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  
•       •       •

5055 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2014 at 7:00 AM (28 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 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.
 
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