
2014-02-11 10:16:44 AM  

sprawl15: am i?

i seem to be saying "this is why it is legal, this is the law, this is how it works, here are my references" in response to people saying "this is illegal because ~reasons~". if you're the type of person who can't figure out the difference between someone asserting legality and someone asserting morality, then you've already answered your own question


Why are you so adamant in defending its legality, while ignoring the moral aspects of it?

And do you honestly think a law that gives the president the right to kill whomever he wants whenever he wants with no justification is constitutional?
 
2014-02-11 10:17:06 AM  

doglover: Everything a soldier does when he's fighting is criminal. Soldiers are the worst criminals in the world. That's why it's legal to shoot them ON SIGHT.

It happens that the terrorist soldiers can't see as far as the American ones. Them's the breaks. If you don't like the rules, you can always refrain from joining the game.



This is why you should not huff paint

/put down the peanut butter too
 
2014-02-11 10:18:33 AM  

Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.


Disengage from the Middle East...including Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Let them all kill each other.  Buy oil from whoever's left standing.

Better yet, spend those interventionist billions on a serious energy independence project.

If we'd let Russia keep Afghanistan, 9/11 would've involved a couple of Aeroflot jets being flown into the Kremlin.
 
2014-02-11 10:19:40 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Man have you ever got the wrong end of the stick. I'm arguing that you draw the line at zero, and casualty rates for innocent civilians above that number rate as a *bad* thing. You appear to be arguing in favor of drawing that same line at the Bush level of innocent civilian deaths, and then claiming that anything below that line should be considered a *good* thing. I don't really understand how you can manage not to see how stupid that is.

my argument is simple, the less civilians killed and cost to the taxpayer for the war on terr the better. I don't see how you can argue that less civilians killed is equally as bad, it's an odd argument.

Well, I'm not and I suspect that if that's what you're taking from my posts, then there's probably some wilful determination on your part to deliberately miss the point. As to your argument, just to be clear: what you're saying is that as long as Obama kills fewer innocent people than Bush (and spends less money doing it) it's all good by you? That's the extent to which you are willing / able to evaluate this issue?

Ok, so you you also believe that the route Obama is taking with the drone strikes is less bad than invading whole countries?


Broadly speaking, yes it's less bad. But I'm not so stupid as to conflate 'less bad' with 'acceptable'.
 
2014-02-11 10:21:46 AM  

lohphat: If it's ok for us to send in a missile and bomb a suspect because it's too hard to go get him, is it ok for another country to do the same thing here in the US if they find it too hard? Is the collateral damGe just as tolerable as we find it when an innocent wedding party is obliterated?


I hear the IRA is gearing up again.

If Britain starts launching drone strikes against South Boston, I'll be curious what some of these extra-judicial killing supporters have to say...
 
2014-02-11 10:21:49 AM  

The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Man have you ever got the wrong end of the stick. I'm arguing that you draw the line at zero, and casualty rates for innocent civilians above that number rate as a *bad* thing. You appear to be arguing in favor of drawing that same line at the Bush level of innocent civilian deaths, and then claiming that anything below that line should be considered a *good* thing. I don't really understand how you can manage not to see how stupid that is.

my argument is simple, the less civilians killed and cost to the taxpayer for the war on terr the better. I don't see how you can argue that less civilians killed is equally as bad, it's an odd argument.

Well, I'm not and I suspect that if that's what you're taking from my posts, then there's probably some wilful determination on your part to deliberately miss the point. As to your argument, just to be clear: what you're saying is that as long as Obama kills fewer innocent people than Bush (and spends less money doing it) it's all good by you? That's the extent to which you are willing / able to evaluate this issue?

Ok, so you you also believe that the route Obama is taking with the drone strikes is less bad than invading whole countries?

Broadly speaking, yes it's less bad. But I'm not so stupid as to conflate 'less bad' with 'acceptable'.


yeah I kinda think you are, considering i have been saying less bad for the whole time and every response from you has been "so you think this is totally fine??1!1?"
 
2014-02-11 10:23:20 AM  
Nabb1:
No, what we are doing is more like the police setting up a sniper to shoot him dead in his house without warning based on a tip that he was planning to rob that gas station.

that might be the case, but people also seem to be arguing that it's ok as long as the guy wasn't American.

I'm wondering why the nationality of the target matters.  People that aren't US citizens still get due process, why did this suddenly become a problem when it targeted Americans?
 
2014-02-11 10:23:41 AM  

RyogaM: YixilTesiphon: You're just supposed to guess?

Yeah, if you've been doing things that might get you on a "capture if you can, kill if you can't" list, you might want to take a moment to call your embassy, give them your name, and ask.


Doing things like getting your name spelled wrong by some data entry clerk at the NSA, you mean?

Let's ask that woman on the No Fly list how accurate the FBI paperwork is.

Or that poor bastard whose fingerprints they "found" at the Madrid train bombings...oops...wasn't him either.
 
2014-02-11 10:24:44 AM  

irate vegetable: Nabb1:
No, what we are doing is more like the police setting up a sniper to shoot him dead in his house without warning based on a tip that he was planning to rob that gas station.

that might be the case, but people also seem to be arguing that it's ok as long as the guy wasn't American.

I'm wondering why the nationality of the target matters.  People that aren't US citizens still get due process, why did this suddenly become a problem when it targeted Americans?


I am not one of those people. I view those rights as a proscription on government power, not some sort of grant to citizens only.
 
2014-02-11 10:25:17 AM  

PunGent: lohphat: If it's ok for us to send in a missile and bomb a suspect because it's too hard to go get him, is it ok for another country to do the same thing here in the US if they find it too hard? Is the collateral damGe just as tolerable as we find it when an innocent wedding party is obliterated?

I hear the IRA is gearing up again.

If Britain starts launching drone strikes against South Boston, I'll be curious what some of these extra-judicial killing supporters have to say...


Apparently these people believe that Britain has every right to blow up Congress, because of their association with Peter King, who raised funds for the IRA.
 
2014-02-11 10:26:11 AM  

MattStafford: Why are you so adamant in defending its legality, while ignoring the moral aspects of it?


because there's an endless parade of dipshiats who are asserting it's illegal. if people can't even get the basic facts right in their outrage, they're engaging in the exact same ignorant populist outrage that caused the 9/11 aumf to begin with

you see, accepting that it is legal is actually the basis for a far greater moral outrage than most of these shiatheads are asserting, but it would reflect poorly on themselves if they realized that

Nabb1: There are also two types of due process - substantive due process and procedural due process.


and your scoping of them is only relevant to the courtroom which is farking irrelevant here.

when the government, acting through a marine on d-day under authority vested by the war against germany shoots and kills a german soldier, they are depriving that soldier of their life under due process of law. when that marine captures another german soldier and the marines hold that german soldier in indefinite detention in a pow camp, that occurs under due process of law.

these actions are no different because of the scoping of the 9/11 aumf

Nabb1: The police are allowed to defend themselves in as shootout.


"are allowed" is the key there. were they not allowed, by law, to defend themselves in a shootout, and they went ahead and shot the guy anyway, that would be a violation of that person's due process rights. you are again putting everything in context of a courtroom before beginning to examine the situation, which is leading you to bad conclusions - because that's a shiatty context for things that never ever ever would go to a courtroom.

that's why you think it's circular when it's not. 1) What does the law require? 2) Did the person receive what the law requires? 3) If yes, then due process! since you're assuming a case where the law requires far more than it actually does, you're begging the question and causing a circular state
 
2014-02-11 10:27:05 AM  

PunGent: RyogaM: YixilTesiphon: You're just supposed to guess?

Yeah, if you've been doing things that might get you on a "capture if you can, kill if you can't" list, you might want to take a moment to call your embassy, give them your name, and ask.

Doing things like getting your name spelled wrong by some data entry clerk at the NSA, you mean?

Let's ask that woman on the No Fly list how accurate the FBI paperwork is.

Or that poor bastard whose fingerprints they "found" at the Madrid train bombings...oops...wasn't him either.


How many Americans have been put on a capture and kill list, do you think?  Just ball park it for me.
 
2014-02-11 10:27:48 AM  

YixilTesiphon: PunGent: lohphat: If it's ok for us to send in a missile and bomb a suspect because it's too hard to go get him, is it ok for another country to do the same thing here in the US if they find it too hard? Is the collateral damGe just as tolerable as we find it when an innocent wedding party is obliterated?

I hear the IRA is gearing up again.

If Britain starts launching drone strikes against South Boston, I'll be curious what some of these extra-judicial killing supporters have to say...

Apparently these people believe that Britain has every right to blow up Congress, because of their association with Peter King, who raised funds for the IRA.


When the "no-fly" list was first created, Ted Kennedy ended up on it for having numerous meetings with Sinn Fein over the years in trying to help broker peace agreements. He had to be taken off. But don't worry; the government has learned not to make any more mistakes like that in the War on TerrorTM.
 
2014-02-11 10:28:22 AM  
The real problem is that we have secret courts interpreting law in secret and keeping their reasons about this interpretation a secret because its a secret.  #nationalsecurityjustifiesanythingandeverythingwedososuckitkthxbye

If they had to make legal interpretations of law...public then it would at least be open as to what they (the government entities in charge of evaluating national security risks) view as a legal (due) process.  This doesn't mean unsealing sealed secure warrants and such it just means making legal interpretations that could affect the public...public so the accused has the ability to defend themselves.

Now for those congressmen and women who have said that they are interpreting section 215 of the patriot act improperly or in a way you didn't intend...you have the absolute power and authority to go back and AMEND that law in such a way as they cannot interpret it so loosely again.  Its really a simple and elegant solution: do your farking job you iceholes.
 
2014-02-11 10:29:27 AM  

sprawl15: MattStafford: Why are you so adamant in defending its legality, while ignoring the moral aspects of it?

because there's an endless parade of dipshiats who are asserting it's illegal. if people can't even get the basic facts right in their outrage, they're engaging in the exact same ignorant populist outrage that caused the 9/11 aumf to begin with

you see, accepting that it is legal is actually the basis for a far greater moral outrage than most of these shiatheads are asserting, but it would reflect poorly on themselves if they realized that

Nabb1: There are also two types of due process - substantive due process and procedural due process.

and your scoping of them is only relevant to the courtroom which is farking irrelevant here.

when the government, acting through a marine on d-day under authority vested by the war against germany shoots and kills a german soldier, they are depriving that soldier of their life under due process of law. when that marine captures another german soldier and the marines hold that german soldier in indefinite detention in a pow camp, that occurs under due process of law.

these actions are no different because of the scoping of the 9/11 aumf

Nabb1: The police are allowed to defend themselves in as shootout.

"are allowed" is the key there. were they not allowed, by law, to defend themselves in a shootout, and they went ahead and shot the guy anyway, that would be a violation of that person's due process rights. you are again putting everything in context of a courtroom before beginning to examine the situation, which is leading you to bad conclusions - because that's a shiatty context for things that never ever ever would go to a courtroom.

that's why you think it's circular when it's not. 1) What does the law require? 2) Did the person receive what the law requires? 3) If yes, then due process! since you're assuming a case where the law requires far more than it actually does, you're begging the question and causing a c ...


Due process is relevant only to the courtroom? Man, you need to go read up on this stuff before you try to argue it. No offense, but I just think you don't have a rudimentary understanding of it.
 
2014-02-11 10:29:36 AM  

sprawl15: you see, accepting that it is legal is actually the basis for a far greater moral outrage than most of these shiatheads are asserting, but it would reflect poorly on themselves if they realized that


You skipped the part where I asked you whether or not you thought a law that gave the president the power to kill whomever, wherever, whenever, for whatever reason was constitutional or not.

Do you think such a law is constitutional?
 
2014-02-11 10:30:59 AM  

GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?


i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.
 
2014-02-11 10:33:12 AM  

The Numbers: The point is you don't use Bush to set the bar on how Obama is judged, even if it makes you feel better.


This can't be stressed enough.  If you're trying to defend Obama on some subject, don't use the worst president of recent times as your comparison bar.  It makes you look ignorant and silly.
 
2014-02-11 10:33:13 AM  

jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.


So you don't need due process to deprive somebody of the right of due process if they are accused of certain crimes?
 
2014-02-11 10:33:30 AM  

jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.


No, you don't. People don't lose rights because terrorism.
 
2014-02-11 10:33:46 AM  

Nabb1: I am not one of those people. I view those rights as a proscription on government power, not some sort of grant to citizens only.


You are right, others were the ones that suggested it matters because the target was American.

