Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5061 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:00 AM (1 year 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 09:41:50 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.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report