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 (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report