I don't like the process, but I think it's slightly better than trying to arrest people that we can't get to, and being an American doesn't change anything.  If it's ok to do it to whoever drew the short straw and became number 2 this week, it's ok to target Americans as well.

The AUMF sucks, but it's what makes this "ok" as they are valid military targets.
 
2014-02-11 10:34:50 AM  

DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.


Your constitutional rights don't travel with you overseas.  Try invoking your right to free speech in North Korea, or your right to bear arms in Japan and see how far that gets you.
 
2014-02-11 10:35:23 AM  

irate vegetable: Nabb1: I am not one of those people. I view those rights as a proscription on government power, not some sort of grant to citizens only.

You are right, others were the ones that suggested it matters because the target was American.

I don't like the process, but I think it's slightly better than trying to arrest people that we can't get to, and being an American doesn't change anything.  If it's ok to do it to whoever drew the short straw and became number 2 this week, it's ok to target Americans as well.

The AUMF sucks, but it's what makes this "ok" as they are valid military targets.


No. Nothing can make this OK.
 
2014-02-11 10:35:24 AM  

irate vegetable: Nabb1: I am not one of those people. I view those rights as a proscription on government power, not some sort of grant to citizens only.

You are right, others were the ones that suggested it matters because the target was American.

I don't like the process, but I think it's slightly better than trying to arrest people that we can't get to, and being an American doesn't change anything.  If it's ok to do it to whoever drew the short straw and became number 2 this week, it's ok to target Americans as well.

The AUMF sucks, but it's what makes this "ok" as they are valid military targets.


No, the government for years has been rather amorphous as to whether these people are military targets or criminal suspects. And for good reason. Both have implications that are bad for the legality of our policy whether it's in front of the Supreme Court or before the Hague.
 
2014-02-11 10:35:27 AM  

Nabb1: Man, you need to go read up on this stuff


do you not know what 'scoping' means or are you purposely being ignorant of the term

if it's the former, i would be glad to send you to an online dictionary

MattStafford: You skipped the part where I asked you whether or not you thought a law that gave the president the power to kill whomever, wherever, whenever, for whatever reason was constitutional or not.

Do you think such a law is constitutional?


it's framed in context of war powers. war powers are incredibly broad, and not constitutionally restricted in any meaningful sense. the WPR is the only real restriction that's been levied on them sans treaty, and the executive has never considered the WPR constitutional. that's not helped by the judicial considering anything to do with war powers non-justicable

really, the answer to that is heavily dependent on your definition of 'constitutional'. has it been asserted by the courts? no. has it been rejected by the courts? no. is it explicitly enumerated? no. is it restricted? no.

i'd argue that it speaks to a deeper cancer within the constitution insofar as the poorly defined scope of war powers and the greater failings of international law when dealing with non-state actors, but since modern hip internet posters seem to conflate 'constitutional' with 'should be constitutional' the answer becomes muddy. my answer would be the constitution is fundamentally flawed and the constitutionality of the 9/11 aumf's language is not meaningful until it's fixed but that's not really the answer you're looking for so ~~
 
2014-02-11 10:35:50 AM  
Also, based on that article, if your last name is Gadahn, now is the time to call the embassy and arrange for your surrender, or put on your running shoes and trust your ability to dodge drones.  You're welcome.
 
2014-02-11 10:35:59 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.

Your constitutional rights don't travel with you overseas.  Try invoking your right to free speech in North Korea, or your right to bear arms in Japan and see how far that gets you.


This mendacious line of argument has been debunked repeatedly in this thread. The Constitution is a restriction on the power of the United States government.
 
2014-02-11 10:37:32 AM  

Nabb1: jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.

No, you don't. People don't lose rights because terrorism.


maybe in the bizarro world they gain rights  but in this one we all lose rights because of terrorism.
 
2014-02-11 10:37:53 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.

Your constitutional rights don't travel with you overseas.  Try invoking your right to free speech in North Korea, or your right to bear arms in Japan and see how far that gets you.


Japan and North Korea don't have to respect your Constitutional rights under US law when you are within their borders, but the US still has to respect the Constitutional rights of people wherever they are. Just because you are a citizen and you travel to a country that has more rigorous laws doesn't mean the US can then use that country's legal standards to deprive you of life, liberty or property. So, yes, in terms of your rights vis-a-vis the US government, your rights do travel abroad with you. How are you concluding otherwise?
 
2014-02-11 10:38:58 AM  

Headso: Nabb1: jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.

No, you don't. People don't lose rights because terrorism.

maybe in the bizarro world they gain rights  but in this one we all lose rights because of terrorism.


Your defeatist tone may offer rationalization, but it's hardly a justification.
 
2014-02-11 10:39:33 AM  

Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Headso: The Numbers: Man have you ever got the wrong end of the stick. I'm arguing that you draw the line at zero, and casualty rates for innocent civilians above that number rate as a *bad* thing. You appear to be arguing in favor of drawing that same line at the Bush level of innocent civilian deaths, and then claiming that anything below that line should be considered a *good* thing. I don't really understand how you can manage not to see how stupid that is.

my argument is simple, the less civilians killed and cost to the taxpayer for the war on terr the better. I don't see how you can argue that less civilians killed is equally as bad, it's an odd argument.

Well, I'm not and I suspect that if that's what you're taking from my posts, then there's probably some wilful determination on your part to deliberately miss the point. As to your argument, just to be clear: what you're saying is that as long as Obama kills fewer innocent people than Bush (and spends less money doing it) it's all good by you? That's the extent to which you are willing / able to evaluate this issue?

Ok, so you you also believe that the route Obama is taking with the drone strikes is less bad than invading whole countries?

Broadly speaking, yes it's less bad. But I'm not so stupid as to conflate 'less bad' with 'acceptable'.

yeah I kinda think you are, considering i have been saying less bad for the whole time and every response from you has been "so you think this is totally fine??1!1?"


Um what? That's me questioning why YOU are conflating the two. Let me try and explain it to you this way:

Person A shoots up a school, killing 30 kids.
Person B shoots up a school, killing 5 kids.

Now, Person B's actions are clearly less bad than those of Person A but your argument is that we should apparently be patting person B on the back and saying 'Well done' for being less bad than person A. I'm calling that out for being twisted.
 
2014-02-11 10:40:29 AM  
U.S. officials have not revealed the identity of the alleged operative or the country where he is believed to be located, citing concern that disclosing those details would send him deeper into hiding and prevent any U.S. strike.

Brilliant.  So now, because of the clever non-release of information here, all of the Americans overseas that are currently part of the al-Qaeda terrorist network and involved in ongoing plotting against American targets are all saying, "He can't mean me.  He must mean someone else."
 
2014-02-11 10:43:15 AM  

sprawl15: it's framed in context of war powers. war powers are incredibly broad, and not constitutionally restricted in any meaningful sense. the WPR is the only real restriction that's been levied on them sans treaty, and the executive has never considered the WPR constitutional. that's not helped by the judicial considering anything to do with war powers non-justicable

really, the answer to that is heavily dependent on your definition of 'constitutional'. has it been asserted by the courts? no. has it been rejected by the courts? no. is it explicitly enumerated? no. is it restricted? no.

i'd argue that it speaks to a deeper cancer within the constitution insofar as the poorly defined scope of war powers and the greater failings of international law when dealing with non-state actors, but since modern hip internet posters seem to conflate 'constitutional' with 'should be constitutional' the answer becomes muddy. my answer would be the constitution is fundamentally flawed and the constitutionality of the 9/11 aumf's language is not meaningful until it's fixed but that's not really the answer you're looking for so ~~


So was that a yes or a no.
 
2014-02-11 10:45:44 AM  

RyogaM: If you are a citizen of America, and you suspect you are on a capture or kill list, which is what this is, you can only fight this "unconstitutional injustice" by surrendering yourself to the American embassy in the country you are in and making yourself subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts to make your case on the unconstitutionality of the action.  If you refuse to surrender yourself to the jurisdiction of the American court and refuse to make the argument that the action is unconstitutional then you are giving up your rights granted in the Constitution to a jury and accepting the constitutionality of the action in your case.  No man can unilaterally declare government actions made against him unconstitutional, just as no man can act as judge in a case he is a party to. That is the job of the courts, and if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.


See, there is the rub.  The courts can still hold a trial in absentia.  Then if found guilty, you can have your citizenship revoked.  Now there is no constitutional issue.

However, this administration doesn't seem to worry about such a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

And then we killed his son 2 weeks later in a different drone attack.  His son was also a citizen.

I have no problem with killing terrorists.  I do have a problem with killing American citizens without due process that they are guaranteed.
 
2014-02-11 10:48:11 AM  

MattStafford: So was that a yes or a no.


"hey you have posted all thread that this law is constitutional, i am going to stop conversation and make you clearly state if you think it is constitutional."

yes, it's constitutional. just like any other law that is passed by congress, accepted by the executive, and considered non-justicable by the courts. any other obvious things you need clearly spelled out?
 
2014-02-11 10:50:25 AM  

sprawl15: MattStafford: So was that a yes or a no.

"hey you have posted all thread that this law is constitutional, i am going to stop conversation and make you clearly state if you think it is constitutional."

yes, it's constitutional. just like any other law that is passed by congress, accepted by the executive, and considered non-justicable by the courts. any other obvious things you need clearly spelled out?


When was this declared "non-justiciable" by the courts? And when was this particular exercise of authority under the law determined to be "non-justiciable"? Do you understand the difference between a law being unconstitutional as written and unconstitutional as applied?
 
2014-02-11 10:50:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.


The constitution applies no matter where you are. It doesn't protec you from other countries but it protects you from the us gov
 
2014-02-11 10:52:06 AM  

sprawl15: yes, it's constitutional. just like any other law that is passed by congress, accepted by the executive, and considered non-justicable by the courts. any other obvious things you need clearly spelled out?


Just checking to see where you stood on things like this.

Let's agree that it is legal.  Do you think Obama should be doing it?
 
2014-02-11 10:53:04 AM  

Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.

No, you don't. People don't lose rights because terrorism.

maybe in the bizarro world they gain rights  but in this one we all lose rights because of terrorism.

Your defeatist tone may offer rationalization, but it's hardly a justification.


If you are saying people don't lose rights because of terrorism you are arguing from a fantasy land. People have lost rights (warning: this is going to hurt you because it includes W's term) for the past 12 years, we have the NSA spying on us at this point, your kid gets groped at the airport and can't take a juicebox on a plane.
 
2014-02-11 10:54:10 AM  

bluefox3681: The courts can still hold a trial in absentia.


wrong

see Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43

if you still have questions look up crosby v. united states
 
2014-02-11 10:55:01 AM  

Headso: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.

No, you don't. People don't lose rights because terrorism.

maybe in the bizarro world they gain rights  but in this one we all lose rights because of terrorism.

Your defeatist tone may offer rationalization, but it's hardly a justification.

If you are saying people don't lose rights because of terrorism you are arguing from a fantasy land. People have lost rights (warning: this is going to hurt you because it includes W's term) for the past 12 years, we have the NSA spying on us at this point, your kid gets groped at the airport and can't take a juicebox on a plane.


I understand that, and I have always had a huge problem with the erosion of our civil liberties since 2001 under the guise if "the War on Terror." You keep bringing up "the past 12 years" as if that matters to the legality of the issue.
 
2014-02-11 10:57:32 AM  

MattStafford: Do you think Obama should be doing it?


Is the threat of terrorism real?
 
2014-02-11 11:00:30 AM  

sprawl15: bluefox3681: The courts can still hold a trial in absentia.

wrong

see Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43

if you still have questions look up crosby v. united states


My limited understanding is that the Crosby rule would not apply in this case.

Either way, perhaps a legislative fix is required.  Would we rather have a trial or no trial and assassination by memo?
 
2014-02-11 11:00:48 AM  

Headso: Is the threat of terrorism real?


In as much as the government is threatening the USA with the potential of terrorism to justify their policies, yes.

In the grand scheme of thing, terrorism ranks about dead last in terms of number of people killed.
 
2014-02-11 11:01:04 AM  

Nabb1: When was this declared "non-justiciable" by the courts?


anything to deal with war powers falls under the political question doctrine

requiring the judicial to rule that every single political question is individually within the bounds of the political doctrine question doctrine defeats the purpose of the doctrine

Nabb1: Do you understand the difference between a law being unconstitutional as written and unconstitutional as applied?


except there is no constitutional restriction on war powers. there simply isn't - that's the purpose of those marine on d-day examples that I gave. either assert that said marine violated the constitution by killing and indefinitely detaining those people without giving them a day in court, or accept that war powers aren't bound to criminal prosecution before killing/indefinitely detaining. you don't get it both ways, and just ignoring the example doesn't make it go away

MattStafford: Do you think Obama should be doing it?


that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you
 
2014-02-11 11:03:08 AM  

sprawl15: that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you


That he cares about right and wrong?
 
2014-02-11 11:03:31 AM  

trappedspirit: U.S. officials have not revealed the identity of the alleged operative or the country where he is believed to be located, citing concern that disclosing those details would send him deeper into hiding and prevent any U.S. strike.

Brilliant.  So now, because of the clever non-release of information here, all of the Americans overseas that are currently part of the al-Qaeda terrorist network and involved in ongoing plotting against American targets are all saying, "He can't mean me.  He must mean someone else."


The name Gadahn popped up in the article.  That was not an accident.  The same thing occurred when we targeted al Alwahi.
 
2014-02-11 11:03:35 AM  

sprawl15: that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you


What does it say about me?

I'll be honest with you, I'm less concerned about the legality of actions vs the morality and efficacy of actions.

If it was legal for Obama to just nuke every other country, would I say that nuking every other country is a terrible policy and that he shouldn't do it for a variety of reasons?  Yes.  Would you come in here to defend him by claiming that that policy is completely legal?  Apparently, yes.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:27 AM  

bluefox3681: My limited understanding is that the Crosby rule would not apply in this case.


the 'crosby rule'? it's rule 43, i just linked it to you, and it predates crosby by half a century. also, the concept has been around for far longer than that

hopt v utah (1887):
Such being the relation which the citizen holds to the public, and the object of punishment for public wrongs, the Legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:34 AM  

Nabb1: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

I'll give you a pass since you clearly have no legal education whatsover, but while Barhain is not constrained by US law to do what it wants yo US citizens within its borders, the US is still bound by US law when carrying out actions of foreign soil. For example, courts have excluded evidence in drug prosecutions that the DEA obtained in violation of US law even though it was on foreign soil. Again, that's the sort of thing I would not expect you to know, but people with knowledge of the law would have at least a working familiarity with that.


If a US citizen (or the citizen of another country) is brought back to the US for trial, they're entitled to the protections of the constitution.

Actions of the US towards US citizens on foreign soil is a bit fuzzier, but operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.
 
2014-02-11 11:05:41 AM  

MugzyBrown: TuteTibiImperes: If you're operating as part of a terrorist network

As determined by whom?


This.

William Ayers was part of a terrorist organization that bombed government buildings. But since he is friends with Obama, he is not a terrorist?
 
2014-02-11 11:09:40 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Actions of the US towards US citizens on foreign soil is a bit fuzzier, but operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.


Would there be some kind of process for that happening, or would presidential decree suffice?
 
2014-02-11 11:11:13 AM  

MattStafford: If it was legal for Obama to just nuke every other country, would I say that nuking every other country is a terrible policy and that he shouldn't do it for a variety of reasons? Yes. Would you come in here to defend him by claiming that that policy is completely legal? Apparently, yes.


that's because understanding the legal basis for action is important to understanding how to make those actions not-legal. if your goal is just to be frustrated on the internet, then sure, being ignorant as to how anything works is perfectly acceptable...just don't get buttmad like some other posters in here when said ignorance is pointed out.

if you actually have an eye towards problem solving, it might behoove you to figure out what you would need to change to make it illegal for obama to nuke every other country, and focus your outrage on that single point. if you actually cared about the issue, then you would realize that the amount of idiotic, bullshiat rhetoric spewed in this thread causes far more harm to the cause than helps it.

fretting and pulling out your fainting couch is well and good when you just need a quick pick-me-up on a tuesday morning and think a bit of ignorant populist outrage is just the thing to hit that spot, but i'm aware enough to know that ignorant populist outrage is exactly what caused the hilariously broad scope of powers in the 9/11 aumf in the first farking place and i'd rather not go down the road of jumping from one blind bull in a china shop to another

hope that helps
 
2014-02-11 11:13:08 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law. If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here


Does that include the CIA, MI6 or Mossad operating as terrorist networks or are they immune, because Murica?
 
2014-02-11 11:14:34 AM  

MattStafford: TuteTibiImperes: Actions of the US towards US citizens on foreign soil is a bit fuzzier, but operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.

Would there be some kind of process for that happening, or would presidential decree suffice?


In a war zone it shouldn't even require a presidential decree.  If a soldier in Afghanistan is getting shot at by a group of insurgents, one or more of whom happen to be American citizens, he shouldn't have to require a court order to be able to return fire or call in an air strike.

The war on terror is certainly more amorphous, and taking out terrorists with drone strikes when they aren't actively engaged in fighting at the time isn't quite the same thing, but I don't have a problem with it.  If we're going to say that our government has the right to shoot missiles at citizens of other nations engaging in terroristic activities abroad it would by hypocritical of us to say that we can't do the same to people from the US who are engaging in those same activities abroad.
 
2014-02-11 11:15:06 AM  

sprawl15: that's because understanding the legal basis for action is important to understanding how to make those actions not-legal. if your goal is just to be frustrated on the internet, then sure, being ignorant as to how anything works is perfectly acceptable...just don't get buttmad like some other posters in here when said ignorance is pointed out.

if you actually have an eye towards problem solving, it might behoove you to figure out what you would need to change to make it illegal for obama to nuke every other country, and focus your outrage on that single point. if you actually cared about the issue, then you would realize that the amount of idiotic, bullshiat rhetoric spewed in this thread causes far more harm to the cause than helps it.

fretting and pulling out your fainting couch is well and good when you just need a quick pick-me-up on a tuesday morning and think a bit of ignorant populist outrage is just the thing to hit that spot, but i'm aware enough to know that ignorant populist outrage is exactly what caused the hilariously broad scope of powers in the 9/11 aumf in the first farking place and i'd rather not go down the road of jumping from one blind bull in a china shop to another

hope that helps


I still haven't seen you say that you disagree with what Obama is doing.  You are refusing to make your moral determination on this policy public, which seems to say a lot about you, to be honest.

I have already dispensed with the legal arguments - I'm no longer worried about them.  What I am worried about is the morality and efficacy of what we are doing.  Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral or effective.  So I want to know, do you think these policies are moral and effective?  Do you think Obama should continue these policies?  Don't bring up the law, I don't care about it.
 
2014-02-11 11:18:59 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: operating as an enemy combatant is grounds for having your citizenship revoked, which would remove any ambiguity.


even if this were true (it's not), it's utterly irrelevant since it hasn't been done
 
2014-02-11 11:20:28 AM  

sprawl15: MattStafford: If it was legal for Obama to just nuke every other country, would I say that nuking every other country is a terrible policy and that he shouldn't do it for a variety of reasons? Yes. Would you come in here to defend him by claiming that that policy is completely legal? Apparently, yes.

that's because understanding the legal basis for action is important to understanding how to make those actions not-legal. if your goal is just to be frustrated on the internet, then sure, being ignorant as to how anything works is perfectly acceptable...just don't get buttmad like some other posters in here when said ignorance is pointed out.

if you actually have an eye towards problem solving, it might behoove you to figure out what you would need to change to make it illegal for obama to nuke every other country, and focus your outrage on that single point. if you actually cared about the issue, then you would realize that the amount of idiotic, bullshiat rhetoric spewed in this thread causes far more harm to the cause than helps it.

fretting and pulling out your fainting couch is well and good when you just need a quick pick-me-up on a tuesday morning and think a bit of ignorant populist outrage is just the thing to hit that spot, but i'm aware enough to know that ignorant populist outrage is exactly what caused the hilariously broad scope of powers in the 9/11 aumf in the first farking place and i'd rather not go down the road of jumping from one blind bull in a china shop to another

hope that helps


Wow, for a person so concerned by the distracting effect of BS 'white noise', you sure do seem to favor snarky little ad hominems instead of substantive argument.

sprawl15: MattStafford: Do you think Obama should be doing it?

that you think the answer to that question changes anything says quite a bit about you


That you evade giving a direct answer to that question says quite a bit about you.
 
2014-02-11 11:20:54 AM  

Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: jaybeezey: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

i think that depends on the purpose of your visit. If that purpose is to set up shop with a terrorist organization that intends to deprive others of their life, then you lose all rights.

No, you don't. People don't lose rights because terrorism.

maybe in the bizarro world they gain rights  but in this one we all lose rights because of terrorism.

Your defeatist tone may offer rationalization, but it's hardly a justification.

If you are saying people don't lose rights because of terrorism you are arguing from a fantasy land. People have lost rights (warning: this is going to hurt you because it includes W's term) for the past 12 years, we have the NSA spying on us at this point, your kid gets groped at the airport and can't take a juicebox on a plane.

I understand that, and I have always had a huge problem with the erosion of our civil liberties since 2001 under the guise if "the War on Terror." You keep bringing up "the past 12 years" as if that matters to the legality of the issue.


That was probably someone else, I wasn't trying to argue the legality of the issue. As far as the legality of it, they have been and are doing it in plain view of the entire world while saying it is legal and nobody is stopping them, so it has apparently become legal.
 
2014-02-11 11:22:25 AM  

eiger: Dedmon:
It actually does. What do you think "due process of law" means, anyway? It's never so simple as a one line quote. What the president is doing is within the powers of his office, powers that were allocated by the constitution and by various acts of congress over the centuries. The war powers of the president should be more limited,I agree. However, the "due process" doesn't have to be a court, by law. It could be any "due process" as interpreted by the POTUS and SCOTUS, and thus far, it's been deemed appropriate to use intelligence agencies to locate and eliminate any person duly determined to be at war with America or our allies.

TLDR: The due process is the president getting together with the intelligence agencies, looking over the evidence, and determining if another human should die on the other side of the world, all within the law.

Yes, that is what some folks in the government have decided. I (and many Americans) believe they are wrong, and these decisions are dangerous. We shouldn't all pretend like these sorts of powers aren't open to abuse and mistakes. In the latter case, how often do you think they might err on the side of "safety" and kill people who they really aren't sure are in fact terrorists? Hell, just the other day we had a story of a woman mistakenly placed on the no fly list and her hell of trying to get off. We also know that a number of completely innocent people were "extraordinarily rendered" to Middle Eastern regimes in order to endure horrific torture. Oops, our bad. Similarly, a lot of folks who ended up at Guantanamo were just poor suckers caught in the wrong place at teh wrong time. Do we really believe that such mistakes never happen with folks on the "kill" lists? Life isn't a movie where everything is always neat and obvious. In addition, how often might they kill people who are "fellow travelers" of the terrorists but are themselves not violent and might not even advocate violence? Finally, do we really think a president w ...



3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-11 11:22:27 AM  

MattStafford: You are refusing to make your moral determination on this policy public, which seems to say a lot about you, to be honest.


it says i care more about facts than scoring e-cred

seriously though, in what contexts have you heard the phrase 'deeper cancer' used to describe something good

i mean to pull the moral high ground card you basically have to also say that you're a farking moron who doesn't understand anything they read, so i want to make sure you're aware of that. everyone gets one takeback.
 
2014-02-11 11:24:40 AM  

ReverendJasen: phenn: And, that should frighten you, IMO.

No, it really doesn't.  Because I'm not planning a trip to Pakistan to hang out with terrorists.  And even if I was crazy enough to take a vacation in the middle east right now, I still wouldn't be frightened of being mistaken for a terrorist.  Because I'd be checked into a hotel on the beach.  If the CIA had any questions about my intentions, they could come ask me over a Mai Tai at the Dubai Hilton.  They wouldn't need to send a drone to find me hiding in a cave with Bin Laden.

And so far, not one person has been hit by a drone in America yet.  I'm saving up my fright for that day.


Let's put it in a slightly different context:

You're driving your car down the highway, and the oil light comes on indicating it's time to change the oil. "No big deal," you think. "I've got a thousand miles till I REALLY need to change it, I'll get it done as soon as I get around to it."

To be fair, this isn't an unreasonable stance, just as long as you follow through with a prompt solution to a rather minor issue. But what happens when the minor issue isn't addressed? Say you put the light out, and then don't, in fact, change the oil. The light comes back on, minor issue, so same response. "It's like 40 bucks and two hours to do this. I'll get around to it, it isn't worth the hassle right now, I'm too busy."

So you keep pressing the light off and continuing about your days until one day, it happens: the check engine light comes on. You understand the significance of this elevated severity, and rush to the auto parts store or whomever you have change your oil, praying that there are no new issues due to the negligence. Sure, you might make it in time, but what happens when, in your desperate attempt to fix this new rather severe issue, your engine finally seizes up?

Don't you wish that you just addressed the problem when the minor errors and alerts came up, instead of the gamble of being able to solve it when shiat hits the fan?
 
2014-02-11 11:27:13 AM  

The Numbers: Wow, for a person so concerned by the distracting effect of BS 'white noise', you sure do seem to favor snarky little ad hominems instead of substantive argument.


is it bring your autism to fark day

The Numbers: That you evade giving a direct answer to that question says quite a bit about you.


apparently so
 
2014-02-11 11:28:37 AM  

sprawl15: i mean to pull the moral high ground card you basically have to also say that you're a farking moron who doesn't understand anything they read, so i want to make sure you're aware of that. everyone gets one takeback.


I'm gonna level with you, my credibility around here isn't the highest as is, so sure - I'll accept the farking moron tag.

Do you think that what Obama is doing is moral?  Do you think that what he is doing is effective?  Do you think he should continue doing it?

It seems like you're doing your very best to not answer these questions.
 
2014-02-11 11:29:25 AM  

gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.


The Constitution of the United States applies when the US is dealing with their citizens. It is not a contract between foreign countries and US citizens. The king of Bahrain does not have to honor the 1st Amendment while US citizens are in his domain, but the US Govt cannot infringe upon these "unalienable" rights regardless of domain.
 
2014-02-11 11:29:34 AM  
WEDGE ISSUE!
 
2014-02-11 11:32:25 AM  

MattStafford: I'm gonna level with you, my credibility around here isn't the highest as is, so sure - I'll accept the farking moron tag.


alright so to answer my own question to you, "in what contexts have you heard the phrase 'deeper cancer' used to describe something good", the answer is none. in no context is the phrase 'deeper cancer' used to describe something good. when i called what's happening symptomatic of a deeper cancer, i was saying that this situation is so farked up, so beyond what should be happening, that it's exposing errors deep in the fundamental systems of governance. that it's so bad it's sucking all of reality into its black hole of wrongness.

MattStafford: Do you think that what Obama is doing is moral? Do you think that what he is doing is effective? Do you think he should continue doing it?


no. no. no.
 
2014-02-11 11:35:11 AM  
well, whatever s/he's doing I bet it doesn't involve something like lol cats
 
2014-02-11 11:35:22 AM  

Naesen: gothelder: Aww, its cute how many of these assholes posting think the constitution protects our citizens when they are abroad.

Try insulting the king in Bahrain while in his domain and see how long you manage to be out of their prisons for expressing your 1st amendment rights.

The Constitution of the United States applies when the US is dealing with their citizens. It is not a contract between foreign countries and US citizens. The king of Bahrain does not have to honor the 1st Amendment while US citizens are in his domain, but the US Govt cannot infringe upon these "unalienable" rights regardless of domain.


Complex stuff, that.

I think every comment in this thread really says a lot about the whoever made it.
 
2014-02-11 11:37:20 AM  

sprawl15: The Numbers: Wow, for a person so concerned by the distracting effect of BS 'white noise', you sure do seem to favor snarky little ad hominems instead of substantive argument.

is it bring your autism to fark day

The Numbers: That you evade giving a direct answer to that question says quite a bit about you.

apparently so


Ouch man, that really hurt. FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.
 
2014-02-11 11:37:35 AM  
Sigh. For instance, I'm tired and proofreading mode is set to "eh".
 
2014-02-11 11:41:56 AM  

The Numbers: FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.


cool fact
 
2014-02-11 11:54:47 AM  

GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?


Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.
 
2014-02-11 11:54:51 AM  

Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.


The problem with that line of thinking is what is considered a terrorist org and what does hostile to America actually mean? everyone has their own bias and their own judgement on this.
 
2014-02-11 12:03:18 PM  

MattStafford: Do you think that what Obama is doing is moral? Do you think that what he is doing is effective? Do you think he should continue doing it?


Neutralizing (either through capture or by killing) members of al-Qaeda and other organizations associated with them - particularly high-ranking members - is a public service that makes the entire world better off. Obama would be negligent if he didn't do it whenever the opportunity arose.

The AUMF as written is a very broad and sweeping law that could, in theory, be used to justify genuinely bad things (as with sprawl15's hypothetical of Obama launching a missile at a homeless man out of his Presidential limo), but this isn't one of them.
 
2014-02-11 12:09:32 PM  

Nabb1: jso2897: This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
[i18.photobucket.com image 432x335]

Well, that's pretty dumb. He was tried and convicted in a court of law, no? Sentence was carried out after appellate relief was exhausted and everything. Nice work.



Nabb1, Question for you.

If either the FBI, OK State Police, OKC Police Dept, or OK County Sheriff's dept. had received information that Tim McVeigh had a rental truck with an explosive device in the back and was on his way to OKC to detonate the device, what DUE PROCESS would the government been required to afford him, BEFORE stopping, apprehending and/or bringing arms to bear against him?

Are you suggesting that when it becomes known that someone is engaged in a plot to commit a crime (including the crime of treason, which by definition includes taking up arms against the US) that the government is obligated to wait until AFTER they have caused the harm before it can act?
 
2014-02-11 12:11:35 PM  

jigger: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The constitution makes no reference to any geographical limitations wrt to the restrictions it places on the actions of the government. At least not in the Bill of Rights.


There may be jurisdictions but I think we both know the way you grow the concepts in the Constitution and Bill of Rights globally is to extend them whenever and where ever you can.
 
2014-02-11 12:25:44 PM  

kitsuneymg: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.


I threw around "due process" in this discussion because the arbitrary decision to execute an American citizen without a trial or any kind of legal defense, wherever he is or what he is doing, is exactly the opposite of due process. And its hardly news that any branch of the government acts outside the boundaries of the constitution these days; because they can get away with it.
 
2014-02-11 12:27:03 PM  

kitsuneymg: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.


No, that's wrong. Due process has fundamental meaning apart from it's application or lack of it in any place or situation. It does not mean "following the rules". Congress giving "broad discretion" does not mean that anything done under that authority gets a pass on basic notions of rule of law and fundamental rights, of which due process is a part.

In Egypt right now, for instance, people are being rounded up, tortured, then given show trials or just imprisoned without charge. This is being done under the authority of law, with broad popular support. That doesn't mean that people are afforded due process.  In fact, due process is only worth worrying over when it's a protection AGAINST majoritarian and legal abuse. Otherwise we're just a mob.
 
2014-02-11 12:28:09 PM  

lawboy87: Nabb1: jso2897: This is just the worst thing ever in the history of ever. How could an American citizen possibly be an enemy of America?
[i18.photobucket.com image 432x335]

Well, that's pretty dumb. He was tried and convicted in a court of law, no? Sentence was carried out after appellate relief was exhausted and everything. Nice work.


Nabb1, Question for you.

If either the FBI, OK State Police, OKC Police Dept, or OK County Sheriff's dept. had received information that Tim McVeigh had a rental truck with an explosive device in the back and was on his way to OKC to detonate the device, what DUE PROCESS would the government been required to afford him, BEFORE stopping, apprehending and/or bringing arms to bear against him?

Are you suggesting that when it becomes known that someone is engaged in a plot to commit a crime (including the crime of treason, which by definition includes taking up arms against the US) that the government is obligated to wait until AFTER they have caused the harm before it can act?


I think the term that's eluding your argument is "imminent threat".
 
2014-02-11 12:30:43 PM  

modesto: kitsuneymg: GoldSpider: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

In addition to due process, what other rights do American citizens surrender when they travel abroad?

Just gonna go ahead and reply to yours, not that you're alone in your dumbassery.

The president has been given very board discretion by Congress to determine when and where the US military should be able to conduct operations. These powers do include the ability to kill people. They also contain restrictions and rules on what can and can't be done. You may not like it, but "due process" doesn't mean arrested and brought to trial. It means that the law is followed. So when you travel to a foreign country and join with people engaged in combat with the US, and the president (as Commander in Chief of the US Military) or someone he has delegate operational powers to decides that your ass is a target, that *is* due process.

Don't like it? Then ask your congress critter to strengthen the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and/or vote to revoke the authorization that Bush got for operations against Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or terrorists in general. If Obama does not have that authorization, then, and only then, is killing an American that is nominally, but not actively, engaged in armed combat against the US or its representative a violation of due process. As long as congress authorized it (which they have) then these military actions are "legal" as far as US law is concerned.

Personally, I don't like this, but throwing around "due process" and shiat like that just makes you look like a moron.

No, that's wrong. Due process has fundamental meaning apart from it's application or lack of it in any place or situation. It does not mean "following the rules". Congress giving "broad discretion" does not mean that anything done under that authority gets a pass on basic notions of rule of law and fundamental rights, of which due process is a part.

In Egypt right now, for instance, people are being rounded up, tortured, then given show trials or just imprisoned without charge. This is being done under the authority of law, with broad popular support. That doesn't mean that people are afforded due process.  In fact, due process is only worth worrying over when it's a protection AGAINST majoritarian and legal abuse. Otherwise we're just a mob.


I love that term "broad discretion", as if that's an acceptable alternative to enumerated constitutional powers.
 
2014-02-11 12:34:25 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.

The problem with that line of thinking is what is considered a terrorist org and what does hostile to America actually mean? everyone has their own bias and their own judgement on this.


Many people here like to call the GOP a terrorist organization and a threat to America. Should arbitrary designations like that cone with an automatic death sentence? Depends on your political affiliation, I guess, and whether or not you mind living in a third world banana republic.
 
2014-02-11 12:37:51 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.

The problem with that line of thinking is what is considered a terrorist org and what does hostile to America actually mean? everyone has their own bias and their own judgement on this.


This shouldn't need to be ambiguous.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war -- presumably so that the peoples' elected representatives can determine which entities (countries, terrorist groups, etc.) actually qualify as "enemies".  Why Congress has so thoroughly abdicated that (huge) power to the President, I don't really understand.  Putting the matter to a vote like any other law seems like a lot more democratic way to handle it than giving the power to a single individual.
 
2014-02-11 12:38:57 PM  

modesto: No, that's wrong. Due process has fundamental meaning apart from it's application or lack of it in any place or situation. It does not mean "following the rules".


"Due process" means "the process which is due" - that's literally all it means. Which is to say, that any action taken by the government against any individual (and not merely US citizens, as a lot of people in this thread seem to think) must be within the confines of the legal protocol as defined by the lawmaking body.
 
2014-02-11 12:39:16 PM  

lawboy87: If either the FBI, OK State Police, OKC Police Dept, or OK County Sheriff's dept. had received information that Tim McVeigh had a rental truck with an explosive device in the back and was on his way to OKC to detonate the device, what DUE PROCESS would the government been required to afford him, BEFORE stopping, apprehending and/or bringing arms to bear against him?


That information would be probable cause to search the truck, of course.  Stop it, search it, find the bomb, arrest the driver, etc.  Easy.
 
2014-02-11 12:48:53 PM  
Biological Ali: "Due process" means "the process which is due" - that's literally all it means. Which is to say, that any action taken by the government against any individual (and not merely US citizens, as a lot of people in this thread seem to think) must be within the confines of the legal protocol as defined by the lawmaking body.

Nope. Let me google that for you.
 
2014-02-11 12:58:59 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Conspicuously absent from this discussion is a better practical solution being offered up by any of the president's critics.

So weird. It's like they just want to whine about the guy.

No, what is conspicuously absent is your complete and total inability to defend the policy on the merits. But, in fairness, some of these legal issues confound people with no base of knowledge.

Drone strikes provide a way to preemptively strike terrorists with minimal risk to the lives of members of our military.

It's not that difficult to defend.


In the 1950s there was a congressional witch-hunt called the House Un-American Activities Committee. They got to decide who was a loyal American and who wasn't.

How did that all turn out?

As the Founding Fathers didn't trust government to make impartial decisions on its own, nor do I trust the current government to decide who is and is not a terrorist.

Is Snowden and Assange terrorists for uncovering the American version of the Stasi?
 
2014-02-11 01:25:24 PM  

Two16: 3.bp.blogspot.com


Cryptic.
 
2014-02-11 01:37:23 PM  

sprawl15: The Numbers: FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.

cool fact



i62.tinypic.com
 
2014-02-11 01:53:34 PM  
Ok for those who don't like the drone strike.  HOW do you get to someone who is in a spot where there is no way to get to them to arrest them or take them out without causing some sort of international issue, or places american military personal at to great a risk to go in after them.

How do you get someone who is in a country that anything this side of us showing up with enough manpower and firepower to invade and take over their country and give them a chose of turning the person(s) over to use with in x time or we invade, are going tell us to go pound sand?

How do you get someone who is in an area where the government has no control of that part of the country and is unwilling to get any were near the area or there is no real government in control of the whole country.

I mean can anyone image what could have happen if the seal team that got bin laden had gotten to him then had to deal with the military of that country.  It would have been even a worst issue then what happen.

And for the people who think that someone who is with a terrorist group who only goes online with some video and calls for more to fight for them or to thanks those who died in some attack is not the same as someone who dose the attacking.  Well sorry they are not.  Don't matter if you only cooked or just ran messages back and forth, or was the pr guy(s) or what ever part of the group you where doing you just as much a murder as the ones who go out and do the attack.

Just cause you are a American doesn't mean we should give you more rights when we try and deal with you. If we can get you safely great if not well when you join a group that has/is/will be attacking Americans you get what is coming to you.
 
2014-02-11 01:56:49 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Nabb1: Epic Fap Session: Also, don't forget that Republicans are generally terrified at the thought of bringing a suspected terrorist to the US to stand trial.

So what?

Well, it is an option that doesn't involve the Reaper drone and hellfire missiles you're so upset about.

Are you insinuating that I am against trying them here? I'm not. Maybe you ought to just admit you support war crimes and subversion of the rule of law and stop blaming others?

I'm not saying 'you' personally. I'm saying that Republicans have blocked several attempts by the administration to bring suspected terrorist to the United States based on (surprise, surprise) fear.

How would you handle it? You've already said what you wouldn't do


Well that is a silly strawman you have created. The GOP is stating that those caught on the battlefield should be tried under a military tribunal. What Obama has authorized through drone strikes is even less due process than a military tribunal.
 
2014-02-11 01:58:46 PM  

ReverendJasen: lohphat: Yes. That's all it takes to have your freedom taken from you. A single bald accusation.

So you think our military and intelligence agencies are so inept that they simply take the word of any random camel lord, and will take out American citizens with no evidence at all.


You mean the same military and intelligence agencies that took out a country with no evidence at all? I'm sure they would never do such a thing.
 
2014-02-11 02:05:17 PM  

Biological Ali: Neutralizing (either through capture or by killing) members of al-Qaeda and other organizations associated with them - particularly high-ranking members - is a public service that makes the entire world better off. Obama would be negligent if he didn't do it whenever the opportunity arose.


And the collateral damage? The additional terrorists created by these actions?  Are they not worth noting?
 
2014-02-11 02:09:22 PM  

jumac: Ok for those who don't like the drone strike.  HOW do you get to someone who is in a spot where there is no way to get to them to arrest them or take them out without causing some sort of international issue, or places american military personal at to great a risk to go in after them.


Don't get them.  When terrorism becomes a problem, maybe we can talk about it.  Right now, why even bother.  Just ignore them, stop meddling in their affairs, and stop accidentally killing their friends and family.
 
2014-02-11 02:19:04 PM  

Two16: sprawl15: The Numbers: FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.

cool fact


[i62.tinypic.com image 850x125]


I'm pretty sure that quote is part of why sprawl15's troll alt was made.
 
2014-02-11 02:20:07 PM  
Side note: It is pretty bizarre the weird crap that sticks in your brain. I remembered the aptly labeled user name first shot.
 
2014-02-11 02:28:55 PM  

jumac: Ok for those who don't like the drone strike.  HOW do you get to someone who is in a spot where there is no way to get to them to arrest them or take them out without causing some sort of international issue, or places american military personal at to great a risk to go in after them.

How do you get someone who is in a country that anything this side of us showing up with enough manpower and firepower to invade and take over their country and give them a chose of turning the person(s) over to use with in x time or we invade, are going tell us to go pound sand?

How do you get someone who is in an area where the government has no control of that part of the country and is unwilling to get any were near the area or there is no real government in control of the whole country.


You don't. Let the worthless POS rot in a cave or desert. There will now always be people who hate America and they will sometimes find like minded people and try to harm us. We will never be able to eliminate them. In our efforts to do so, we've alienated many people who were previously not anti-American. How many potential future terrorists do you think are created when some hillbilly with four kids gets bombed from our constantly circling, buzzing, death robots in Yemen?

You protect yourself the best you can. You recognize that terrorism is a threat [not even] on par with traffic accidents, heart disease, and domestic violent crime. You don't sell-out your core values because the mohammedans are foreign and scary.

I mean can anyone image what could have happen if the seal team that got bin laden had gotten to him then had to deal with the military of that country.  It would have been even a worst issue then what happen.

Bin Laden was a feeble old shut-in. To find him, we compromised polio vaccination campaigns to take DNA samples in the area. As a result, people we try to help with vaccines in other places refuse them, and aid workers have become fair targets for militants. To me that's a BS tradeoff.

And for the people who think that someone who is with a terrorist group who only goes online with some video and calls for more to fight for them or to thanks those who died in some attack is not the same as someone who dose the attacking.  Well sorry they are not.  Don't matter if you only cooked or just ran messages back and forth, or was the pr guy(s) or what ever part of the group you where doing you just as much a murder as the ones who go out and do the attack.

Just cause you are a American doesn't mean we should give you more rights when we try and deal with you. If we can get you safely great if not well when you join a group that has/is/will be attacking Americans you get what is coming to you.


You're exactly right. We should respect life equally. But please take a look at the people we were confident enough to kidnap, torture, and detain without charge in Guantanamo. A large number ended up there because of personal grudges or faulty intelligence. The number we have been confident enough to bring charges against is seven.

We are not good at distinguishing true threats. Until a few days ago, the regulations governing resettlement into the United States were so asinine, that a refugee who, literally at gunpoint, provided food or clothing to a militant group was barred from entry due to "material support" for terrorists. Likewise for children who were kidnapped and forced to act as servants. Ours is not a government to be trusted in determining who and who is not dangerous. And whatever was special about America, that people looked up to and respected, has been sacrificed in this frenzy. The answer is not complex; you follow criminal procedure or the Geneva Conventions.
 
2014-02-11 02:37:10 PM  
Meh, gotta drone something...

i1111.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-11 02:42:23 PM  

Zafler: Two16: sprawl15: The Numbers: FWIW, I now have you favorited with the note: 'Cares more about facts than e-cred'.

cool fact


[i62.tinypic.com image 850x125]

I'm pretty sure that quote is part of why sprawl15's troll alt was made.


man that was a hilarious thread

shame it got purged :(
 
2014-02-11 02:53:51 PM  

RyogaM: PunGent: RyogaM: YixilTesiphon: You're just supposed to guess?

Yeah, if you've been doing things that might get you on a "capture if you can, kill if you can't" list, you might want to take a moment to call your embassy, give them your name, and ask.

Doing things like getting your name spelled wrong by some data entry clerk at the NSA, you mean?

Let's ask that woman on the No Fly list how accurate the FBI paperwork is.

Or that poor bastard whose fingerprints they "found" at the Madrid train bombings...oops...wasn't him either.

How many Americans have been put on a capture and kill list, do you think?  Just ball park it for me.


No idea.  The Due Process Clause doesn't have a "Oh, you only farked over x citizens?  OK then" escape hatch in it.

At least the one in MY copy of the Constitution doesn't.

They probably released a new version, and I'm not cleared to know what my rights are...
 
2014-02-11 02:54:33 PM  

modesto: Nope. Let me google that for you.


It pains me to see someone struggle like this with something they clearly don't understand. I'm not even trying to enter into snark-off with you; I'm just trying to explain to you (and I'm running out of ways to get this across) that there has never been an understanding of "due process" which forbade the targeting of somebody in a military operation based on what kind of citizenship they hold (the additional restrictions that the US military places on itself when targeting US citizens are there entirely of its own volition), nor has there ever been an understanding of "due process" which requires that a person must be put on trial and sentenced before they can be targeted in a military operation.

The only "process" which is "due" here is, in short, for the legislative branch to authorize military force, and for the executive branch to order it.
 
2014-02-11 03:02:49 PM  

Biological Ali: It pains me to see someone struggle like this with something they clearly don't understand. I'm not even trying to enter into snark-off with you; I'm just trying to explain to you (and I'm running out of ways to get this across) that there has never been an understanding of "due process" which forbade the targeting of somebody in a military operation based on what kind of citizenship they hold (the additional restrictions that the US military places on itself when targeting US citizens are there entirely of its own volition), nor has there ever been an understanding of "due process" which requires that a person must be put on trial and sentenced before they can be targeted in a military operation.

The only "process" which is "due" here is, in short, for the legislative branch to authorize military force, and for the executive branch to order it.


Wouldn't those targets have protection under various Geneva Convention treaties that we are signatories to?  If they are the targets of a military force operation by the US, it would seem that they should be afforded various protections under the Geneva Convention, which I believe we would be violating en masse with our current actions.
 
2014-02-11 03:05:03 PM  

modesto: You don't. Let the worthless POS rot in a cave or desert. There will now always be people who hate America and they will sometimes find like minded people and try to harm us. We will never be able to eliminate them. In our efforts to do so, we've alienated many people who were previously not anti-American. How many potential future terrorists do you think are created when some hillbilly with four kids gets bombed from our constantly circling, buzzing, death robots in Yemen?


That whole post was excellent.  It's the same mentality as those that think the solution to the problems caused by drugs is to raid and lock up as many drug dealers as we can, preferably with military tactics.
 
2014-02-11 03:07:09 PM  

MattStafford: If they are the targets of a military force operation by the US, it would seem that they should be afforded various protections under the Geneva Convention, which I believe we would be violating en masse with our current actions.


the us considers the 'enemy combatants' to fall under the same protection level as francs-tieurs, namely: no protections

per the geneva conventions, if you capture a francs-tieur you can summarily execute them. that's been the basis for the whole litany of bush's "treating them like dogshiat is better than they deserve" stuff in guantanamo.

that's where the whole inability of the geneva conventions to parse military engagements where one side is a non-state actor comes into play, since the situation we are in now (country exercises war powers on some people to be defined later) simply can't be put into the geneva conventions' terms
 
2014-02-11 03:10:28 PM  

MattStafford: Biological Ali: Neutralizing (either through capture or by killing) members of al-Qaeda and other organizations associated with them - particularly high-ranking members - is a public service that makes the entire world better off. Obama would be negligent if he didn't do it whenever the opportunity arose.

And the collateral damage? The additional terrorists created by these actions?  Are they not worth noting?


The idea that additional terrorists are "created" whenever existing terrorists are killed is more or less an urban myth - something that gets repeated without any real evidence to back it up. Even in the most extreme instances - attacks that go horribly wrong and kill only civilians, for instance - it isn't clear whether there's any substantial benefit for terrorists in terms of picking up new recruits. Terrorist recruitment is more driven by the long-standing socioeconomic conditions of the areas they operate in, as opposed to the by-product of military actions taken against them.

You can understand why this would be by thinking of the reverse - if it were true that attacks on terrorists created additional terrorists, it would also be true that attacks by terrorists - which kill far, far more people than the other way around - would generate recruits for whichever armies are fighting them (the Afghan and Pakistani militaries, for instance), but that doesn't happen in any significant numbers either. At the end of the day, joining a military (or quasi-military) force is a decision that not many people make to begin with, and those that do tend to do so for occupational reasons more than anything else.
 
2014-02-11 03:16:37 PM  

Biological Ali: MattStafford: Biological Ali: Neutralizing (either through capture or by killing) members of al-Qaeda and other organizations associated with them - particularly high-ranking members - is a public service that makes the entire world better off. Obama would be negligent if he didn't do it whenever the opportunity arose.

And the collateral damage? The additional terrorists created by these actions?  Are they not worth noting?

The idea that additional terrorists are "created" whenever existing terrorists are killed is more or less an urban myth - something that gets repeated without any real evidence to back it up. Even in the most extreme instances - attacks that go horribly wrong and kill only civilians, for instance - it isn't clear whether there's any substantial benefit for terrorists in terms of picking up new recruits. Terrorist recruitment is more driven by the long-standing socioeconomic conditions of the areas they operate in, as opposed to the by-product of military actions taken against them.

You can understand why this would be by thinking of the reverse - if it were true that attacks on terrorists created additional terrorists, it would also be true that attacks by terrorists - which kill far, far more people than the other way around - would generate recruits for whichever armies are fighting them (the Afghan and Pakistani militaries, for instance), but that doesn't happen in any significant numbers either. At the end of the day, joining a military (or quasi-military) force is a decision that not many people make to begin with, and those that do tend to do so for occupational reasons more than anything else.


That's a great point... we didn't see an increase at all in people joining the US military forces after 9/11, did we?
 
2014-02-11 03:19:33 PM  

MattStafford: Wouldn't those targets have protection under various Geneva Convention treaties that we are signatories to? If they are the targets of a military force operation by the US, it would seem that they should be afforded various protections under the Geneva Convention, which I believe we would be violating en masse with our current actions.


I don't think anybody considers it to be a violation of international law when al-Qaeda and other associated organizations are targeted by militaries who they are engaged in armed hostilities with. Bear in mind that it's not just the US going after them - Afghanistan, for instance, is officially a NATO operation. The only instance where the notion of international law violation has been even briefly pondered (before being promptly discarded) is limited to Pakistan, and it has to do not with concern for the people being targeted, but rather, with a potential violation of Pakistan's sovereignty (this notion is itself laughably ridiculous, though getting into it might be a bit too much of a threadjack).
 
2014-02-11 03:29:50 PM  

Biological Ali: MattStafford: Wouldn't those targets have protection under various Geneva Convention treaties that we are signatories to? If they are the targets of a military force operation by the US, it would seem that they should be afforded various protections under the Geneva Convention, which I believe we would be violating en masse with our current actions.

I don't think anybody considers it to be a violation of international law when al-Qaeda and other associated organizations are targeted by militaries who they are engaged in armed hostilities with. Bear in mind that it's not just the US going after them - Afghanistan, for instance, is officially a NATO operation. The only instance where the notion of international law violation has been even briefly pondered (before being promptly discarded) is limited to Pakistan, and it has to do not with concern for the people being targeted, but rather, with a potential violation of Pakistan's sovereignty (this notion is itself laughably ridiculous, though getting into it might be a bit too much of a threadjack).


So I guess you think it's just an administrative oversight that we've adamantly refused to join the Rome Statute with the rest of the free world?

Whatever man, for a taste of your own condescension, anyone who thinks the Pakistani military fights terrorism has ignorance of the situation on full display.

I sorry prior posts "pained" you to see. Instead, picture me rollin'.
 
2014-02-11 03:30:19 PM  

Biological Ali: The idea that additional terrorists are "created" whenever existing terrorists are killed is more or less an urban myth - something that gets repeated without any real evidence to back it up. Even in the most extreme instances - attacks that go horribly wrong and kill only civilians, for instance - it isn't clear whether there's any substantial benefit for terrorists in terms of picking up new recruits. Terrorist recruitment is more driven by the long-standing socioeconomic conditions of the areas they operate in, as opposed to the by-product of military actions taken against them.


Terrorists derive their support from a friendly population to hide in.  Perhaps they don't get new recruits directly from these actions (and I highly doubt that claim), but they certainly will end up with a friendlier population to hide in.  If you don't think drone strikes have made terrorist organizations more popular and stronger, I would question your sources or logic.  The fact that there are many educated, relatively well off terrorists seems to belie your argument regarding socioeconomic conditions fueling terrorism.  Terrorism is fueled by being locked out of the political process and having unpopular policies forced on you.

Biological Ali: You can understand why this would be by thinking of the reverse - if it were true that attacks on terrorists created additional terrorists, it would also be true that attacks by terrorists - which kill far, far more people than the other way around - would generate recruits for whichever armies are fighting them (the Afghan and Pakistani militaries, for instance), but that doesn't happen in any significant numbers either. At the end of the day, joining a military (or quasi-military) force is a decision that not many people make to begin with, and those that do tend to do so for occupational reasons more than anything else.


The reason for that is because the people killed by the terrorists have political recourse.  If someone blows up my family, I don't need to go buy a gun and take on the terrorists myself - I have a government that listens to me (to an extent, of course) and will do the gun buying and terrorist taking out for me.  If someone blows up my family, and I don't have a government that listens to me or will react for me, my options are limited. Picking up the gun may make sense for me.
 
2014-02-11 03:36:21 PM  

GanjSmokr: That's a great point... we didn't see an increase at all in people joining the US military forces after 9/11, did we?


That's besides the point anyway.  We can vote for a stronger military presence.  We can vote for additional funding.  We can vote for drone strikes.  The people we're droning right now do not have that recourse.  Their governments are not sympathetic to their cause.

Let's say, for example, that Canada started bombing the hell out of the Pacific Northwest.  Shocked and Awed Seattle or something.  And the US government not only didn't respond, but tacitly allowed the bombing to occur.  In addition, they did not respond to any Washingtonian requests for help.  How long before the people of Washington would take up arms against Canada?  Now compare that to what would happen if the US fought back against Canada.  I doubt those Washingtonians would need to fight.
 
2014-02-11 03:42:48 PM  

Headso: We can't trust our government to feed poor people but we can trust it to kill citizens based on secret information.


Well everyone is good at one thing at least.
 
2014-02-11 03:44:35 PM  

Biological Ali: I don't think anybody considers it to be a violation of international law when al-Qaeda and other associated organizations are targeted by militaries who they are engaged in armed hostilities with.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/obama-administr at ion-drone-strikes-war-crimes

Well, no one except for the UN, but who's counting?
 
2014-02-11 03:45:27 PM  

MattStafford: If you don't think drone strikes have made terrorist organizations more popular and stronger, I would question your sources or logic.


See pages 23 and 24. People have gone out of their way to look for any evidence of recruitment benefits that terrorist groups are supposedly gaining as a result of drone strikes, and they've come up short. Meanwhile, there is a fair bit to indicate that these groups are being significantly damaged, at least in the short run, by said strikes.

I understand where you're coming from. I myself used to believe that military strikes "created terrorists", because it just seemed like something that sounded true. But there's really no actual evidence for it.
 
2014-02-11 03:46:58 PM  

MattStafford: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/obama-administr at ion-drone-strikes-war-crimes

Well, no one except for the UN


from that article:
Outside of a defined conflict zone, international human rights law is the applicable law. This is important because human rights law demands significantly more stringent rules for the use of lethal force than does humanitarian law.

If the United States is only involved in an armed conflict in Afghanistan, international human rights law would be the regime that regulates the use of lethal force in Pakistan and Yemen.
that's the key problem. there is no defined conflict zone. the US is using war powers on non-state actors.
 
2014-02-11 03:49:18 PM  

Epic Fap Session: A "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign in a city of several million based on trumped up evidence just feels more lawful to me.


Talking about Syria I assume? Lawfully the US has been justified to bomb Iraq since about 95 when Iraq broke the conditions of the cease fire.
 
2014-02-11 03:50:26 PM  

Dedmon: DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.

It actually does. What do you think "due process of law" means, anyway? It's never so simple as a one line quote. What the president is doing is within the powers of his office, powers that were allocated by the constitution and by various acts of congress over the centuries. The war powers of the president should be more limited,I agree. However, the "due process" doesn't have to be a court, by law. It could be any "due process" as interpreted by the POTUS and SCOTUS, and thus far, it's been deemed appropriate to use intelligence agencies to locate and eliminate any person duly determined to be at war with America or our allies.

TLDR: The due process is the president getting together with the intelligence agencies, looking over the evidence, and determining if another human should die on the other side of the world, all within the law.


So you are cool if we just dispense with these nasty things called "Juries" right? Wouldn't it be quicker if the Judge just got together with the cops and decided if a person was guilty based on what the cops said? Plus we wouldn't have nasty things like "Jury Nullification" to mess up the works! And no one would be bothered by "Jury Duty" anymore!  And everybody could get a job because they would always need more guards at the new prisons.


/Are you REALLY this stupid?
//A citizen is entitled to his homeland's rights regardless what country he is in at the time.
 
2014-02-11 03:51:34 PM  

washington-babylon: So you are cool if we just dispense with these nasty things called "Juries" right?


my grandfather served on a jury on d-day

he personally convicted six machine gun positions and allowed the naval bombardment to occur
 
2014-02-11 03:59:52 PM  

Biological Ali: See pages 23 and 24. People have gone out of their way to look for any evidence of recruitment benefits that terrorist groups are supposedly gaining as a result of drone strikes, and they've come up short. Meanwhile, there is a fair bit to indicate that these groups are being significantly damaged, at least in the short run, by said strikes.

I understand where you're coming from. I myself used to believe that military strikes "created terrorists", because it just seemed like something that sounded true. But there's really no actual evidence for it.


FTA:  "A local analyst who has extensively researched security and governance in FATA notes that 
while anti-drone rhetoric does draw some converts, 'the loss of a Baitullah Mehsud 
or a Qari Hussain is much more damaging than the recruitment of a few dozen foot 
soldiers'."

So a single unnamed analyst (the footnote simply says "interview") is your source for this?  Should I accept that as more authoritative than a Stanford/NYU study?   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-c o unterproductive-report

In addition, that paper did not particularly address the claim regarding the populations acceptance of terrorist organizations.  Terrorist organizations draw their strength from the local population.  They buy food and supplies from them, and most importantly hide among them.  A person with a family member recently killed by a drone strike might not join up, but would certainly be more amenable to selling goods to an organization, or keeping mum if asked about them.

Finally, that statement sounds an awfully lot like the strategies behind anti drug policies.  Chopping the head off will kill the beast, regardless of how many new legs it grows.  But there will always be the next head that emerges.  Even if you kill a Qari Hussain, you have done nothing to address the underlying causes that created that Qari Hussain, or that will create the next Qari Hussain.  You can bust a drug kingpin, but you aren't going to stop the drug trade in that city.
 
2014-02-11 04:07:01 PM  

washington-babylon: Dedmon: DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: If you're located within the borders of the US you're entitled to due process of law.  If you're operating as part of a terrorist network overseas, it shouldn't matter if you're a citizen of the US, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the same rules don't apply over there as they do here.

The Fifth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 Ummm... that's not what the Constitution says.

It actually does. What do you think "due process of law" means, anyway? It's never so simple as a one line quote. What the president is doing is within the powers of his office, powers that were allocated by the constitution and by various acts of congress over the centuries. The war powers of the president should be more limited,I agree. However, the "due process" doesn't have to be a court, by law. It could be any "due process" as interpreted by the POTUS and SCOTUS, and thus far, it's been deemed appropriate to use intelligence agencies to locate and eliminate any person duly determined to be at war with America or our allies.

TLDR: The due process is the president getting together with the intelligence agencies, looking over the evidence, and determining if another human should die on the other side of the world, all within the law.

So you are cool if we just dispense with these nasty things called "Juries" right? Wouldn't it be quicker if the Judge just got together with the cops and decided if a person was guilty based on what the cops said? Plus we wouldn't have nasty things like "Jury Nullification" to mess up the works! And no one would be bothered by "Jury Duty" anymore!  And everybody could get a job because they would always need more guards at the new prisons.


/Are you REALLY this stupid?
//A citizen is entitled to ...



ih0.redbubble.net
 
2014-02-11 04:12:33 PM  

MattStafford: Biological Ali: I don't think anybody considers it to be a violation of international law when al-Qaeda and other associated organizations are targeted by militaries who they are engaged in armed hostilities with.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/obama-administr at ion-drone-strikes-war-crimes

Well, no one except for the UN, but who's counting?


The only comment from the UN is one from a report by Heyns, talking in general terms about the potential consequences of increased drone use, along with some comments about international law which, as far as I can see, are his own opinion with no legal force (the resolution that the report is tied to says only that it "takes note" of his reports and "invites States to take due consideration" of the recommendations).

It's always best to see the primary sources for oneself rather than summaries that have been filtered through heavily slanted sources.
 
2014-02-11 04:22:08 PM  

Biological Ali: (the resolution that the report is tied to says only that it "takes note" of his reports and "invites States to take due consideration" of the recommendations).


You expect a UN resolution to pass with language condemning the US?

Anyway - Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both condemned them as in violation on international law, and the UN appears troubled by it.  I certainly don't think that is something you can just brush off.  A country that "brushes off" Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch while troubling the UN certainly seems like the bad guy, doesn't it?
 
2014-02-11 04:42:23 PM  

MattStafford: So a single unnamed analyst (the footnote simply says "interview") is your source for this? Should I accept that as more authoritative than a Stanford/NYU study? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-c o unterproductive-report


Already read that report a long time ago, and it's out of date - we have since learned that its estimates of civilian casualties were off by about an order of magnitude. Their claim about terrorist recruitment, meanwhile, links back to a New York times article which used the phrase in reference to a statement from a single failed terrorist.

Look, there's obviously an ethical component to it, and you can pick which side you fall on. I personally have no issue with drone strikes because they've been astonishingly accurate (as per the latest numbers), and the people that are being targeted really do have it coming. That said, I can still understand and respect the opinion of people who oppose drone strikes on principle - however, whether or not drone strikes facilitate terrorist recruitment in any meaningful way is an empirical question, and thus far there just hasn't been any compelling evidence in support of it (certainly no evidence that the terrorists receive such a huge recruitment bump that they completely recover the losses they sustain from the actual strikes and come out ahead).

Just because a person has opinions about the ethics of a particular action doesn't mean he or she needs to ignore reality when it doesn't completely bolster their argument. The report I linked earlier which questioned the "drone strikes breed terrorists" assumption, for instance, was by Crisis Group, which is very much against drone strikes.
 
2014-02-11 05:15:49 PM  

MattStafford: You expect a UN resolution to pass with language condemning the US?


I'm just saying that attributing it to the UN is misleading. If a Senator, speaking only in his own capacity, criticized something Obama had done - it wouldn't be quite right to phrase that as "Obama criticized by US", would it?

More to the point, as sprawl15 points out, the concerns are based not directly on humanitarian/human rights grounds, but rather, the highly dry, technical and extremely vague conceptions of whether the strikes are taking place sufficiently close to a "conflict zone". Which, among other things, is why military actions taking place inside Afghanistan aren't being called out, even though they're far more extensive (in terms of casualties of both civilians and suspected terrorists) than anything that's happened in Pakistan (at the hands of the US anyway).

What we're seeing here is new ground being scoped out in order to establish the legal parameters for a new type of conflict that is only now being properly thought about in that way. Some of the concepts as applied to traditional wars between states will continue to apply; others, not so much. And I suspect that this notion of a "conflict zone" will end up being one of the latter.
 
2014-02-11 05:26:34 PM  

Biological Ali: MattStafford: So a single unnamed analyst (the footnote simply says "interview") is your source for this? Should I accept that as more authoritative than a Stanford/NYU study? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-c o unterproductive-report

Already read that report a long time ago, and it's out of date - we have since learned that its estimates of civilian casualties were off by about an order of magnitude. Their claim about terrorist recruitment, meanwhile, links back to a New York times article which used the phrase in reference to a statement from a single failed terrorist.

Look, there's obviously an ethical component to it, and you can pick which side you fall on. I personally have no issue with drone strikes because they've been astonishingly accurate (as per the latest numbers), and the people that are being targeted really do have it coming. That said, I can still understand and respect the opinion of people who oppose drone strikes on principle - however, whether or not drone strikes facilitate terrorist recruitment in any meaningful way is an empirical question, and thus far there just hasn't been any compelling evidence in support of it (certainly no evidence that the terrorists receive such a huge recruitment bump that they completely recover the losses they sustain from the actual strikes and come out ahead).

Just because a person has opinions about the ethics of a particular action doesn't mean he or she needs to ignore reality when it doesn't completely bolster their argument. The report I linked earlier which questioned the "drone strikes breed terrorists" assumption, for instance, was by Crisis Group, which is very much against drone strikes.


Again, what about the effects on the civilian population that doesn't join the organization?

Surely you agree that a large reason the organization can function is tacit support from the population, either through supplies or just allowing them to blend in. If a drone strike killed my family, I would certainly more likely to sell them food or not rat them out, correct?

It's certainly possible that drone strikes do not lead to a significant increase in terrorist activity, but I highly doubt that they are as "neutral" as you appear to make it.

If you know me, you know I love analogies, so let's compare it to the drug war. If the cops mistakenly kill a kid or something (or even intentionally kill a kid for a slight transgression) , it might not directly result in more drug dealers, but it creates problems between the civilian population and the government. Law abiding citizens are less likely to rat, more likely to help the dealers, etc. It creates a situation that does not directly lead to more drug dealers, but does nothing to solve the underlying issues and exacerbates some of the causes.
 
2014-02-11 05:55:30 PM  

Biological Ali: MattStafford: You expect a UN resolution to pass with language condemning the US?

I'm just saying that attributing it to the UN is misleading. If a Senator, speaking only in his own capacity, criticized something Obama had done - it wouldn't be quite right to phrase that as "Obama criticized by US", would it?

More to the point, as sprawl15 points out, the concerns are based not directly on humanitarian/human rights grounds, but rather, the highly dry, technical and extremely vague conceptions of whether the strikes are taking place sufficiently close to a "conflict zone". Which, among other things, is why military actions taking place inside Afghanistan aren't being called out, even though they're far more extensive (in terms of casualties of both civilians and suspected terrorists) than anything that's happened in Pakistan (at the hands of the US anyway).

What we're seeing here is new ground being scoped out in order to establish the legal parameters for a new type of conflict that is only now being properly thought about in that way. Some of the concepts as applied to traditional wars between states will continue to apply; others, not so much. And I suspect that this notion of a "conflict zone" will end up being one of the latter.


I'll agree that I'm conflating two different arguments here. I'm less concerned about the legality of the strikes and more about the morality and efficacy of the strikes. There are numerous policies that are legal that I would argue against on moral and ethical grounds.

First, I am unconvinced that terrorism is a problem that necessitates military action. Terrorists are people locked out of the political process with legitimate gripes against the powers that be. No amount of military action, short of killing entire populations of people, will change that. It might be effective in the short term, but it is not a long term strategy (and I doubt it is intended to be a long term strategy).

Now if you accept the above as true (and I do, you may disagree) the strikes are clearly morally wrong, considering the overall ineffectiveness of them coupled with the innocents killed and lives ruined.

If this was the drug war in America, and our policy was drone striking drug kingpins, would we accept innocents killed in those strikes? Or a person killed just because he was in possession of a cell phone that had called the kingpins phone a few too many times? And especially considering the drug trade would continue regardless of the kingpins death? I hope not.
 
2014-02-11 05:58:25 PM  

sprawl15: washington-babylon: So you are cool if we just dispense with these nasty things called "Juries" right?

my grandfather served on a jury on d-day

he personally convicted six machine gun positions and allowed the naval bombardment to occur


Really? Besides the fact that declared warfare against a foreign power is not the same as undeclared warfare against U.S. Citizens by their own government, that is pretty cool. Is he still alive? Mine is losing his battle with prostate cancer, but he served on the USS Pompon as an Electrical Officer in the Pacific in WW2. He was on the Third through the Ninth war patrols, and has a lot of stories about stuff that never made the official reports.
 
2014-02-11 06:12:27 PM  

RyogaM: The Numbers: if you refuse to avail yourself of the courts, then you are waiving any rights you attempt to claim.

Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks they might be suspected of a crime but doesn't turn themselves in can be justifiably denied due process?

First, who determines Due Process or whether it has been denied to you? The Court. Everyone keeps saying that being put on a "capture if you can, kill if you must list" is a violation of Due Process.  But the only forum to determine if that is true is the Court. If you refuse to go to court and assert, "Being put on a Cap or Kill List violates my Due Process,"  then you are basically saying you agree that it is not a violation.  The Court WILL NOT protect your Rights Sua Sponte and say, "Hey, by the way, you and your lawyer haven't mentioned it, but the actions taken by the government also violate your right to free speech, so, I am going to assert that they do for you."  That's not how the Courts work.


This is wrong in every possible way. Christ.
 
2014-02-11 06:15:49 PM  

GoldSpider: I love that term "broad discretion", as if that's an acceptable alternative to enumerated constitutional powers.


Of course we are protected against "unreasonable" searches and seizures
 
2014-02-11 06:20:38 PM  

trappedspirit: GoldSpider: I love that term "broad discretion", as if that's an acceptable alternative to enumerated constitutional powers.

Of course we are protected against "unreasonable" searches and seizures


My all-time favorite political end-around-llibertyword.

Don't like Free Speech zones?  How could you be against REASONABLE restrictions that make everyone SAFER!
 
2014-02-11 06:35:23 PM  

MattStafford: Again, what about the effects on the civilian population that doesn't join the organization?

Surely you agree that a large reason the organization can function is tacit support from the population, either through supplies or just allowing them to blend in. If a drone strike killed my family, I would certainly more likely to sell them food or not rat them out, correct?

It's certainly possible that drone strikes do not lead to a significant increase in terrorist activity, but I highly doubt that they are as "neutral" as you appear to make it.


The most recent civilian casualty counts are quite low, so there won't be very many people in the "drone strike killed my family" category. I mean, even if we stipulate that two men join the TTP for every civilian killed and you go with the now-outdated higher estimates (we're really stretching it at this point), that's still less than a thousand. Same applies to people giving them money - there just won't be very many who are doing it as a direct result of somebody they know being killed. So the terrorists can't count on gaining a lot of ground this way, which is a good thing - it's due to the drone strikes (even the so-called signature strikes, which everyone was ragging on for a while) being actually quite efficient in distinguishing civilians from militants.

The bigger concern, then, was that people from other areas who have never even seen an area hit by drone strikes would start aiding the Taliban out of some general sense of outrage. There are several factors that militate against this - first and foremost, it's not particularly easy to just join the Taliban. They're secretive and extremely paranoid, especially towards outsiders.

If we're looking at the lesser aid of sending them money - I read recently about run-of-the-mill criminal organizations who bilk terrorist-sympathizers out of their money by pretending to be representatives of the Taliban, so even if there are people sending out their own tiny sums of money instead of buying food and medicine, it's not clear how much of it would actually wind up with the Taliban.

Finally, the opinion in Pakistan isn't unanimously anti-drone. There are people - particularly minorities who have been targeted by the TTP - who actually welcome drone strikes. One of the most striking parts from that Crisis Group piece was the mention of people who consider drones to be modern-day ababeel (birds which, in Islamic mythology, are said to have helped out in some battle by dropping stones on the enemy). Even the Pakistani military concedes that the drones have taken out a lot of serious terrorists, many of which weren't even from the country. On balance, the country is of course extremely against drones, but the opposition seems to be more out of a patriotic "They're violating our sovereignty" sentiment rather than from a "They killed my family" thirst for vengeance, and it's not clear to what extent the former helps actual terrorists in any meaningful way (if at all).

In summary, if the US gets a chance to take out someone like Mullah Fazlullah (like Hakimullah Mehsud and Baitullah Mehsud before him), they will be doing significant, if perhaps short-term, damage to an organization hell-bent on causing massive amounts of mayhem and suffering. That's a very good thing. The only thing that would give me pause is if there was some hard evidence that doing this would assist the terrorists more than it would hurt them, and so far there's just no compelling reason to think that's the case.
 
2014-02-11 06:45:20 PM  

washington-babylon: Besides the fact that declared warfare against a foreign power


sprawl15: in case you're dumber than dogshiat and don't understand war powers and weren't just making a poorly timed joke, the 9/11 AUMF says :

b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

 
2014-02-11 06:46:45 PM  

MattStafford: If this was the drug war in America, and our policy was drone striking drug kingpins, would we accept innocents killed in those strikes? Or a person killed just because he was in possession of a cell phone that had called the kingpins phone a few too many times? And especially considering the drug trade would continue regardless of the kingpins death? I hope not.


I think a proper drug war analogy would be not so much the drug war in America and more the drug war in places like Mexico, if we're looking for organizations whose level of brutality and militancy approaches that of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. When faced with enemies like that, the most natural immediate response would inevitably look much more militaristic than the state's approach towards common criminals.

It's obviously not a complete solution, since in order to do away with either problem (whether it's cartel violence or terrorism) would require major socioeconomic evolution, but in the short-term a tough response would still be called for, even if there are tragic innocents killed in the process. If for no other reason, it would have to be done in order to limit the ability of organizations like this to cause even larger amounts of death and suffering.
 
2014-02-11 06:52:38 PM  

Biological Ali: I think a proper drug war analogy would be not so much the drug war in America and more the drug war in places like Mexico, if we're looking for organizations whose level of brutality and militancy approaches that of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. When faced with enemies like that, the most natural immediate response would inevitably look much more militaristic than the state's approach towards common criminals.


notably, mexico recently legalized vigilantes.
 
2014-02-11 07:53:40 PM  

sprawl15: washington-babylon: Besides the fact that declared warfare against a foreign power

sprawl15: in case you're dumber than dogshiat and don't understand war powers and weren't just making a poorly timed joke, the 9/11 AUMF says :

b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Conveniently leaving off: (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of use of military force or a declaration of war.

So in short, after the initial period a war declaration was issued, and the AUMF became moot. All that the AUMF consisted of was a means to get the ball rolling sooner, just like Vietnam, Kuwait, and Somalia (to name a few). The AUMF does not grant special powers to pursue anyone deemed as a "Terrorist" beyond the 60 day period that the WPR dictates. That particular piece of legislation is known as the USA PATRIOT act. Fortunately, that act is set to expire in 2015 and there are many indications that it will be allowed to die peacefully (mostly due to the NSA's behavior).
 
2014-02-11 08:10:38 PM  

Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.


What if the target is simply publishing so-called anti-American propaganda?
 
2014-02-11 08:13:12 PM  

washington-babylon: sprawl15: washington-babylon: Besides the fact that declared warfare against a foreign power

sprawl15: in case you're dumber than dogshiat and don't understand war powers and weren't just making a poorly timed joke, the 9/11 AUMF says :

b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Conveniently leaving off: (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of use of military force or a declaration of war.

So in short, after the initial period a war declaration was issued, and the AUMF(standard) became moot. All that the AUMF(T) consisted of was a means to get the ball rolling sooner, just like Vietnam, Kuwait, and Somalia (to name a few). The AUMF(standard) does not grant special powers to pursue anyone deemed as a "Terrorist" beyond the 60 day period that the WPR dictates. That particular piece of legislation is known as the USA PATRIOT act. Fortunately, that act is set to expire in 2015 and there are many indications that it will be allowed to die peacefully (mostly due to the NSA's behavior).


I know it is bad form to reply to my own post, but I also wish to point out that the AUMF(T) constituted an actual declaration of war, as set forth in the constitution, being passed by congress and signed by the president. As such, any AUMF(standard) enacted by executive order falls into a different category. This is further borne up by the fact that like Declarations of War, the AUMF(T) must be voted upon by congress to expire.
 
2014-02-11 08:27:06 PM  

Frederick: Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.

What if the target is simply publishing so-called anti-American propaganda?


 In the USA if you are part of a group of people that plan a bank robbery and then do the bank robbery it don't matter if you go in to the bank with the guns or if you are getaway driver or a lookout or stayed back at the hideout. you are still part of the robbery.

So what would be the difference, in a terrorist organization if you are the guy who do the killing or the guy who plans it or the guy who recuites people into the organization?
 
2014-02-11 08:39:49 PM  

Frederick: Mock26: An American operating overseas with a foreign military organization that is hostile to America or operating with a terrorist organization?  I am OK with Drone Striking them into oblivion.

What if the target is simply publishing so-called anti-American propaganda?


If he was simply publishing this for, say, Al-Qaeda, then send a Maverick missile right up his printing press!
 
2014-02-11 09:32:17 PM  
Obama's exact quote:

"I didn't want to drone 'em. I felt I owed it to them."
 
2014-02-11 09:35:06 PM  

washington-babylon: o in short, after the initial period a war declaration was issued, and the AUMF became moot. All that the AUMF consisted of was a means to get the ball rolling sooner, just like Vietnam, Kuwait, and Somalia (to name a few). The AUMF does not grant special powers to pursue anyone deemed as a "Terrorist" beyond the 60 day period that the WPR dictates. That particular piece of legislation is known as the USA PATRIOT act. Fortunately, that act is set to expire in 2015 and there are many indications that it will be allowed to die peacefully (mostly due to the NSA's behavior).


washington-babylon: I know it is bad form to reply to my own post, but I also wish to point out that the AUMF(T) constituted an actual declaration of war, as set forth in the constitution, being passed by congress and signed by the president. As such, any AUMF(standard) enacted by executive order falls into a different category. This is further borne up by the fact that like Declarations of War, the AUMF(T) must be voted upon by congress to expire.


holy shiat what in the fark are you babbling about

the 9/11 aumf was passed by congress, not enacted by executive order. there was no 'declaration of war', there was - and remains - only the aumf. there is no such thing as an aumf enacted by executive order. the 9/11 aumf is the basis for all the operations for the 'war on terror' aside from iraq which was its own aumf (also passed by congress). the part i 'conveniently left off' doesn't do a farking thing. the war powers resolution is applicable to any act of military force, including ongoing military operations. see section (4)(c). the war powers resolution prohibits ANY introduction of forces into hostilities without congress' notice aside from purely defensive actions. the usa patriot act has farking nothing to do with the application of military force overseas. an aumf is not a "means to get the ball rolling sooner", it's the only mechanism by which the ball moves at all

literally every word you posted was wrong

every single thing
 
2014-02-11 10:07:20 PM  

sprawl15: notably, mexico recently legalized vigilantes.


Now that is interesting. Thanks for the link.

Also, MattStafford, I know I've been arguing against most of what you've said, but I just wanted to acknowledge that you're at least making a principled, reasonably consistent argument and there's something to respect in that. It's especially refreshing considering the number of people here who are only upset about a single drone strike out of the hundreds that have been carried out, due to nothing more than the nationality of the guy targeted.
 
2014-02-11 10:47:54 PM  
If we keep killing terrorists, one of these years they will just give up. I'm sure no new terrorists were ever made because the US senselessly killing innocents.
 
2014-02-11 11:00:00 PM  

Biological Ali: Also, MattStafford, I know I've been arguing against most of what you've said, but I just wanted to acknowledge that you're at least making a principled, reasonably consistent argument and there's something to respect in that. It's especially refreshing considering the number of people here who are only upset about a single drone strike out of the hundreds that have been carried out, due to nothing more than the nationality of the guy targeted.


Thanks, and it certainly does seem like you know your stuff, so I have to give you that as well.

I do follow a lot of what you're saying, and it certainly makes sense.  If we have a target that is otherwise unobtainable, and we decide we need to eliminate him, using a drone is better than using conventional weapons.  They result in less civilian casualties and don't require boots on the ground, which results in less recruitment tools for terrorist organizations.

I still maintain that not participating in any sort of military action would be a better deterrent to terrorism than any of our current policies.  It appears that drone striking is our best option if we decide that we do need to take military action, however, I would still say it isn't our best option.  It seems like we think that we can kill all of the terrorists without addressing the underlying causes creating the terrorists, which is completely naive.  Unless you want a perpetual cycle of killing terrorists, letting the next batch show up in their wake, and then killing that group (which would not be surprising to me if certain policymakers wanted that cycle), this policy isn't going to get us anywhere.

The second problem I have with this, and I shied away from it because I don't know all of the legalese, is that we are essentially taking everything the administration says at face value.  If they kill someone, they do not have to provide evidence on how they determined that that person should be killed.  In addition, it appears there is no accountability when it is clear that the wrong person is killed.  While this may be entirely legal per whatever statutes are on the books right now, it certainly rings false when I think about what we as a country should be doing.

To make a comparison, during the Vietnam War, would we have been justified in killing Vietnamese not actively engaging in combat (nor wearing any sort of uniform), based on undocumented suspicion of aiding the Vietcong?  The difference between an American GI in Vietnam executing an (at the time) non combatant without any sort of due process, but with suspicion of aiding the Vietcong (suspicion that never needs to shown or backed up) and our administration executing an (at the time) non combatant without any sort of due process, but with suspicion of aiding Al Qaeda (suspicion that never needs to be shown or backed up) is what?  Would we be fine with an American soldier executing people based on suspicion with no accountability or need to show evidence?  Should we be fine with the administration executing people based on suspicion with no accountability or need to show evidence?  Is it simply that we trust Obama more to get it right?
 
2014-02-11 11:13:59 PM  

Biological Ali: It's obviously not a complete solution, since in order to do away with either problem (whether it's cartel violence or terrorism) would require major socioeconomic evolution, but in the short-term a tough response would still be called for, even if there are tragic innocents killed in the process. If for no other reason, it would have to be done in order to limit the ability of organizations like this to cause even larger amounts of death and suffering.


First, as far as the imminent threat posed by terrorists, I don't particularly buy it, especially when referring to the threat posed to American citizens.  Terrorists have killed essentially zero people in the US relative to all of the people that ever died.  It would be akin to building some trillion dollar space shield with all kinds of negative political ramifications because some meteorite blew up an office building somewhere.

With regards to cartel violence, the somewhat obvious solution would be to legalize drugs, or at least start heading in that direction.  As long as there is money to be made off black market drugs, there will be cartel violence.

With regards to terrorism, the solution (as far as I am concerned) is primarily bringing the terrorists and people supporting the terrorists into the political fold, and giving them some sort of political agency.  People will interpret this as appeasement, but whatever.  If they never have that political agency, they will never stop being terrorists.

Now the difference in these two scenarios how their long and short term goals interact. With the drug cartel, the short term goals and long term goals can be approached simultaneously.  You can crack down on cartel violence while simultaneously changing drug policy.  With terrorism, pursuing the short term goals (at least with our current method) seems particularly at odds with bringing those people into the political fold.

It would be one thing if we were more transparent about what our long term goals with regards to the area were, but we aren't doing that.  It would be one thing if we were more transparent with the justifications on our strikes with regards to who we killed and why we killed them, but we're not.  It would be one thing if we held ourselves accountable for our mistakes, but we don't.

The policies we have in place to pursue the short term goals specifically hinder the long term goals with regards to stopping terrorism.  At least that is how I see it.
 
2014-02-11 11:29:24 PM  

MattStafford: I still maintain that not participating in any sort of military action would be a better deterrent to terrorism than any of our current policies. It appears that drone striking is our best option if we decide that we do need to take military action, however, I would still say it isn't our best option. It seems like we think that we can kill all of the terrorists without addressing the underlying causes creating the terrorists, which is completely naive. Unless you want a perpetual cycle of killing terrorists, letting the next batch show up in their wake, and then killing that group (which would not be surprising to me if certain policymakers wanted that cycle), this policy isn't going to get us anywhere.

The second problem I have with this, and I shied away from it because I don't know all of the legalese, is that we are essentially taking everything the administration says at face value. If they kill someone, they do not have to provide evidence on how they determined that that person should be killed. In addition, it appears there is no accountability when it is clear that the wrong person is killed. While this may be entirely legal per whatever statutes are on the books right now, it certainly rings false when I think about what we as a country should be doing.


As to your second problem, it's kind of fixed itself over the last year or so as the administration moved away from targeting lower-level operatives and started focusing more on terrorist leaders. And I'd be willing to bet that there is some kind of accountability when there's a genuine fark-up, though it will likely be an internal decision by the military/intelligence agencies about who to demote or let go, and not necessarily announced to the press. It should also be kept in mind that it's not always a fark-up (at least not the kind that calls for somebody to be punished) when the wrong target is chosen, because on rare occasions, even the best intelligence you can find will lead you astray.

As to your first point, there is actually one very reasonable argument that has been made against drone strikes for the sake of pragmatism - that these drone strikes undermine the will of the Pakistani state to carry out its own military operations, and that the most long-lasting progress can be achieved only through the Pakistani military cleaning out those areas with boots on the ground. To that end, it might be worthwhile to ease up for a bit and let the current Pakistani government carry out its experiment with "peace talks" with the Taliban so they can realize what a terrible idea it is and perhaps give leaders like Bilawal Bhutto a chance to raise their profile and further press the issue.

(I highly recommend watching that clip; at least the first couple minutes where they talk about terrorism and dealing with the Taliban - the guy's the leader of one of Pakistan's two major parties, and a potential future Prime Minister, which makes those words especially encouraging)
 
2014-02-12 01:18:18 AM  
Most presidents circumvent the constitution; it's good to be the king
 
2014-02-12 12:58:48 PM  
meh, the people get what they asked for
begged for
cried for
hooray 'merica
 
2014-02-12 02:02:10 PM  
The US's foreign policy is without error so drones are OK.

Whut?

1953: us overthrows prime minister of Iran. Us installs Shah as dictator

1954: US overthrows democratically elected president of Guatamala. 200,000 civilians killed

1963: US backs assassination of democratically elected south vietnamese president Diem

1963-1975: US military kills 4 million people in south east Asia.

1973: US stages coup in Chile, democratically elected president assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5000 chileans murdered.

1977: US backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvador citizens killed

1980s: US trains and equips Osama bin laden and fellow terrorists to kill soviets. CIA gives them $3BILLION.

1981: US trains and funds 'contras', 30,000 Nicaraguan civilians die.

1982: US provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians

1983: US secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989: president of Panama (also a CIA agent) disobeys US orders. US invades Panama, 5,000 civilians killed.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from America. US invades Iraq. Bush installs dictator in Kuwait.

1998: US bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991 to present: US bombs Iraq on a weekly basis. Over 600,000 CHILDREN KILLED in bombings and sanctions.
 
Displayed 404 of 404 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report